Article

Project Management Journal

1–14
Governance, Social Acceptability, and © 2025 Project Management Institute, Inc.

Organizational Learning in Public Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

Infrastructure Projects DOI: 10.1177/87569728251341288

journals.sagepub.com/home/pmx

Maude Brunet1 , Sofiane Baba2 , and Nathalie Drouin3

Abstract
While public infrastructure projects face frequent challenges related to social acceptability, the relationship between these
projects’ governance and social acceptability has been overlooked. Yet, governance plays a crucial role in generating prac-
tices and policies that facilitate the development of social acceptability. This article elaborates on a conceptual framework
of the processual governance dynamics of public infrastructure projects, which bridges project governance and social
acceptability literatures in the context of public infrastructure projects. An organizational learning framework is intro-
duced, which portrays strategies that encourage stakeholder engagement and ensure alignment with sustainable develop-
ment principles. Building on this, the article offers two contributions to the literature. First, it theoretically grounds the
interrelations among governance, social acceptability, and organizational learning. Second, it develops a practical analytical
tool that can serve as a roadmap for organizations that aim to improve their socially responsible project management
practices.

Keywords
governance, social acceptability, organizational learning, stakeholder engagement, public infrastructure projects

Introduction and efficiency (Brunet & Aubry, 2016). The link between a pro-
ject’s governance and its social acceptability is still difficult to
Public infrastructure projects generate significant impacts and qualify and understand, yet current research suggests they are inti-
are increasingly scrutinized by various stakeholders with inter- mately linked. Recent work shows that the articulation of gover-
ests or apprehensions, and their social acceptability has never nance and stakeholder engagement has effects on project social
been more topical (Brunet & Baba, 2023). Construction is the acceptability, whether about environmental, socioeconomic, or
biggest industry in the world, with its ecosystem representing indigenous issues (Aarseth et al., 2017; Sanderson, 2012;
13% of the global domestic product (GDP) (McKinsey Sanderson & Winch, 2017).
Global Institute, 2020). It is estimated that approximately one- In its most basic form, social acceptability refers to a pop-
third of work in advanced economies is organized in project ulation’s or community’s assessment that a project or industry
mode (Schoper et al., 2018). Moreover, in the short and is acceptable or desirable (Baba et al., 2021). Social accept-
medium term, the sustainable transition to carbon neutrality ability issues are delicate and context dependent, as projects
will result in a 60% increase in investment compared to our of a similar nature can generate very different debates in dif-
current investment rate, primarily in complex projects. ferent settings. Indeed, several objectives can coexist and gen-
According to McKinsey (McKinsey Global Institute, 2022), erate paradoxes and tensions, for example, when the main
the sustainable transition to carbon neutrality will lead to a actors want efficiency in project delivery, and the impacted
60% increase in investment in the short and medium term com- stakeholders want more consultation that favors social
pared with our current investment rate, mainly in complex pro-
jects. In the face of such growth, the complexity of the
1
governance put in place to manage these projects increases sig- HEC Montréal, Canada
2
nificantly (Drouin & Turner, 2022; Pitsis et al., 2018; Van Université de Sherbrooke, Canada
3
Marrewijk et al., 2008). While many of those complex projects ESG UQAM Chairholder of the Research Chair INFRA-S
might be privately funded and managed, this article focuses Corresponding Author:
more specifically on major public projects, as the important Maude Brunet, HEC Montréal, Canada.
drivers around their governance include legitimacy, accountability, Email: [email protected]
2 Project Management Journal

acceptability but requires time and energy to integrate it into Theoretical Background
the project (Boonstra et al., 2017; DeFillippi & Sydow,
2016; Hudon & Mazouz, 2014). Projects linked to the Major Projects and Governance
energy transition are particularly paradoxical in this sense It is well recognized that major public infrastructure projects are
(Enserink et al., 2022), as major contestations concerning complex undertakings that involve numerous stakeholders and
the deployment of wind farms in Quebec have exposed that that, despite their economic significance, their performance is
sustainable development does not necessarily equate to still problematic and has not significantly improved in recent
social acceptability (Batellier & Maillé, 2017). The success decades (Flyvbjerg, 2017). The consideration of multiple stake-
or failure of projects can be explained beyond their concrete holders, some of them more marginal, is being increasingly
objective. For example, many sustainable projects (Silvius & investigated and reveals evolving dynamics that have repercus-
Huemann, 2024) anchored in the principles of sustainable sions on projects (Aaltonen et al., 2024; Di Maddaloni & Davis,
development and contributing to the energy transition—from 2017; Di Maddaloni & Sabini, 2022). Institutional actors focus
windfarms and public transit projects to hydroelectric facili- more on how projects are presented, structured, and governed
ties—do not achieve basic social acceptability (Yates et al., throughout their life cycles to meet social imperatives
2024). This case illustrates that, beyond the nature of the (Derakhshan et al., 2019). Project governance is a broad topic
project itself, the processes, mechanisms, and actors involved that is sometimes criticized as a fuzzy and ill-defined concept
in governance influence stakeholder perceptions of these (Ahola et al., 2014; Müller et al., 2017). Musawir et al.
major public projects. (2020, p. 1) define it broadly as “the management of project
With these considerations in mind, this conceptual article management […], a system that exists at a higher level than
aims to deepen our understanding of the processes and respon- [the project management system] and provides oversight of
sibilities of governance, the role of institutional actors and it.” Project governance thus involves the structure, processes,
project managers, and the means to be deployed to promote decision-making, and actors that ensure that a project (or
the social acceptability of major public infrastructure projects. group of projects) runs smoothly, obtains adequate resources,
This article aims to develop a comprehensive understanding helps reduce constraints, and optimizes performance.
of the processual governance dynamics of major public infra- The importance of governance in project management is
structure projects to foster stakeholder engagement and well established. At the turn of the millennium, Miller and
greater social acceptability consistent with the requirements of Lessard (2000) concluded that flexible institutional arrange-
sustainable development. Because these major public projects ments were one of the keys for project performance.
involve significant investments to improve the common good Although the dynamic notions of governance and performance
(Bozeman, 2007), asking how their governance is designed remain little studied in project management research, there is
will shape community ownership (or lack thereof) and target nevertheless growing interest in processual approaches (Sergi
social impacts, whether positive or negative. In this context, it et al., 2020; Song et al., 2022). A recent review by Song
is important to better understand the different forms of gover- et al. (2022) identifies the key themes explored in recent litera-
nance and the levers for promoting social acceptability. The ture: contractual complexity, opportunistic behavior, public–
research question that guides this article is: private partnership projects, organizational design, project
How can the governance of a major public infrastructure investment success, portfolio management, institutional com-
project support a stakeholder engagement approach conducive plexity, relational governance, and partnership flexibility.
to greater social acceptability? They say most of these topics are studied statically rather
The main contribution of this article lies in the theoretical than as processes. While a growing number of studies
development of the governance process and its impact on the embrace the idea of project governing (project governance as
social acceptability of major public infrastructure projects, pre- a dynamic practice) (Pitsis et al., 2014; Unterhitzenberger
sented through a conceptual framework that leverages organiza- et al., 2023), particularly adopting practice- and contingency-
tional learning. As such, different learning stages are suggested: based theoretical perspectives, Song et al. (2022) suggest that
defensive, compliance, tactical, strategic, and institutionalized. further research is needed and that some areas remain
From a practical point of view, a scale toward greater adoption under-researched.
of practices promoting social acceptability for major public Although the governance of major public projects is consid-
infrastructure projects is proposed. The article is structured as ered crucial to their success (Sanderson & Winch, 2017; Volden
follows. First, a literature review presents an overview of gov- & Samset, 2017), this topic has received little consideration of
ernance for major public infrastructure projects, social accept- social acceptability. This is all the more surprising considering
ability, and organizational learning. Then, the methodology is the many environmental and social challenges that dominate the
presented along with the conceptual framework. Following news, which major infrastructure projects must face (Huemann
this, a practical tool assesses possible paths to social acceptabil- & Silvius, 2017). Yet, several studies conclude that project
ity. A discussion presents the main theoretical and practical social acceptability should be a prerequisite for bringing a
contributions, future research avenues, and limitations. Last, project to fruition, and that governance plays a crucial role in
we summarize and conclude the study. project social acceptability and its legitimization process
Brunet et al. 3

(Batellier & Maillé, 2017; de Luca, 2014; Di Maddaloni & popular at the turn of the century when politicians and business-
Derakhshan, 2019). Recent research shows that improved gov- people realized that making unilateral, top-down decisions
ernance is possible through proactivity, learning, and reflexivity could later result in important opposition that could threaten
(Brunet & Baba, 2023). The social acceptability of major pro- projects (Alcantara et al., 2023). Since then, social acceptability
jects is built around three specific features: their territorial has evolved as a concept, being more largely understood as con-
anchor, their temporal dimension, and their proximity to local tributing to participative democracy and an imperative to realize
communities, which play a key role in assessing the project’s major projects (Friser & Yates, 2021). Often simplistically
legitimacy (Batellier & Maillé, 2017; Enserink et al., 2022). described as “not in my backyard (NYMBY)” syndrome,
While projects might be labeled as “sustainable” (in intent, social acceptability is much more multifaceted and complex.
process, and outcomes), they are not by default socially It is well rooted in a territorial perspective, which brings to
accepted as they can disturb, deform, destroy habitats, and the fore the importance of the larger socioeconomic context
create displacements in (most often marginalized) populations and the specific landscape design proposed for a particular
or animal species (Whyte & Mottee, 2022). In a societal project and community (Fournis & Fortin, 2017).
context of energy transition, it is important to fully understand Many factors are involved in community acceptance. For
the social acceptability of major infrastructure projects and the example, the study of an important solar plant in the United
effects they will generate from environmental, social, and eco- Kingdom highlighted these determinants (listed from the most
nomic points of view (Ponce Oliva et al., 2024; Upham et al., important one from the public to the least important ones): envi-
2015; Wüstenhagen et al., 2007). ronmental considerations, project details, aesthetic, social,
process, construction, economic, and temporal considerations
(Roddis et al., 2020). The work by Klok et al. (2023) presents
that community acceptance is shaped around three main dimen-
Social Acceptability: Antecedents and
sions: (1) the impacts (prevention, mitigation, compensation,
Processes and tolerance); (2) the process (where justice and trust are
Social acceptability is a multidimensional and multidisciplinary imperatives, see for example Mancini and Raggi, 2022); and
concept. Gendron (2014, p. 124) defines social acceptability as (3) the context in which the local context is predominant.
“the consent of the population in a project or decision resulting Summarizing the main postulates formulated in the book by
from collective judgment that the project or decision is superior Batellier and Maillé (2017), Table 1 presents some features of
to known alternatives, including the status quo.” It became social acceptability.

Table 1. Features of Social Acceptability (Adapted from Batellier and Maillé, 2017)

Feature Examples

Project opponents might have good reasons. They might want to preserve a natural habitat and quiet neighborhood, limit dense
circulation, and so forth. It is also important to note that nuance is more often the case
than not: opponents are not against a project per se and compromises are possible to
find.
Project promotors might have blind spots. Their projects might not adequately respond to citizens’ concerns or environmental
standards or generate nuisances.
Not having visible contestation is not a good The silent majority might not approve of a project. If there is no contestation, it might be
indicator of social acceptability. out of resignation or submission. The project might be constraining; people might lack
the resources or competencies to rise against it.
Representativity is key. Who is invited to be consulted, participate in decision-making, and who is informed? These
questions are central. Are the main stakeholders representative, and are diversity and
gender considered?
Power relations are often implicit. Project promoters and politicians often have more means to assert their vision. Legal or
procedural barriers might limit the involvement of civil society or local community
members. Access to information is also critical. The economic benefits might be
predominant over environmental losses.
The narrative around a project might shape social Built by proponents, opponents, or the mass media, the narrative influences how people
acceptability. make sense of a project. This narrative evolves over time, and both facts and emotions
shape it.
Even if a project is socially accepted, it might not be From an ethical or environmental perspective, a project might be problematic and lack
acceptable. legitimacy, although the majority consented.
Opposition and dispute are means, not ends. Opponents are not egoistic and negative. They most often have legitimate claims that
should be accounted for in projects. Contestation should help enhance the processes
and outcomes of a project and broaden the discussion.
4 Project Management Journal

Although project governance and social acceptability are (Harvey et al., 2022). Next, the methodology is presented,
widely studied independently and genuinely contribute to and a conceptual framework is proposed using learning stages
project success, there has been sparse consideration of these to analyze the process of articulating the governance aspects
topics and their relationships. Yet, a last theme, which relates of major public projects’ social acceptability.
to organizational learning, should be tackled as a theoretical
lens before embarking on presentation of the framework.
Toward a Conceptual Framework
Organizational Learning Methodology
The corpus about organizational learning is quite substantial in The methodology adopted is based on conceptual reasoning and
organization theory, so our focus here will be to highlight a few illustrative empirical evidence (Braun & Sydow, 2024). Based
points relevant to our endeavors. Some seminal works that have on the authors’ experience and the literature on project gover-
shaped the field of organizational learning include those of nance and social acceptability, the framework was developed
Argyris (1999); Argyris and Schoën (1978); Lave and iteratively as the main themes were identified and the different
Wenger (1991); Nonaka (1994); Weick and Westley (1996), parts of the process connected to organizational learning. This
to name a few. Zollo and Winter (2002) developed an important form of theorizing is referred to as “process theorizing”
framework that articulated the relations between organizational (Cornelissen et al., 2021) and entails explaining a topic with
learning and dynamic capabilities (Teece et al., 1997), which the sequencing of events and outcomes. The authors argue
can lead to the improvement and evolution of routines and orga- that the main knowledge interest is to explain a phenomenon:
nizational performance. In a well-known article, Zadek (2004) “the elaborated trajectories conceptualize alternate causal
introduced a path to corporate responsibility by presenting paths and theorize underlying processes and structures as mech-
five stages of organizational learning: defensive, compliance, anisms” (Cornelissen et al., 2021, p. 7). Examples adopting this
managerial, strategic, and civil. Kashefi and Sanjaghi (2013) methodological positioning can be found in the works of
expanded on this framework and suggested the first stages are Bitektine (2011) and Sergi (2012).
more related to superficial learning, and the last stages deepen
into substantial learning.
In the realm of project studies, the topic of learning between The Conceptual Framework
projects has had considerable attention, given that it poses Major public projects are temporary initiatives that involve a
several challenges due to the temporal nature of projects and complex ecosystem composed of numerous actors (public and
the involvement of team members (Grabher, 2004b; Hall & private) that must collaborate to work together and coordinate
Holt, 2003; Wiewiora et al., 2020). Prencipe and Tell (2001) their efforts (Kusuma, 2014). Geraldi and Söderlund (2018)
developed a framework that presents learning mechanisms for consider projects to be fundamental economic and social
interprojects. This frame is built around learning phases (expe- action units comprising geographically anchored knowledge
rience accumulation, knowledge articulation, and knowledge clusters. A conceptual framework is proposed to grasp the
codification) and the level of analysis (individual, group/ dynamics at play in articulating the governance of major
project, and organizational). Based on empirical case studies, public infrastructure projects (see Figure 1).
they argue that there are different learning landscapes, depend- In line with the processual studies advocated in project man-
ing on how the learning patterns unfold from the level of anal- agement (Cloutier & Langley, 2020; Sergi et al., 2020;
ysis through the processes. Their early contribution has been Stephenson et al., 2020), our conceptual framework focuses
quite foundational for subsequent work related to project learn- on the process of articulating governance and its constituents.
ing, capabilities, and knowledge transfer between projects; see, Various contextual elements are to be considered as inputs—
for example, Brady and Davies (2004), Eikelenboom and van first, the legitimacy of the organizations and actors involved
Marrewijk (2024), Grabher (2004a), and Lindner and Wald (Bitektine & Haack, 2015). Even if a project might be socially
(2011). The topic is still relevant today (Aerts et al., 2017; acceptable, if its sponsoring organization lacks legitimacy, it
Pemsel & Söderlund, 2024). might be detrimental to the project. Conversely, if a project is
Organizational learning is undoubtedly related to a multi- illegitimate for some reason, a legitimate owner organization
level perspective, grounded in the knowledge of individual might reinforce the project’s legitimacy (Baba & Brunet,
team members (Fenwick, 2008), yet also simultaneously hap- 2024). Second, the project’s nature and innovative character
pening at a collective level (Knapp, 2010), which is also must be considered (Gasparro et al., 2022). In this respect, pro-
dynamic and situated (De Blust et al., 2019; Lervik et al., jects seeking to achieve sustainability goals with rapid technol-
2010). Although it is commonly acknowledged that managerial ogy development, addressing climate change issues, and
choices have an impact on organizational capabilities and team aligned with the sustainability transition fundamentally differ
learning practices, it is equally important to acknowledge how from a more traditional project such as building a large bridge
team members’ knowledge informs and influences managerial or tunnel. Yet, a third element is fundamental to consider and
decisions as well as organizational learning and outcomes relates to the initial understanding of local stakeholders and
Brunet et al. 5

Figure 1. Conceptual framework for analyzing the process of articulating governance in relation to the social acceptability of major public
projects.

communities about the project (Derakhshan et al., 2019; Di environmental values (Aarseth et al., 2017; Kemp et al.,
Maddaloni & Sabini, 2022). Even if a project might be environ- 2006). Our premise, to be empirically investigated, is that an
mentally desirable, local communities might have other argu- organization at a higher learning stage will articulate a gover-
ments against it regarding its nature, the processes around it, nance process more supportive of a project’s social acceptabil-
the organizations involved, or the impacts it could have at the ity, resulting in higher overall acceptability. Yet, it will not
local level. Fourth, essential inputs include organizational automatically translate into higher social acceptability as, ulti-
engagement and dedicated resources to address project gover- mately, the stakeholders have to make sense of and familiarize
nance and its overall social acceptability. themselves with the project and understand its fundamental and
Once the inputs are identified, the governance articulation multifaceted values (Caron et al., 2024). The value perspectives
process will depend mainly on where organizations stand are numerous (see, for example, Table 9.1 in Ang et al., 2023,
regarding their learning stages. Different and distinct stages p. 107). Building on the work of Wüstenhagen et al. (2007) and
might result in very different outputs regarding the social Baba and Dahan (2023), we suggest three main configurational
acceptability of their projects: defensive, compliance, tactical, types of social acceptability: eco-traditional, symbolic, and
strategic, and institutionalized. Those stages, explained in technical. The first, eco-traditional, is related to community
more detail in the subsequent section, hinge on key organiza- acceptability; it should consider traditions, the environment,
tional elements: organizational culture, status, stakeholder and the public interest. The second value perspective, the sym-
engagement approach, scope, allocation of resources, policies bolic, relates to the political acceptability, mainly to the (per-
and practices, and the utilization of monitoring tools. These dif- ceived) legitimacy of the organizations involved and the
ferent trajectories are depicted simplistically for the sake of project’s innovative nature. Third, the technical value translates
clarity; however, the processual unfolding of the governance into market and future users’ acceptability regarding a project’s
adopted for a project is quite dynamic. In theory, an organiza- economic value and benefits and the need for regulatory com-
tion could start at a learning stage at the beginning of a pliance. This conceptual framework is a starting point to
project and move up or down another stage as the project study these complex and interrelated themes. Next, the different
evolves. It is to be noted that those stages are neither rigid conceptualized learning stages are explained.
nor clear-cut, yet they provide several trajectories that organiza-
tions might follow. An organization might embrace practices
from two (or more) trajectories—for different projects or even A Path to Greater Social Acceptability
the same—and change over time, depending on the critical/ Social acceptability is related to the degree to which projects are
turning points and triggers. As such, the evolution of gover- deemed appropriate and beneficial within the social context in
nance could be investigated according to the temporal unfold- which they operate. As ample evidence shows, social accept-
ing, critical events and turning points marking projects, and ability is not static but dynamic, capable of enhancement and
the need for decision-making involving a change in trajectory refinement through iterative development processes over time
(Bröchner, 2022; Strauss, 1993). (Baba et al., 2021). In particular, empirical evidence and the
Social acceptability as an output is to be analyzed according existing literature suggest that organizations are at different
to the different facets of social and societal, economic, and stages in handling the social acceptability of their projects.
6 Project Management Journal

Each learning stage refers to an organization’s advancement in Unsurprisingly, monitoring tools are absent for measuring or
terms of social acceptability integration into its operational and reporting on social acceptability at the defensive stage.1 In this
strategic ethos. Next, we expand on a framework for analyzing regard, the organization does not monitor its performance or
an organization’s learning stage in managing social acceptabil- hold itself accountable for improvements. In a broader sense,
ity. Building on the work of Zadek (2004) in corporate social this lack of oversight indicates social acceptability’s peripheral
responsibility, this framework identifies five stages: defensive, status within the organization, which is not perceived as essen-
compliant, tactical, strategic, and institutionalized (see tial to its long-term success. An illustration of the defensive
Table 2). We propose seven key organizational elements that strategy can be found in the example of Matoush, a uranium
form the foundation of these learning stages (see Baba et al., mine project promoted by Strateco that was cancelled because
2024; Bowen et al., 2010; Delannon et al., 2016): organiza- of strong local opposition by indigenous communities.
tional culture, status, stakeholder engagement approach, Throughout the controversy, Strateco attempted to minimize
scope, allocation of resources, policies and practices, and the the importance of taking into account the local perceptions of
utilization of monitoring tools. communities, arguing that the legal license was sufficient
Although our framework is presented in a table that may (Karidio & Talbot, 2019; Yates et al., 2023).
appear rigid, we do not necessarily believe that organizations
align systematically with a single specific learning stage.
Across various organizational elements, they may exhibit char-
Compliance Stage of Learning in Social
acteristics spanning one, two, or even multiple learning stages.
The key idea is that for an organization to truly operate at a spe- Acceptability
cific learning stage, it must demonstrate coherence by being Organizations begin to recognize the importance of social
aligned across all organizational elements at that stage. acceptability at this stage, although this understanding
remains in its infancy. This awareness of social acceptability
has not fully permeated the organizational culture and is not
yet ingrained in the organization, as the approach to stakeholder
Defensive Stage of Learning in Social
engagement is still transactional. Immediate business needs
Acceptability drive unidirectional interactions with stakeholders rather than
At the defensive stage of social acceptability learning, organiza- a dedication to creating long-term and mutually beneficial rela-
tions exhibit minimal acknowledgment or awareness of its tionships. In this sense, the organization’s focus is firm and
importance in the defensive stage of learning about social accept- project centered, and stakeholder concerns are only addressed
ability. This stage is marked by an organizational culture where when they align with the organization’s immediate project
social acceptability is either completely overlooked or given only objectives or when failing to address them could result in neg-
marginal recognition, suggesting a lack of understanding or ative consequences.
appreciation for the impact of social factors on the organization’s The main goal of organizations that fit in this stage is to
projects. The approach to stakeholder engagement is primarily respect the law and obtain the required legal licenses.
avoidant at this stage. As a result, organizations will tend to min- Obtaining social acceptability, or the social license, is perceived
imize or ignore their perspectives instead of actively interacting as less important. Resource allocation for social acceptability
with stakeholders to learn about their expectations or concerns. during the compliance stage is limited and reactive.
This firm-centered stance reflects a limited business operations Resources—financial, human, or logistical—are usually allo-
perspective, where external social factors are viewed as irrelevant cated in response to particular incidents or emerging issues.
or secondary to the organization’s projects. Although the organization understands the need to allocate
Resource allocation for managing social acceptability is vir- resources for social acceptability at the compliance stage, it
tually nonexistent at this stage. Organizations do not dedicate responds reactively to events instead of proactively incorporat-
financial, human, or time resources to understanding or improv- ing it consistently into its project management approach.
ing social acceptability and stakeholder engagement. Such Moving beyond the defensive stage, developing social
resources are seen as a waste. The minimal resources that acceptability–related policies marks a progress, yet they are
might be allocated are often reactionary, used only when a often basic and their execution is erratic. The organization
crisis arises or when the organization is obliged to respond to might start developing social acceptability–related policies or
external pressures rather than as part of a proactive strategy to guidelines at the compliance level but is less likely to include
manage social factors effectively. Policies and practices them in its project management frameworks. This lack of a
related to social acceptability either lack or are used inconsis- holistic view of social acceptability shows that the organization
tently and, where they do exist, they also typically mirror reac- minimally addresses the demand for social acceptability man-
tive responses to particular events or crises. Social agement without embracing it strategically. Regarding mea-
acceptability–related policies and practices thus focus on surement and reporting at the compliance level, first attempts
damage control rather than prevention or the development of to track and document social acceptability are seen; but these
constructive relations with stakeholders. typically consist of simple attempts to measure fundamental
Brunet et al. 7

Table 2. Learning Stages in Terms of Social Acceptability and Key Organizational Elements

Learning Stages Defensive Compliance Tactical Strategic Institutionalized

Organizational Social acceptability is Increasing awareness The relevance of Social acceptability is Social acceptability is
culture nonexistent or has about social social acceptability well integrated into fundamental to the
limited acceptability’s is widely shared the organizational organization’s core
recognition. relevance but has yet and tends to culture and values and infuses
to be a commonly held influence tactical influences strategic all levels and units.
value. aspects. processes.
Status Peripheral Minimal Tactical Strategic Central
Stakeholder Avoidance Transactional Transitional Transformational Reciprocity
engagement
approach
Scope Highly firm centered Mostly firm centered Slightly firm centered Stakeholder centered Sociocentric
Allocation of Minimal or Resources are limited Sufficient resources Significant resources Considerable
resources nonexistent and typically assigned are dedicated, are allocated, resources are
resources in response to specific including specific including specialized invested for
allocated for events or issues. budgets and staff teams and social ongoing
managing social for social acceptability improvement and
acceptability. acceptability programs. innovation in social
initiatives. acceptability.
Policies and Lack of formal Development of basic Established policies Advanced policies and Continuous
practices policies or policies but and practices that practices that are improvement and
inconsistent inconsistent are consistently integrated across best practices
practices. Mostly implementation. applied. Mostly organizational levels. sharing while
reactive and crisis Lacking holistic view operational and Proactive approach. establishing
oriented. and often reactive. tactic oriented. industry standards.
Monitoring tools Absence of a Early efforts in Consistent In-depth and Sophisticated use of
structured system measurement and measurement and systematic analytics and data
for measuring or reporting are in place, reporting practices measurement and to drive ongoing
reporting on social but they are not are employed, reporting processes improvements
acceptability. comprehensive. incorporating are established with regarding social
some key defined objectives. acceptability.
performance
indicators (KPIs).
Illustrative (Baba & Brunet, (Baba & Brunet, 2024; (Baba & Brunet, (Baba & Brunet, 2024; (Baba et al., 2021;
publications 2024; Banerjee, Bowen et al., 2010; 2024; Bowen et al., Boudier, 2024; Renouard, 2011)
2000; Bowen et al., Karidio & Talbot, 2010; Delannon Bowen et al., 2010;
2010; Houck, 2019; Kemp & Owen, et al., 2016; Lacey Fraser et al., 2021;
2010; Karidio & 2013; Meesters & et al., 2017) Muthuri et al., 2009)
Talbot, 2019; Behagel, 2017; Zhang
Kemp & Owen, et al., 2015)
2013; Meesters &
Behagel, 2017)

metrics, such as the number of complaints, which reflects the Tactical Stage of Learning in Social
limited status of social acceptability within the organization. Acceptability
An interesting illustration of the compliance learning stage is
the Réseau Express Métropolitain, a fully automated light rail During the tactical phase, social acceptability is established as a
system launched through a private–public partnership involving recognized priority within the organization and guides both dis-
the Quebec government (Brunet et al., 2021). This project was courses and decision-making processes. This highlights a tran-
controversial since it gave the speed of execution top priority sition from a project-centric stakeholder approach to one that
over stakeholder engagement. The project progressed rapidly reconciles internal priorities with external stakeholder interests.
in terms of execution. On the other hand, it also drew criticism Organizations increasingly recognize stakeholder value and
for inadequate involvement of stakeholders and weak public integrate their perspectives into project management practices,
consultations. The lack of social acceptability caused by these which demonstrates an increased awareness of their impor-
flaws in transparency and governance resulted in the cancella- tance. An essential indicator of this transition is the improved
tion of the second phase. allocation of resources for social acceptability initiatives. In
8 Project Management Journal

fact, organizations allocate budgets and appoint personnel to strategy to achieve common objectives. Social acceptability
oversee stakeholder relationships, indicating a shift from infor- receives significant resources, including specialized teams in
mal engagement to a more systematic and long-term approach. charge of involving stakeholders and committed financial
This investment also reflects a willingness to go beyond com- help. With the stakeholder engagement and social acceptability
pliance, as organizations understand that effective stakeholder team reporting directly to upper management, including the
engagement not only requires intent but also resources. CEO, these teams reflect their vital contributions to project
Cooperation with stakeholders also progressively becomes proac- success and sustainability by implementing forward-looking
tive and deliberate, as organizations start including stakeholder programs coherent with expectations of stakeholders and
involvement in their planning strategies, thus moving beyond a embedding social acceptability policies and practices across
reactive approach to stakeholder engagement. This shift helps to all levels of the organization.
build more collaborative relationships among stakeholders built Finally, the strategic stage is defined by a systematic
on trust, communication, and transparency. Importantly, regarding and advanced approach to measuring and reporting on
human resources, social acceptability and community involvement social acceptability and stakeholder engagement initiatives.
projects assign committed staff members even though these staff Measurable KPIs allow at least three main criteria—
members may still benefit from outside consultant support. community acceptance, extent of stakeholder integration, and
Policies and practices related to social acceptability also get project efficacy as a catalyst for local empowerment and devel-
more formal and are followed more consistently across the pro- opment—to be evaluated. With its approach, which gives equal
jects and organization. Mostly operational and tactical, these importance to the social value generated for communities and
policies and practices focus on integrating social acceptability traditional financial measures, Boralex illustrates this strategic
into the daily operations related to projects. Moreover, the tac- learning stage well (Lemay & Longchamps, 2024).
tical stage is characterized by implementing consistent mea-
surement and reporting practices related to social acceptability
and stakeholder engagement. These practices frequently
Institutionalized Stage of Learning in Social
involve using key performance indicators (KPIs), such as con-
tributions to local development and satisfaction levels among Acceptability
community members, which show an effort to evaluate and At this stage, social acceptability becomes deeply embedded in
monitor the organization’s progress (see the social value plan an organization’s culture as it shapes its fundamental values.
example in Babaei et al., 2023). Importantly, social acceptability almost becomes the most sig-
nificant element of project management. This stage marks a sig-
nificant evolution, as social acceptability is no longer just a part
Strategic Stage of Learning in Social of the organization’s strategy but lies at its core and guides
every decision related to its projects. A sense of reciprocity
Acceptability defines how the organization engages with its stakeholders.
Social acceptability is an integral part of organizational culture, Here, stakeholder engagement surpasses mere consultation as
with a significant impact on decision-making processes. Social it becomes a genuine two-way interaction where stakeholders
acceptability is thus regarded neither as an external factor to be are listened to and become active participants in shaping pro-
addressed nor a risk to be dealt with, but rather a key component jects. This is what can be called a reciprocity-based approach
of the organization’s culture and project management approach. to managing stakeholder relations where the “conception of
The transition from previous stages to the strategic learning value from a project relies on an understanding of what is nec-
stage is noteworthy for two reasons. First, it reflects a major essary for community members to be able to live flourishing
shift in values and the move from an operational mindset to a lives.” (Baba et al., 2021, p. 894)
strategic one. Social acceptability is not only a matter of oper- In this sense, the organization’s perspective broadens to a
ations but makes its way to strategic processes and dynamics sociocentric view and places the well-being and interests of
within the organization. Second, this transition also marks a the broader community as key components of its project man-
key step insofar as social acceptability becomes deeply embed- agement. The allocation of resources for social acceptability
ded across all areas of the organization, establishing itself as a (both financial and human) becomes deeply ingrained and
fundamental strategic pillar at the core of the value chain. undisputed as the organization consistently allocates consider-
In this vein, stakeholder engagement transcends traditional able resources to develop and maintain its social acceptability
approaches and involves a transformational relationship with performance. The pursuit of continuous improvement and the
local stakeholders based on trust, long-term relationships, and exchange of best practices at the industry level also characterize
mutually beneficial cocreation initiatives. At this stage, the col- this stage. Furthermore, the organization actively seeks to
laboration between the organization and its stakeholders takes improve its social acceptability processes and contribute to
front stage with an eye toward creating initiatives promoting the broader industry dialogue on social acceptability. In doing
local economic and social development. Recognized as impor- so, the organization positions itself as a leader in social accept-
tant partners, stakeholders are included in the organization’s ability at the industry level.
Brunet et al. 9

Additionally, the institutionalized learning stage is distin- leading to enhanced governance that supports social accept-
guished by the organization’s advanced utilization of data and ability. Although context dependent (Donaldson, 2001), it
analytics to monitor and improve its stakeholder relations and might not be possible to suggest a detailed step-by-step
social acceptability initiatives. This stage of learning is well process or guideline to enable this framework for practition-
illustrated by Hydro-Quebec, a Quebec government-owned ers. Yet, this tool allows for reflexivity in action and for inspi-
company that runs the vast majority of the province’s electricity ration (Schon, 1983).
generation and distribution (Baba et al., 2021). Over the past
40 years and often through tough challenges, Hydro-Quebec
has learned the critical importance of institutionalizing its com- Future Research Avenues
munity engagement function (Baba et al., 2021). With this The dynamic conceptualization we developed in this article
learning curve, Hydro-Quebec promotes practices that are enriches our understanding of the interrelations among gover-
considered leading in the hydroelectric industry. Hydro- nance, organizational learning, and social acceptability. In
Quebec holds certifications that attest to its commitment to doing so, it also brings several theoretical premises that
making social acceptability a strategic priority and actively should be investigated more thoroughly in future studies,
shares its practices to allow other stakeholders to learn from including:
its experience.
1. How do the suggested inputs translate into an overall
governance articulation process? Are there other factors
Discussion that might influence an organization to adopt a trajectory
Overall, there is an essential yet under-studied relationship or another and mirror its learning stage?
between the governance of major public infrastructure projects 2. How is it possible for a governance trajectory to change
and social acceptability. The literature at the intersection of through time? Are organizations able to adjust and
large-scale public project governance and social acceptability adapt (learn and move stages upward), and what effects
is emerging (Brunet & Baba, 2023), relating mostly to public could this have on a project’s social acceptability? On
project governance frameworks and integrated impact assess- the contrary, would it be possible for an organization to
ments as sustainable development decision-making tools drop from a higher learning stage to a lower one during
(Lehtonen, 2014; Oliver & Pearl, 2018). With this in mind, a project (for example, by removing critical resources)
the research question asked at the outset was: “How can the and, if so, how would the social acceptability be
governance of a major public infrastructure project support a impacted?
stakeholder engagement approach conducive to greater social 3. How do the governance articulation processes translate
acceptability?” To answer this question, we developed a con- into greater social acceptability for projects? What is
ceptual framework that better explains the governance articula- the role of external stakeholders in coconstructing the
tion process and its effects on stakeholder engagement and the meaning of the project with the promoters, framing
social acceptability of major public projects. This dynamic per- values, and making a project socially acceptable? Can
spective enables the development of theoretical and practical external stakeholders adjust and learn as a project goes
knowledge about implementing practices in major projects through a similar learning stage?
that make it possible to apprehend the needs and expectations
of stakeholders, engage and mobilize them, and foster their The proposed framework has inherent limitations due to
engagement while improving the project itself (Aaltonen its conceptual nature, yet we invite scholars to use it empir-
et al., 2024). ically to enrich our understanding and deepen our knowl-
This article theoretically improves our understanding of edge on this important topic, as we will do ourselves.
governance in major public infrastructure projects by focus- Although supported by empirical evidence, this conceptual
ing—via an organizational learning framework—on the ante- framework was developed iteratively, based on the experi-
cedents of practices, mechanisms, and resources that support ence of the authors and the literature. It would be interest-
social acceptability. This point of view allows us to see the ing to empirically test it in different settings and articulate
relationship between governance and social acceptability as more explicitly whether the governance trajectory adopted
a dynamic learning process in which governance develops yields to greater social acceptability. The refinement of
over time as organizations react to stakeholder needs and sus- inputs, outputs, and measurements of social acceptability
tainability challenges. From a practical point of view, this would also enrich the current state of knowledge in this
research proposes a comprehensive tool to measure one orga- area. Some of those organizational elements are more spe-
nization’s positioning along a path toward greater social cifically tied to governance, for example, allocation of
acceptability of its projects. The learning scale developed in resources, policies, practices, and monitoring tools. For
this article is an interesting managerial tool for practitioners, other organizational elements, such as roles, forums, expec-
project owners, and promoters to reflexively analyze where tations, delegations, escalations, and decision-making,
they stand and what could be done to get to a higher stage, more fine-grained analysis could be developed in
10 Project Management Journal

subsequent research. For theoretical developments, it would ORCID iDs

be relevant to address the themes of organizational learning Maude Brunet https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1572-818X
versus organizational maturity (Aubry, 2015) and compare Sofiane Baba https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5083-0673
different frameworks and how they have been mobilized Nathalie Drouin https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8807-9432
(e.g., Zadek, 2004). Also, it would be interesting to under-
stand in more detail how real-life organizations manage and
Note
balance conflicting interests of diverse stakeholders and
1. Typically, one can think of metrics such as the level of satisfaction
resolve them, as it would be to delve into implications for
among members of the community, number of documented com-
leadership (Aaltonen et al., 2024). It would also be interest-
plaints, and contributions to local development in supporting
ing to know more about the organizational dynamics
employment, training, and economic development.
around governance, for example regarding the
fundamental constituents or events/triggers generally asso-
ciated with shifts in governance (Brunet, 2025). Another References
interesting avenue, bringing the last point forward, would Aaltonen, K., Derakhshan, R., Di Maddaloni, F., & Turner, R. (2024).
be to conduct longitudinal studies and comparative case Stakeholder engagement: Theoretical and methodological direc-
analysis to cover in detail the project life cycle and differ- tions for project scholarship. International Journal of Project
entiate possible levels of decision-making latitude on Management, 102649. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2024.102649
acceptability that exists at different points and regarding Aarseth, W., Ahola, T., Aaltonen, K., Økland, A., & Andersen, B.
different projects. (2017). Project sustainability strategies: A systematic literature
review. International Journal of Project Management, 35(6),
1071–1083. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.11.006
Aerts, G., Dooms, M., & Haezendonck, E. (2017). Knowledge trans-
Conclusion fers and project-based learning in large scale infrastructure devel-
This article argued for the importance of exploring the rela- opment projects: An exploratory and comparative ex-post
tionship between governance and social acceptability in analysis. International Journal of Project Management, 35(3),
major public infrastructure projects. Due to their size and 224–240. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.10.010
impact, these projects typically face growing scrutiny from Ahola, T., Ruuska, I., Artto, K., & Kujala, J. (2014). What is project
various stakeholders, making social acceptability an essen- governance and what are its origins? International Journal of
tial factor to consider for their success. In this vein, this Project Management, 32(8), 1321–1332.
article argues that governance can lead to making better deci- Alcantara, C., Charest, F., Lavigne, A., & Saglietto, L. (2023).
sions informed by acceptability realities, bringing forward a con- L’acceptabilité sociale: Enjeux de société et controverses scien-
ceptual framework elucidating how effective governance can tifiques. Presses des Mines.
enhance social acceptability. The conceptual framework poses Ang, K. C. S., Sankaran, S., & Drouin, N. (2023). Social value from
that several inputs (such as the legitimacy of actors involved, megaprojects and their governance. In R. Müller, S. Sankaran,
the nature of the project, the initial stakeholders’ understanding, & N. Drouin (Eds.), Research handbook for the governance of
and organizational engagement) are to be considered, along with projects (pp. 103–115). Edward Elgar Publishing.
the organization’s governance articulation process. Different Argyris, C. (1999). On organizational learning (2nd ed.). Blackwell
learning stages are suggested: defensive, compliance, tactical, Business.
strategic, and institutionalized. The combination of inputs and Argyris, C., & Schoën, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning:
governance approach leads to the outputs, which are considered A theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley.
as different facets of social acceptability: social value, economic Aubry, M. (2015). Project management office transformations: Direct
value, and environmental value. Building on this framework, we and moderating effects that enhance performance and maturity.
also developed an organizational learning framework that out- Project Management Journal, 46(5), 19–45. doi:10.1002/pmj.
lines different stages through which organizations evolve in man- 21522
aging social acceptability—from a defensive stance, where social Baba, S., & Brunet, M. (2024). Project legitimacy: Towards a theoret-
acceptability is overlooked, to an institutionalized approach, ical framework. European Management Review, 21(4), 887–901.
where social acceptability is deeply integrated into the organiza- doi:10.1111/emre.12620
tion’s core values. All in all, we suggested that major public Baba, S., Courcelles, R., & Dunn, M. (2021). Développement de par-
infrastructure project teams that focus on organizational learning tenariats avec les Premières Nations dans un grand projet
are more likely to achieve higher levels of social acceptability, hydroélectrique: Le cas du projet Eastmain-1-A–Sarcelle–
leading to more sustainable and socially responsible outcomes. Rupert à la Baie-James. In M. Brunet & A. Romero-Torres
As a final point, we do encourage policymakers and practitioners (Eds.), La gestion de projets au Québec: Des cas pour illustrer
to adopt the framework in real-world projects to understand une expertise en croissance (pp. 83–99). JFD Éditions.
where they stand and how they could improve their organiza- Baba, S., & Dahan, J. (2023). Social license to operate: An integrative
tional skills on this important topic. framework. Management International, 27(5), 65–79.
Brunet et al. 11

Baba, S., Hemissi, O., Berrahou, Z., & Traiki, C. (2021). The spatio- Brunet, M. (2025). Governance shifts and short-term performance. In
temporal dimension of the social license to operate: The case L. Ika, J. Pinto, & P. Love (Eds.), Handbook on project behavior.
of a landfill facility in Algeria. Management International, Cambridge University Press.
25(4), 247–266. doi:10.7202/1083853ar Brunet, M., & Aubry, M. (2016). The three dimensions of a gover-
Baba, S., Mercier, N., & Guesthier, A.-A. (2024). Fostering the social nance framework for major public projects. International
license to operate: An integrative framework of organizational Journal of Project Management, 34(8), 1596–1607. doi:10.
antecedents. Resources Policy, 89, 104538, 1–9. doi:10.1016/j. 1016/j.ijproman.2016.09.004
resourpol.2023.104538 Brunet, M., & Baba, S. (2023). Social acceptability and governance for
Baba, S., Mohammad, S., & Young, C. (2021). Managing project sus- public infrastructure projects. In R. Müller, S. Sankaran, &
tainability in the extractive industries: Towards a reciprocity N. Drouin, N. (Eds.), Research handbook for the governance
framework for community engagement. International Journal of projects (pp. 220–234). Edward Elgar Publishing.
of Project Management, 39(8), 887–901. doi:10.1016/j. Brunet, M., Drouin, N., & Gauthier, P. (2021). Le processus de consul-
ijproman.2021.09.002 tation publique du REM, un projet à la gouvernance inédite. In
Babaei, A., Locatelli, G., & Sainati, T. (2023). Local community engage- M. Brunet & A. Romero-Torres (Eds.), La gestion de projets
ment as a practice: An investigation of local community engage- au Québec: Des cas pour illustrer une expertise en croissance.
ment issues and their impact on transport megaprojects’ social Les Éditions JFD.
value. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Caron, M.-A., Drouin, N., Ben Abdallah, S., & Radu, C. (2024). Local
16(3), 448–474. doi:10.1108/IJMPB-10-2022-0224 community’s engagement and enactment of social value
Banerjee, S. B. (2000). Whose land is it anyway? National interest, from hydropower infrastructure. International Journal of
indigenous stakeholders, and colonial discourses. Organization Managing Projects in Business (ahead-of-print). doi:10.1108/
& Environment, 13(1), 3–38. IJMPB-02-2024-0023
Batellier, P., & Maillé, M.-È. (2017). Acceptabilité sociale: Sans oui, Cloutier, C., & Langley, A. (2020). What makes a process theoretical
c’est non. Montréal, Québec Écosociété. contribution? Organization Theory, 1(1), 2631787720902473.
Bitektine, A. (2011). Toward a theory of social judgments of organiza- doi:10.1177/2631787720902473
tions: The case of legitimacy, reputation, and status. The Cornelissen, J., Höllerer, M. A., & Seidl, D. (2021). What theory is and
Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 151–179. http://www. can be: Forms of theorizing in organizational scholarship.
jstor.org/stable/29765019 Organization Theory, 2(3), 26317877211020328. doi:10.1177/
Bitektine, A., & Haack, P. (2015). The “macro” and the “micro” of 26317877211020328
legitimacy: Toward a multilevel theory of the legitimacy De Blust, S., Devisch, O., & Schreurs, J. (2019). Towards a situational
process. Academy of Management Review, 40(1), 49–75. understanding of collective learning: A reflexive framework.
doi:10.5465/amr.2013.0318 Urban Planning, 4(1), 19–30. doi:10.17645/up.v4i1.1673
Boonstra, A., van Offenbeek, M. A. G., & Vos, J. F. J. (2017). Tension DeFillippi, R., & Sydow, J. (2016). Project networks: Governance
awareness of stakeholders in large technology projects: A duality choices and paradoxical tensions. Project Management
perspective. Project Management Journal, 48(1), 19–36. http:// Journal, 47(5), 6–17. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN= direct=true&db=bth&AN=118708552&lang=fr&site=ehost-live
121034006&lang=fr&site=ehost-live Delannon, N., Raufflet, E., & Baba, S. (2016). Corporate community
Boudier, J. M. (2024). Corporate community engagement and compet- engagement strategies and organizational arrangements: A multi-
itive advantage (PhD thesis). University of London. https:// ple case study in Canada. Journal of Cleaner Production, 129,
eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/54448/1/Boudier20J2C20thesis20for 714–723.
20library20FINAL.pdf de Luca, S. (2014). Public engagement in strategic transportation plan-
Bowen, F., Newenham-Kahindi, A. M., & Herremans, I. (2010). When ning: An analytic hierarchy process based approach. Transport
suits meet roots: The antecedents and consequences of community Policy, 33, 110–124. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.03.002
engagement strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(2), 297–318. Derakhshan, R., Mancini, M., & Turner, J. R. (2019). Community’s
Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values and public interest: Counterbalancing evaluation of organizational legitimacy: Formation and reconsid-
economic individualism. Georgetown University Press. eration. International Journal of Project Management, 37(1),
Brady, T., & Davies, A. (2004). Building project capabilities: From 73–86. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.10.004
exploratory to exploitative learning. Organization Studies, Derakhshan, R., Turner, R., & Mancini, M. (2019). Project governance
25(9), 1601–1621. doi:10.1177/0170840604048002 and stakeholders: A literature review. International Journal of
Braun, T., & Sydow, J. (2024). The mandate of project management Project Management, 37(1), 98–116. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.
offices beyond organizational boundaries—Still a blind spot for 2018.10.007
organizational design? Project Management Journal, 55(5), Di Maddaloni, F., & Davis, K. (2017). The influence of local commu-
507–519. doi:10.1177/87569728231223733 nity stakeholders in megaprojects: Rethinking their inclusiveness
Bröchner, J. (2022). Project tragedies. International Journal of Project to improve project performance. International Journal of Project
Management, 40(5), 467–470. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.04. Management, 35(8), 1537–1556. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.
001 08.011
12 Project Management Journal

Di Maddaloni, F., & Derakhshan, R. (2019). A leap from negative to pos- Hall, M., & Holt, R. (2003). Developing a culture of performance
itive bond. A step towards project sustainability. Administrative learning in U.K. public sector project management. Public
Sciences, 9(41), 1–19. doi:10.3390/admsci9020041 Performance & Management Review, 26(3), 263–275.
Di Maddaloni, F., & Sabini, L. (2022). Very important, yet very Harvey, J.-F., Bresman, H., Edmondson, A. C., & Pisano, G. P. (2022).
neglected: Where do local communities stand when examining A strategic view of team learning in organizations. Academy of
social sustainability in major construction projects? Management Annals, 16(2), 476–507. doi:10.5465/annals.2020.
International Journal of Project Management, 40(7), 778–797. 0352
doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.08.007 Houck, O. A. (2010). Taking back Eden: Eight environmental cases
Donaldson, L. (2001). The contingency theory of organizations. SAGE that changed the world. Island Press.
Publications. Hudon, P.-A., & Mazouz, B. (2014). Le management public entre «
Drouin, N., & Turner, R. (2022). Advanced introduction to megaproj- tensions de gouvernance publique » et « obligation de résultats
ects. Edward Elgar Publishing. » : Vers une explication de la pluralité du management public
Eikelenboom, M., & van Marrewijk, A. (2024). Tied islands: The role par la diversité des systèmes de gouvernance publique. Gestion
of organizational members in knowledge transfer across strategic et Management Public, 3(2), 7–22.
projects. International Journal of Project Management, 42(3), Huemann, M., & Silvius, G. (2017). Projects to create the future:
102590. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2024.102590 Managing projects meets sustainable development.
Enserink, M., Van Etteger, R., Van den Brink, A., & Stremke, S. (2022). International Journal of Project Management, 35(6), 1066–
To support or oppose renewable energy projects? A systematic lit- 1070. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.04.014
erature review on the factors influencing landscape design and Institute, McKinsey Global. (2020). The next normal in construction:
social acceptance. Energy Research & Social Science, 91, How disruption is reshaping the world’s largest ecosystem.
102740. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2022.102740 https://www.mckinsey.com/∼/media/McKinsey/Industries/Capital
Fenwick, T. (2008). Understanding relations of individual—Collective %20Projects%20and%20Infrastructure/Our%20Insights/The%20
learning in work: A review of research. Management Learning, next%20normal%20in%20construction/executive-summary_the-
39(3), 227–243. doi:10.1177/1350507608090875 next-normal-in-construction.pdf
Flyvbjerg, B. (2017). The Oxford handbook of megaproject manage- Institute, McKinsey Global. (2022). The net-zero transition: What it
ment. Oxford University Press. would cost, what it would bring. https://www.mckinsey.com/
Fournis, Y., & Fortin, M. J. (2017). From social “acceptance’ to social capabilities/sustainability/our-insights/the-net-zero-transition-what-
“acceptability’ of wind energy projects: Towards a territorial per- it-would-cost-what-it-could-bring
spective. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Karidio, I., & Talbot, D. (2019). Controversy in mining development:
60(1), 1–21. doi:10.1080/09640568.2015.1133406 A study of the defensive strategies of a mining company. Journal
Fraser, J., Bat-Erdene, Z., & Kunz, N. C. (2021). Social license needs of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 10(1), 18–43. doi:10.1080/
business strategy. The Extractive Industries and Society, 8(2), 20430795.2019.1657315
100824. doi:10.1016/j.exis.2020.10.007 Kashefi, M. A., & Sanjaghi, M. (2013). A new framework for learning
Friser, A., & Yates, S. (2021). Article introductif—L’acceptabilité approaches toward social evolution of organizations. SSRN, 1–
sociale, une question de démocratie participative 8? Revue 14. doi:https://ssrn.com/abstract=2207294 or 10.2139/ssrn.
internationale de psychosociologie et de gestion des comporte- 2207294
ments organisationnels, XXVII(69), 5–16. doi:10.3917/ Kemp, D., & Owen, J. R. (2013). Community relations in mining: Core
rips1.069.0005 to business but not “core business.” Resources Policy, 38(4),
Gasparro, K., Zerjav, V., Konstantinou, E., & Casady, C. B. (2022). 523–531.
Vanguard projects as intermediation spaces in sustainability tran- Kemp, R., Voss, J.-P., & Bauknecht, D. (2006). Reflexive governance
sitions. Project Management Journal, 53(2), 196–210. doi:10. for sustainable development. Edward Elgar.
1177/87569728221077011 Klok, C. W., Kirkels, A. F., & Alkemade, F. (2023). Original
Gendron, C. (2014). Penser l’acceptabilité sociale: Au-delà des impacts, procedural processes, and local context: Rethinking
intérêts, les valeurs. Communiquer. Revue de communication the social acceptance of wind energy projects in the
sociale et publique, 11(584), 117–129. doi:10.4000/ Netherlands. Energy Research & Social Science, 99. doi:10.
Geraldi, J., & Söderlund, J. (2018). Project studies: What it is, where it 1016/j.erss.2023.103044
is going. International Journal of Project Management, 36(1), Knapp, R. (2010). Collective (team) learning process models: A con-
55–70. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.06.004 ceptual review. Human Resource Development Review, 9(3),
Grabher, G. (2004a). Learning in projects, Remembering in networks? 285–299. doi:10.1177/1534484310371449
Communality, sociality, and connectivity in project ecologies. Kusuma, I. (2014). The cultural ecosystems of megaprojects: The
European Urban and Regional Studies, 11(2), 103–123. interconnectedness of organizational elements and their wider
doi:10.1177/0969776404041417 institutional contexts. International Journal of Architecture,
Grabher, G. (2004b). Temporary architectures of learning: Knowledge Engineering and Construction, 3(2), 82–97.
governance in project ecologies. Organization Studies, 25(9), Lacey, J., Carr-Cornish, S., Zhang, A., Eglinton, K., & Moffat, K. (2017).
1491–1514. doi:10.1177/0170840604047996 The art and science of community relations: Procedural fairness at
Brunet et al. 13

Newmont’s Waihi Gold operations, New Zealand. Resources Pitsis, A., Sankaran, S., Gudergan, S., & Clegg, S. R. (2014). Governing
Policy, 52. doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2017.03.001 projects under complexity: Theory and practice in project manage-
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate periph- ment. International Journal of Project Management, 32(8),
eral participation. Cambridge University Press. 1285–1290. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.09.001
Lehtonen, M. (2014). Evaluation of “the social” in megaprojects: Ponce Oliva, R. D., Estay, M., Barrientos, M., Estevez, R. A., Gelcich,
Tensions, dichotomies, and ambiguities. International Journal S., & Vásquez-Lavín, F. (2024). Emerging energy sources’ social
of Architecture, Engineering and Construction, 3(2), 98–109. acceptability: Evidence from marine-based energy projects.
Lemay, M., & Longchamps, J. (2024). Boralex: Cultiver l’acceptabilité Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 198, 114429.
sociale dans une transition énergétique accélérée—entretien avec doi:10.1016/j.rser.2024.114429
Maryse Lemay et Jordan Longchamps. Bulletin Oeconomia Prencipe, A., & Tell, F. (2001). Inter-project learning: Processes and
Humana, 62–66. outcomes of knowledge codification in project-based firms.
Lervik, J. E., Fahy, K. M., & Easterby-Smith, M. (2010). Temporal Research Policy, 30(9), 1373–1394. doi:10.1016/
dynamics of situated learning in organizations. Management S0048-7333(01)00157-3
Learning, 41(3), 285–301. doi:10.1177/1350507609357004 Renouard, C. (2011). Corporate social responsibility, utilitarianism,
Lindner, F., & Wald, A. (2011). Success factors of knowledge manage- and the capabilities approach. Journal of Business Ethics,
ment in temporary organizations. International Journal of 98(1), 85–97. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0536-8
Project Management, 29(7), 877–888. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman. Roddis, P., Roelich, K., Tran, K., Carver, S., Dallimer, M., & Ziv, G.
2010.09.003 (2020). What shapes community acceptance of large-scale solar
Mancini, E., & Raggi, A. (2022). Out of sight, out of mind? The impor- farms? A case study of the UK’s first ‘nationally significant’
tance of local context and trust in understanding the social accep- solar farm. Solar Energy, 209, 235–244. doi:10.1016/j.solener.
tance of biogas projects: A global scale review. Energy Research 2020.08.065
& Social Science, 91. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2022.102697 Sanderson, J. (2012). Risk, uncertainty and governance in megaproj-
Meesters, M. E., & Behagel, J. H. (2017). The social licence to operate: ects: A critical discussion of alternative explanations.
Ambiguities and the neutralization of harm in Mongolia. Resources International Journal of Project Management, 30(4), 432–443.
Policy, 53. doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2017.07.006 doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.11.002
Miller, R., & Lessard, D. (2000). The strategic management of large Sanderson, J., & Winch, G. (2017). Public policy and projects: Making
engineering projects: Shaping institutions, risks, and gover- connections and starting conversations. International Journal of
nance. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Project Management, 35(3), 221–223. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.
Müller, R., Zhai, L., & Wang, A. (2017). Governance and governmen- 2016.12.001
tality in projects: Profiles and relationships with success. Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals
International Journal of Project Management, 35(3), 378–392. think in action. Harper Torchbooks.
doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.01.007 Schoper, Y.-G., Wald, A., Ingason, H. T., & Fridgeirsson, T. V.
Musawir, A. u., Abd-Karim, S. B., & Mohd-Danuri, M. S. (2020). (2018). Projectification in Western economies: A comparative
Project governance and its role in enabling organizational strat- study of Germany, Norway and Iceland. International Journal
egy implementation: A systematic literature review. of Project Management, 36(1), 71–82. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.
International Journal of Project Management, 38(1), 1–16. 2017.07.008
doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.09.007 Sergi, V. (2012). Bounded becoming: Insights from understanding pro-
Muthuri, J. N., Chapple, W., & Moon, J. (2009). An integrated jects in situation. International Journal of Managing Projects in
approach to implementing ‘community participation’ in corpo- Business, 5(3), 345–363.
rate community involvement: Lessons from Magadi Soda Sergi, V., Crevani, L., & Aubry, M. (2020). Process studies of project
Company. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 431–444. organizing. Project Management Journal, 51(1), 3–10. doi:10.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge cre- 1177/8756972819896482
ation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37. Silvius, G., & Huemann, M. (2024). Research handbook on sustain-
Oliver, A., & Pearl, D. S. (2018). Rethinking sustainability frameworks able project management. Edward Elgar Publishing.
in neighbourhood projects: A process-based approach. Building Song, J., Song, L., Liu, H., Feng, Z., & Müller, R. (2022). Rethinking
Research & Information, 46(5), 513–527. doi:10.1080/ project governance: Incorporating contextual and practice-based
09613218.2017.1358569 views. International Journal of Project Management, 40(4),
Pemsel, S., & Söderlund, J. (2024). Knowledge entrainment in large- 332–346. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.04.004
scale transformation projects: The evidence-based strategy and Stephenson, K. A., Kuismin, A., Putnam, L. L., & Sivunen, A. (2020).
the innovation-based strategy. Project Management Journal, Process studies of organizational space. Academy of Management
87569728241239271. doi:10.1177/87569728241239271 Annals, 14(2), 797–827. doi:10.5465/annals.2018.0146
Pitsis, A., Clegg, S., Freeder, D., Sankaran, S., & Burdon, S. (2018). Strauss, A. L. (1993). Continual permutations of action. Aldine de
Megaprojects redefined—Complexity vs cost and social impera- Gruyter.
tives. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and
11(1), 7–34. doi:10.1108/IJMPB-07-2017-0080 strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7),
14 Project Management Journal

509–533. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7< 509:: 339–351. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=

AID-SMJ882 > 3.0.CO;2-Z bth&AN=6654846&lang=fr&site=ehost-live
Unterhitzenberger, C., Müller, R., Vaagaasar, A. L., Ke, Y.,
Alonderiene, R., Minelgaite, I., . . . Mongeon, M. (2023). A mul-
tilevel governance model for interorganizational project net-
works. Project Management Journal, 54(1), 88–105. doi:10.
Author Biographies
1177/87569728221131254 Maude Brunet is associate professor in the Department of
Upham, P., Oltra, C., & Boso, À. (2015). Towards a cross- Management at HEC Montréal. Her research interests
paradigmatic framework of the social acceptance of energy include project organizing, governance and innovation of
systems. Energy Research & Social Science, 8, 100–112. megaprojects, public infrastructure projects and public–
doi:10.1016/j.erss.2015.05.003 private partnerships. She is associate editor for the
Van Marrewijk, A., Clegg, S. R., Pitsis, T. S., & Veenswijk, M. (2008). European Management Review (area of Project
Managing public–private megaprojects: Paradoxes, complexity, Management Studies) and formerly served as an associate
and project design. International Journal of Project Management, editor for the International Journal of Project
26(6), 591–600. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.09.007 Management. She has published in several project manage-
Volden, G. H., & Samset, K. (2017). Governance of major public ment and administrative science journals, and has coedited
investment projects: Principles and practices in six countries. three books, including the Research Handbook on
Project Management Journal, 48(3), 90–108. Complex Project Organizing. She can be contacted at
Weick, K. E., & Westley, F. (1996). Organizational learning: [email protected]
Affirming an oxymoron. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, &
Sofiane Baba is associate professor of strategic management at
W. R. North (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies
the Business School of Université de Sherbrooke, Canada,
(pp. 440–458). SAGE.
where he also serves as director of the doctoral and postgraduate
Whyte, J., & Mottee, L. (2022). Projects as interventions. International
programs. His research expertise is in strategic management and
Journal of Project Management, 40(8), 934–940. doi:10.1016/j.
processes, with a particular interest in the relationships among
ijproman.2022.10.007
organizations, projects, and society—especially in relation to
Wiewiora, A., Chang, A., & Smidt, M. (2020). Individual, project and
sustainability and social acceptability. He has published numer-
organizational learning flows within a global project-based orga-
ous articles, book chapters, and case studies in leading journals,
nization: Exploring what, how and who. International Journal of
including the International Journal of Project Management,
Project Management, 38(4), 201–214. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.
Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Management
2020.03.005
Inquiry, Organization Theory, and Journal of Management
Wüstenhagen, R., Wolsink, M., & Bürer, M. J. (2007). Social accep-
Studies. He can be contacted at Sofi[email protected]
tance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the
concept. Energy Policy, 35(5), 2683–2691. doi:10.1016/j.enpol. Nathalie Drouin holds a PhD from Cambridge University,
2006.12.001 United Kingdom; a post-doctorate from École Polytechnique
Yates, S., Friser, A., & Gendron, C. (2024). Bulletin Oeconomia de Montréal; an MBA from HEC Montreal; and a BSc in law
Humana: L’acceptabilité sociale de la transition écologique. from University of Sherbrooke. She is the chairholder of the
https://crsdd.esg.uqam.ca/recherche/bulletin-oeconomia-humana/ research chair INFRA-S and the editor-in-chief of the
Yates, S., Lalande, J., & Lalancette, M. (2023). Du « modèle du déficit » International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, a full
au tournant participatif en communication des risques: Les luttes professor in project management in the Department of
d’expertise au cœur de l’acceptabilité sociale des projets Management, ESG UQAM, and an adjunct professor at the
d’exploitation des ressources naturelles. Canadian Journal of University of Technology Sydney (UTS), Australia. Her research
Communication, 48(4). doi:10.3138/cjc-2022-0005 looks at the governance of major infrastructure projects, the inte-
Zadek, S. (2004). The path to corporate responsibility. Harvard gration of nonfinancial benefits, social impacts of infrastructure
Business Review, 82, 125–132. https://hbr.org/2004/12/the-path- projects, organizational project management, and balanced lead-
to-corporate-responsibility ership in projects and megaprojects. She received the IPMA
Zhang, A. R., Moffat, K., Lacey, J., Wang, J. X., Gonzalez, R., Global Research Award (2019) for her work on balanced leader-
Uribe, K., . . . Dai, Y. (2015). Understanding the social licence ship in projects; the Walt Lipke Award (Australia) on the gover-
to operate of mining at the national scale: A comparative study nance and control of major projects; the 2021 PMI Cleland
of Australia, China and Chile. Journal of Cleaner Production, Award for the book Organizational Project Management:
108, 1063–1072. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.097 Theory and Implementation (coedited, Edward Elgar
Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the Publishing, 2019), and the 2022 PMI Research Achievement
evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3), Award. She can be contacted at [email protected]