Fair processes and fair outcomes: involving local stakeholders in RWM decisions

There is a general agreement on the requirements to be met by radioactive waste management strategies. One of the requirements is that both the outcomes of any decisions and the decision-making processes must be seen to be fair. However, there exist multiple legitimate views on fairness and there is no meta-theory that could help decide which of the competing views should be considered valid in a concrete case. Referring to the plurality of views on fairness, Linnerooth-Bayer (forthcoming) argues that the impasse in facility siting processes can be attributed to the failure to take adequate account of the diverse views held by the various stakeholders on fair processes and outcomes. Three fundamental ethical principles have been derived from three basic ethical theories: well-being which is the central concept of utilitarian ethics, justice which is a key notion in egalitarian ethics, and dignity which is central to deontology (Bay and Oughton, 2003). According to utilitarian ethics fairness means that public welfare is maximized even at the cost of stakeholders' individual rights. Costs and benefits can be legitimately distributed in any way; only their overall balance has to be enhanced. In contrary, egalitarian ethics aims for a fair distribution of benefits and costs among stakeholders, while deontology acknowledges universal values of actions, e.g. the respect for individual rights, apart from their consequences. According to the latter ethics, fairness means that stakeholders themselves have the opportunity to learn about the benefits and costs of various options, and having considered them, decide on their position to accept them. How do diverse views on fair decisions materialize in RWM debates? (author)