Hugh Breakey, Larelle Bossi, Rebecca Marshallsay, Charles Sampford
{"title":"Benefits or bribes? Ethical concerns with the potential corruption of civic obligations through community benefits schemes for wind farms","authors":"Hugh Breakey, Larelle Bossi, Rebecca Marshallsay, Charles Sampford","doi":"10.1016/j.erss.2025.104154","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Community benefit schemes have become a common feature of new energy industries, and are especially prevalent in renewable energy developments like wind farms. These schemes arise when businesses—either under their own discretion or in compliance with policy mechanisms—establish systems to deliver in-kind and monetary goods to local communities. The schemes may be morally justified on several grounds, including compensation and distributive fairness. Yet almost from their beginning, community benefit schemes have faced accusations that they amount to <em>bribery</em>. While prior research has illuminated the empirical factors likely to lead to such allegations, this paper employs normative theory to help developers and policymakers better understand when and how this ‘bribery’ accusation articulates a genuine ethical concern. Community benefits schemes are not bribes strictly speaking; they do not involve secret and illegal abuses of power. However, they can influence community members to forgo their civic and stewardship obligations—such as to attend to a local development's potential environmental or cultural impacts—in favour of their self-interest. Fortunately, strategically designed community benefit schemes can deliver important moral goods while minimising the ethical concern that they inappropriately influence civic decision-making. The paper enumerates four key policy principles for designing such schemes for new energy developments: avoiding bribes is a matter of prioritising ethically mandatory obligations, reducing self-interested influences, supporting stakeholder's civic obligations, and developing trust and integrity in relevant operations and processes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48384,"journal":{"name":"Energy Research & Social Science","volume":"127 ","pages":"Article 104154"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Energy Research & Social Science","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221462962500235X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Community benefit schemes have become a common feature of new energy industries, and are especially prevalent in renewable energy developments like wind farms. These schemes arise when businesses—either under their own discretion or in compliance with policy mechanisms—establish systems to deliver in-kind and monetary goods to local communities. The schemes may be morally justified on several grounds, including compensation and distributive fairness. Yet almost from their beginning, community benefit schemes have faced accusations that they amount to bribery. While prior research has illuminated the empirical factors likely to lead to such allegations, this paper employs normative theory to help developers and policymakers better understand when and how this ‘bribery’ accusation articulates a genuine ethical concern. Community benefits schemes are not bribes strictly speaking; they do not involve secret and illegal abuses of power. However, they can influence community members to forgo their civic and stewardship obligations—such as to attend to a local development's potential environmental or cultural impacts—in favour of their self-interest. Fortunately, strategically designed community benefit schemes can deliver important moral goods while minimising the ethical concern that they inappropriately influence civic decision-making. The paper enumerates four key policy principles for designing such schemes for new energy developments: avoiding bribes is a matter of prioritising ethically mandatory obligations, reducing self-interested influences, supporting stakeholder's civic obligations, and developing trust and integrity in relevant operations and processes.
期刊介绍:
Energy Research & Social Science (ERSS) is a peer-reviewed international journal that publishes original research and review articles examining the relationship between energy systems and society. ERSS covers a range of topics revolving around the intersection of energy technologies, fuels, and resources on one side and social processes and influences - including communities of energy users, people affected by energy production, social institutions, customs, traditions, behaviors, and policies - on the other. Put another way, ERSS investigates the social system surrounding energy technology and hardware. ERSS is relevant for energy practitioners, researchers interested in the social aspects of energy production or use, and policymakers.
Energy Research & Social Science (ERSS) provides an interdisciplinary forum to discuss how social and technical issues related to energy production and consumption interact. Energy production, distribution, and consumption all have both technical and human components, and the latter involves the human causes and consequences of energy-related activities and processes as well as social structures that shape how people interact with energy systems. Energy analysis, therefore, needs to look beyond the dimensions of technology and economics to include these social and human elements.