Social acceptance revisited: gaps, questionable trends, and an auspicious perspective

Abstract Recently the field of social acceptance research on energy was mapped by Gaede and Rowlands [1]. Some of their observations are worrying and need reflection. Two essential pivot points have not been recognized, and observed trends in current research practice that must be assessed as highly undesirable are associated with these unnoticed issues. • Missing in the analysis is the start of social acceptance research in the 1980-ies, when the focus was mainly on acceptance by the public. The conceptualization in three process dimensions, each with different actors and objects of acceptance, reveals that public acceptance can never be a valid proxy for social acceptance. Many researchers continue to maintain this harmful conceptual confusion, and Gaede and Rowland’s narrative conclusions seem to suggest we are dealing with a heavy relapse towards public instead of social acceptance. • The crucial turn in 2000 concerning the object of social acceptance, towards institutional change is also missing. Hence, this recognition of institutions as the core object of acceptance research remains underexposed. As the interpretation and labelling of most research fronts by Gaede and Rowlands is questionable, an alternative interpretation is paramount. This is done based on a conceptual elaboration, in which social acceptance is recognized as a bundle of dynamic processes instead of a set of actors positions. The object is ‘energy innovation’, which is also a process. Social acceptance research aims at understanding the transforming social-technological systems, and studies the complex, multi-level and polycentric processes of escaping our institutionally locked-in energy systems.