Trust, Equity, Transparency and Inclusion in Nuclear Energy Governance: Empirical Synthesis of the Q-NPT Framework

Abstract

The Qudrat-Ullah Nuclear Peace and Trust (Q-NPT) framework offers a governance model for nuclear energy that foregrounds trust, equity, transparency, and stakeholder inclusion. This paper provides an empirical synthesis of Q-NPT by integrating quantitative and qualitative evidence from recent nuclear energy studies and situating the framework within global policy contexts. The findings indicate that legitimacy in nuclear governance depends not only on technical and regulatory compliance but also on social trust, distributive fairness, and active stakeholder inclusion. The analysis further demonstrates Q-NPT’s applicability to emerging technologies—including microreactors and blockchain-based fuel management—highlighting its adaptability to contemporary governance challenges. Together, these insights advance Q-NPT from conceptual articulation toward an evidence-informed, socially robust foundation for legitimate and ethical nuclear energy governance.

1. Introduction

Nuclear energy governance faces intensifying scrutiny as societies grapple with questions of safety, sustainability, equity, and legitimacy. Globally, nuclear energy remains a significant component of low-carbon energy strategies, with over 440 operational reactors across 30 countries and more than 50 new reactors under construction or planned [1]. Governments are increasingly linking nuclear deployment to climate targets, energy security, and sustainable development agendas, while investments in advanced nuclear technologies—including small modular reactors and microreactors—are projected to exceed USD 200 billion over the next decade [2]. These developments underscore the urgency of robust governance frameworks: as nuclear projects expand in scale, complexity, and geographical reach, ensuring public trust, equitable benefit distribution, and inclusive stakeholder engagement becomes increasingly critical.

While technical and regulatory compliance remain necessary, they are insufficient for securing public confidence. Persistent challenges—including public mistrust, uneven distribution of risks and benefits, and lack of inclusive decision-making—continue to undermine nuclear projects. Traditional top-down regulatory approaches, focused narrowly on safety codes and engineering standards, often fail to account for community perceptions, leading to resistance, delays, or cost overruns [3,4]. Research consistently shows that public mistrust arises not only from technical risk but also from socio-political dynamics. Concerns about transparency, perceptions of regulator–industry collusion, and fears of long-term environmental consequences amplify skepticism [3,5]. Where governance neglects equity in benefit distribution, historical legacies, or recognition of community values, legitimacy suffers—even when technical assessments deem facilities safe [4]. These findings underscore that legitimacy in nuclear governance must be understood as a socio-technical construct, grounded in both institutional competence and societal trust.

The Qudrat-Ullah Nuclear Peace and Trust (Q-NPT) framework was developed to address these governance challenges by positioning four interdependent pillars—trust, equity, transparency, and stakeholder inclusion—at the core of legitimate nuclear governance [6,7,8]. Q-NPT treats these as mutually reinforcing principles that together sustain institutional credibility and public acceptance. Within the framework, trust refers to confidence in the competence and integrity of regulators and operators; equity encompasses distributive (fair sharing of benefits and risks), procedural (fairness in decision processes), and recognitional (acknowledgment of affected identities and values) forms of justice; transparency entails accessible, verifiable information flows; and stakeholder inclusion denotes meaningful inclusion of diverse publics in policy design and oversight.

Earlier articulations of the framework emphasized dimensions such as equitable technology transfer, collaborative workforce development, and centralized international oversight. This manuscript consolidates and clarifies these strands under the four consistent pillars—trust, equity, transparency, and stakeholder inclusion—to provide conceptual clarity and ensure alignment across publications. By drawing from insights in risk governance, participatory decision-making, and the ethics of technology, Q-NPT provides a strategic roadmap for advancing nuclear energy initiatives that are not only technically sound but also socially acceptable and ethically robust.

This manuscript advances the Q-NPT framework in three critical ways. First, it integrates empirical evidence from diverse contexts—including surveys, participatory workshops, and comparative case studies—that demonstrate how trust, inclusion, and fairness shape acceptance of nuclear energy projects [9,10]. Second, it situates Q-NPT within global policy developments, including the OECD-NEA’s HLG-SET [11,12,13], the ECOSENS [14] project, and broader international policy debates, which collectively signal a shift toward socio-technical governance. Third, it extends Q-NPT to emerging technologies, such as microreactors, quantum probability-based policy modeling, and blockchain-enabled fuel management, demonstrating the framework’s adaptability to new risks, opportunities, and governance tools.

Specifically, this study advances beyond earlier conceptual articulations of Q-NPT by addressing three knowledge gaps through secondary empirical synthesis. First, we test the proposition that transparent and independent regulation predicts public trust. Second, we examine whether equitable distribution of risks and benefits correlates with community acceptance. Third, we validate the claim that structured stakeholder inclusion improves governance outcomes. By empirically grounding these propositions, this manuscript differentiates itself from prior works [6,7,8] and contributes novel evidence to strengthen Q-NPT’s policy relevance. While the study relies on secondary evidence, it represents an essential first step toward field-level validation and provides a transparent baseline for future empirical applications.

The paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 presents the Materials and Methods, describing the secondary empirical synthesis approach used to synthesize evidence on the Q-NPT framework. Section 3 reports the Results, highlighting empirical evidence supporting the Q-NPT principles of trust, equity, transparency, and stakeholder inclusion. Section 4 provides the Discussion, situating these findings within global policy developments (Section 4.1) and exploring their applicability to emerging technologies (Section 4.2), including microreactors, blockchain applications, and quantum policy models. Section 5 concludes by synthesizing the insights and reflecting on the future trajectory of legitimate, trust-centered nuclear energy governance.

2. Materials and Methods

This paper adopts a secondary empirical synthesis approach. Rather than collecting new primary data, we analyzed existing peer-reviewed studies, reports, and project evaluations that included surveys, participatory workshops, and case studies of nuclear governance. Each source was examined for evidence relevant to the four Q-NPT pillars—trust, equity, stakeholder inclusion, and transparency—and findings were synthesized to evaluate the framework’s applicability across contexts. This study adopts a secondary empirical synthesis approach, drawing on a curated set of 30 studies identified through a transparent evidence synthesis process. The review followed established methodological guidance for mixed-methods syntheses [15,16].

2.1. Information Sources

Sources were identified between January–March 2025 through Web of Science, Google Scholar, and institutional repositories (IAEA, OECD-NEA, ERIA, WNA) [1,2,11,17]. Gray literature, such as reports from the Office for Nuclear Regulation [18] and Norton Rose Fulbright [19], were also considered relevant to governance innovations (e.g., blockchain applications).

2.2. Search Strategy

Boolean keyword strings combined governance and nuclear terms (e.g., “nuclear governance” AND trust; “nuclear energy” AND inclusion; “nuclear policy” AND transparency). Searches were limited to English-language publications (2000–2025).

2.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Studies were eligible if they met at least one of the following inclusion criteria:

• Empirical evidence: Presented survey, experimental, participatory, or case study data on nuclear governance or analogous large-scale energy projects.
• Q-NPT relevance: Addressed at least one of the four Q-NPT principles (trust, equity, stakeholder inclusion, transparency).
• Contextual policy value: Provided authoritative policy guidance, institutional data, or conceptual framing essential for interpreting empirical results.

Studies were excluded if they:

• Focused exclusively on technical/engineering analyses (e.g., reactor physics, design optimization) without governance or socio-political data.
• Were conceptual only without empirical or policy relevance to Q-NPT.
• Were duplicates, inaccessible full-texts, or non-English language.

Following inclusion, data extraction was performed using a structured template capturing study design, context, and outcomes related to the four Q-NPT pillars. Because the corpus comprises heterogeneous study types (surveys, case studies, policy analyses), formal meta-analysis was not appropriate. Instead, a vote-counting and cross-tabulation strategy was used to detect patterns of convergence and divergence across empirical findings, consistent with mixed-method synthesis protocols [15,16]. This approach enabled descriptive integration of quantitative results (e.g., β coefficients, percentage effects) with qualitative insights, facilitating cross-pillar interpretation in the Section 3.

2.4. Study Selection

The search returned 201 records. After removal of duplicates, 170 titles and abstracts were screened. Of these, 120 were excluded for technical focus or lack of relevance. Fifty full-texts articles were reviewed in detail, and 20 were excluded (conceptual only = 7; technical/engineering focus = 7; other reasons including scope mismatch = 6). The final set comprised 30 studies. Of these, 14 formed the core empirical set, summarized in

Table 1. Empirical Evidence Supporting Q-NPT Propositions.

Proposition	Study	Context	Sample	Key Quantitative Findings	Key Qualitative Insights
Trust	[20,21]	Global review (15+ countries)	–	Transparency and engagement are strongest predictors of legitimacy	Inclusion consistently viewed as essential
	[22,23]	Saudi Arabia, nuclear acceptance	612	Willingness to pay increases with institutional reliability	Trust in oversight strengthens legitimacy
	[9,24]	UAE, nuclear perception	318	Engagement improved trust (β = 0.65, p < 0.001)	Safeguards and clear risk communication build confidence
Equity	[22]	Saudi Arabia, nuclear acceptance	612	Fairness predicts willingness to pay	Perceived distributive justice enhances acceptance
	[3,10]	EU nuclear research installations	405	Moral norms predict inclusion (β = 0.47, R2 = 0.48)	Fair inclusion of community values drives engagement
	[4,5]	Finland, Japan, UK, US	1200	Participatory areas: 75–80% positive safety vs. 55–60% without	Local economic benefits and fair inclusion increase acceptance
Inclusion	[20,21]	Global review	–	Engagement consistently improves legitimacy	Cross-national convergence on inclusion
	[9,24]	UAE, nuclear perception	318	Engagement improved perceived safety (β = 0.61, p < 0.001)	Local employment and voice in decisions increase trust
	[3,10]	EU nuclear research installations	405	Attitudes toward inclusion predict engagement (β = 0.53, p < 0.001)	Community inclusion valued intrinsically
	[4,5]	Finland, Japan, UK, US	1200	Structured inclusion yields stronger acceptance	Dialogue and shared decision-making increase legitimacy

and

Table 2. Q-NPT Propositions in Emerging Nuclear Energy Technologies.

Technology	Proposition Supported	Key Evidence	Governance Implications
Microreactors	P2 (Equity), P3 (Inclusion)	Participatory design workshops in Southeast Michigan show that standardized designs may conflict with community expectations regarding safety and local benefits [25]	Localized engagement and fair benefit-sharing are essential for social acceptance.
Blockchain-based governance	P1 (Transparency/Trust)	Applications in spent fuel management and supply chains increase traceability, accountability, and stakeholder confidence [25,26]	Improves trust in oversight but requires regulatory harmonization and institutional capacity.
Advanced modeling approaches (e.g., quantum probability frameworks)	P1 (Trust), P2 (Equity), P3 (Inclusion)	Quantum probability models illustrate uncertainty and multidimensional trade-offs in nuclear energy decisions [8,27]	Decision legitimacy depends on combining technical rigor with fairness, stakeholder input, and transparency.

; the remaining 16 were contextual sources (policy reports, methodological works, or conceptual papers) used to frame and interpret empirical findings. A PRISMA-style flow diagram (Figure 1) depicts the process.

2.5. Data Extraction

For each core empirical study, we extracted bibliographic details, context, sample, Q-NPT principle(s) addressed, and both quantitative and qualitative findings. These details are documented in Table 1 and Table 2. Contextual sources were reviewed narratively to situate empirical findings within broader governance debates, institutional practices, and technological frontiers. Gray literature was retained for completeness but interpreted cautiously.

2.6. Synthesis Approach

Given the mixed-methods evidence, we employed a narrative synthesis structured around the four Q-NPT pillars. Within each pillar, we used vote-counting to identify quantitative directional trends, and thematic integration to synthesize qualitative insights. This approach supported empirical synthesis of three propositions:

• Transparent and independent regulation predicts public trust.
• Equitable distribution of risks and benefits correlates with community acceptance.
• Structured stakeholder inclusion improves governance outcomes.

3. Results

This section synthesizes empirical evidence from the 30 included studies to assess three core propositions derived from the Q-NPT framework:

P1: Transparent and independent regulation predicts public trust.

P2: Equitable distribution of risks and benefits correlates with community ac acceptance.

P3: Structured stakeholder inclusion improves governance outcomes.

Evidence comes from diverse context surveys, participatory workshops, and comparative case studies—spanning Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. Where quantitative data are available, coefficients are reported; qualitative insights illuminate contextual nuances.

3.1. Proposition 1: Transparency and Independent Regulation as Predictors of Trust

Transparency and regulator independence consistently emerge as strong correlates of public trust, which underpins perceived legitimacy. A global review of public acceptance studies across 15+ countries found that transparency and engagement were the most reliable predictors of legitimacy [20]. In post-Fukushima Japan, reforms improved perceived transparency, but trust recovery was partial, reflecting the weight of historical legacies and cultural expectations [4]. These findings indicate that while transparency is necessary, it may be insufficient in contexts with weak institutional credibility.

3.2. Proposition 2: Equity and Fair Benefit Distribution as Drivers of Acceptance

Survey evidence from Saudi Arabia links willingness to pay for nuclear energy to perceptions of fairness in benefit distribution and confidence in government oversight [22]. Comparative case studies in Finland and the UK similarly highlight that legitimacy depends on whether risks and benefits are shared equitably between host and non-host communities [4]. Distributive fairness enhances acceptance where economic benefits are visible, but its influence diminishes in contexts dominated by security concerns. These results reinforce Q-NPT’s equity dimension, emphasizing context-dependent effects.

3.3. Proposition 3: Stakeholder Inclusion and Governance Outcomes

Structured inclusion strongly predicts positive governance outcomes. In the UAE, direct engagement significantly increased trust in nuclear sustainability (β = 0.65, p < 0.001) and perceived safety (β = 0.61, p < 0.001), explaining up to 42% variance in trust [9]. Qualitative feedback emphasized clear communication about local jobs and environmental safeguards.

Similarly, Perko, Martell, and Turcanu [10] found that attitudes toward inclusion (β = 0.53, p < 0.001) and moral norms (β = 0.47, p < 0.001) were stronger predictors of engagement than knowledge or financial incentives. Comparative data across Finland, Japan, the UK, and the US show that structured participatory mechanisms (workshops, dialogues, inclusion in decision-making) improved safety perceptions by 15–20 percentage points relative to less participatory contexts [4].

3.4. Cross-Proposition Synthesis

Table 1 summarizes empirical evidence, while Figure 2 illustrates the relative quantitative influence of Q-NPT principles. Trust—especially when fostered through participatory engagement—shows the strongest effect on legitimacy (β range = 0.61–0.65). Equity and fairness demonstrate substantial but context-dependent impacts on willingness to pay and perceived legitimacy. Transparency and inclusion emerge as broadly consistent predictors across diverse settings, with effect sizes varying according to historical, cultural, and institutional contexts. Notably, the principles interact: trust effects are maximized when equity and inclusion are also present, highlighting Q-NPT’s integrative, socio-technical perspective.

Taken together, these results suggest that stakeholder inclusion operates as both a direct predictor of governance quality and an indirect amplifier of other Q-NPT pillars. Transparent communication during participatory processes strengthens perceived institutional trust, while inclusive decision structures enhance perceptions of distributive fairness and procedural equity. For example, case evidence from Finland and Japan indicates that communities engaged early and consistently report higher trust in regulators and greater satisfaction with benefit-sharing arrangements.

These cross-pillar interactions imply that inclusion mediates and reinforces both trust and equity, confirming the interdependence of Q-NPT principles. In practical terms, inclusion mechanisms that combine transparency (open access to data and decisions) with fairness (balanced representation and benefit distribution) yield the most durable legitimacy outcomes. This interpretive synthesis highlights the systemic nature of Q-NPT—where improvements in one pillar contribute to strengthening the others.

4. Discussion

The empirical findings presented in Section 3 highlight the centrality of trust, equity, transparency, and stakeholder inclusion to the legitimacy of nuclear energy governance. In this section, we interpret these findings in light of evolving global policy debates and emerging technological contexts. Together, the results validate the three Q-NPT propositions:

P1: Transparency and independent regulation predict public trust.

P2: Equitable distribution of risks and benefits correlates with community acceptance.

P3: Structured stakeholder inclusion improves governance outcomes.

We show how these propositions are increasingly reflected in international initiatives while noting the importance of contextual adaptation.

4.1. Global Policy Context

The global energy policy landscape has shifted from a technocratic, compliance-driven approach toward governance models that integrate trust, fairness, and inclusion. This transformation reflects recognition that legitimacy cannot be secured through technical excellence alone but must also include social dimensions (P1–P3). Recent reforms across international organizations and national systems illustrate how Q-NPT’s propositions are being translated into practice, though with varying outcomes shaped by local contexts.

4.1.1. OECD-NEA High-Level Group on Stakeholder Engagement (HLG-SET)

The OECD-NEA’s High-Level Group on Stakeholder Engagement (2023–2024) exemplifies this shift [11,12,13]. Its mandate institutionalizes dialogue, transparency, and inclusion, directly aligning with P1 (trust through transparency) and P3 (inclusion). Outcomes, however, vary with local capacities, cultural expectations, and historical trust levels, reinforcing that Q-NPT principles require contextual application. Importantly, the group’s findings underscore that stakeholder engagement is not a one-off exercise but a continuous process of dialogue, monitoring, and adaptation.

4.1.2. Data Collection, Best Practices, and Cross-Country Learning

Systematic collection of public attitudes supports anticipatory governance. Evidence from Finland, Japan, and the UK shows that transparent risk–benefit communication fosters trust (P1), fair benefit sharing enhances acceptance (P2), and long-term consultations improve governance outcomes (P3) [23,24,28]. These practices validate Q-NPT propositions but also highlight that results depend on institutional credibility and local engagement histories. Moreover, the availability of cross-country datasets allows policymakers to benchmark progress, identify persistent trust gaps, and design adaptive strategies responsive to evolving public expectations.

4.1.3. International Reports and Comparative Evidence

Murakami et al. [4] found that structured inclusion increased public trust and safety perceptions by up to 20 percentage points compared to ad hoc approaches, offering strong support for P3. Regional differences, however, moderate these effects, illustrating Q-NPT’s role as a guiding framework rather than a uniform prescription. Comparative assessments also suggest that legitimacy is strengthened when participatory mechanisms are embedded in broader institutional reforms, rather than treated as standalone interventions.

4.1.4. Risk Communication and Regulatory Transparency

Reforms in Japan, France, and Canada demonstrate how institutional transparency (P1) and participatory inclusion (P3) enhance legitimacy. Yet these mechanisms rely on resource availability and regulatory design, underscoring the importance of institutional capacity in applying Q-NPT principles. Case evidence shows that transparent communication is most effective when regulators are perceived as both competent and independent, which requires sustained investment in both institutional integrity and outreach practices.

4.1.5. Implications for Q-NPT

Across these cases, all three propositions are empirically supported: transparent regulation strengthens trust (P1), equitable distribution enhances acceptance (P2), and inclusion improves governance outcomes (P3). Still, variation across jurisdictions shows that principles must be adapted to socio-political and cultural contexts, confirming Q-NPT as a flexible but non-prescriptive framework. As summarized in Figure 3, recent policy initiatives and institutional reforms illustrate how these propositions are being operationalized in practice, reinforcing the relevance of Q-NPT while also highlighting the importance of contextual adaptation. Taken together, the evidence demonstrates that the international policy community increasingly views trust, fairness, and inclusion as foundational for energy governance, while Q-NPT offers a structured yet adaptable lens for guiding this transition.

4.2. Extending Q-NPT to Emerging Technologies

Emerging technologies—including microreactors, blockchain-based governance, and advanced modeling propose new governance challenges. Applying the three propositions (P1–P3) offers structured guidance for navigating these contexts. Table 2 maps each technology to the relevant propositions, highlighting how Q-NPT extends to novel applications.

Microreactors illustrate that early and continuous community engagement in design and siting is critical, with empirical evidence showing that fair benefit sharing (P2) and meaningful inclusion (P3) are prerequisites for local acceptance [25]. Similarly, blockchain applications in spent fuel management and nuclear supply chains can enhance traceability and accountability, directly supporting transparency and trust (P1). At the same time, these technologies raise questions about regulatory harmonization and data governance that require careful attention [25,26]. Advanced modeling approaches, including quantum probability frameworks, underscore the multidimensional uncertainty inherent in nuclear energy decision-making. These approaches reinforce the importance of embedding fairness, trust, and inclusion (P1–P3) alongside technical rigor, ensuring that governance frameworks remain adaptive and credible under conditions of complexity and uncertainty [8,27]. Taken together, these examples highlight Q-NPT’s adaptability as a governance lens, demonstrating its capacity to guide not only established nuclear programs but also the responsible adoption of emerging technologies.

As summarized in Table 2 (Q-NPT Propositions in Emerging Nuclear Energy Technologies), these applications demonstrate that Q-NPT principles are adaptable to novel contexts but require careful tailoring to institutional capacity, regulatory readiness, and public expectations. Key takeaways are:

• The three propositions (P1–P3) are validated across empirical cases and policy initiatives, but their effects are moderated by cultural and institutional factors.
• Q-NPT principles extend to emerging nuclear technologies, guiding transparent, equitable, and participatory governance.
• The framework provides normative direction and design constraints rather than universal rules, maintaining flexibility and practical relevance.

4.3. Operationalization and Theoretical Advancement of Q-NPT

To further strengthen the framework’s applicability and demonstrate its theoretical advancement, this study introduces a preliminary set of operational indicators (

Table 3. Preliminary operational indicators for Q-NPT framework application.

Proposition	Dimension	Example Indicators
P1: Trust through transparency	Public confidence; regulatory openness	Survey-based confidence levels in regulators Frequency and accessibility of safety data disclosures
P2: Equity through fair distribution	Risk–benefit distribution; justice	Share of benefits (jobs, revenues) accruing to host vs. non-host communities Exposure to risks (radiation, waste storage) by demographic group
P3: Inclusion through stakeholder inclusion	Engagement breadth and depth	Number and frequency of stakeholder consultation Representativeness of participants across gender, socioeconomic, and regional groups

) that translate Q-NPT’s propositions into measurable dimensions of governance. These indicators provide empirical traction—allowing comparison, monitoring, and hypothesis testing across contexts—thereby extending Q-NPT from a conceptual synthesis into a practically implementable and analytically testable governance model.

By linking constructs such as trust, equity, and inclusion to observable indicators—survey-based trust in regulators, distributional equity metrics, and the frequency and representativeness of stakeholder consultations—the framework becomes both operational and evaluative. This development marks a theoretical advance: Q-NPT not only integrates previously fragmented constructs but also identifies their interdependencies (e.g., transparency–trust feedback) in a structured, measurable form. The indicators thus serve as a foundation for comparative assessment and cross-national learning, offering policymakers and researchers a concrete toolkit for governance evaluation.

Collectively, these insights suggest that the Q-NPT framework offers a useful foundation not only for traditional nuclear energy governance but also for the oversight of emerging technologies. By highlighting how trust, equity, and stakeholder inclusion interact with novel technological risks and innovations, Q-NPT contributes principled guidance for sustaining legitimacy in evolving nuclear energy landscapes. Building on these insights, the next section distills their broader policy and research implications.

5. Conclusions

This study underscores that legitimacy in nuclear energy governance depends not only on technical compliance and regulatory rigor but equally on social trust, distributive equity, and active stakeholder inclusion. The Qudrat-Ullah Nuclear Peace and Trust (Q-NPT) framework operationalizes these principles through its three propositions, offering a structured approach that integrates ethical considerations, community perspectives, and policy priorities. By linking theory with empirical evidence, Q-NPT provides practical guidance for both established projects and emerging technologies—including microreactors, small modular reactors, and blockchain-supported fuel management systems—highlighting the centrality of fairness, transparency, and inclusion.

Unlike earlier governance approaches that treat trust, equity, transparency, and inclusion as separate or loosely related constructs, the Q-NPT framework synthesizes them into a unified, operational architecture specific to nuclear energy transitions. Its originality lies in mapping the causal interdependencies among these dimensions—such as transparency–trust feedbacks and inclusion–equity reinforcement loops—and in translating them into measurable indicators. This integration moves beyond conceptual discussions of “good governance” toward a testable, evidence-based model that captures the systemic dynamics of legitimacy in complex energy systems.

Emerging technologies amplify governance challenges, from balancing speed and innovation with regulation to addressing environmental justice, equitable risk distribution, and early-stage decision-making [21,29,30]. Q-NPT is well positioned to navigate these challenges, as its propositions foreground the trust-building, fairness, and participatory mechanisms required for legitimate governance.

Beyond individual projects, the framework carries broader policy and societal relevance. It provides national and international policymakers with practical guidance for institutionalizing participatory governance—through stakeholder advisory boards, transparent reporting, and inclusive decision-making—and supports alignment of nuclear energy development with societal expectations. By connecting governance principles to global priorities such as climate change mitigation, sustainable development, and equitable energy access, Q-NPT also illustrates how trust and fairness can strengthen international cooperation in building low-carbon energy systems.

At the same time, feasibility considerations must be acknowledged. Implementing participatory mechanisms and transparent monitoring entails significant financial and administrative costs, which may be difficult to sustain over the long term without dedicated resources. Efforts to embed equity and trust can also encounter institutional barriers, such as regulatory capture, fragmented governance responsibilities, or limited capacity within oversight bodies. Political resistance is another potential challenge, particularly in states with centralized or opaque decision-making traditions, where participatory practices may be seen as diluting authority or slowing down project timelines. Additionally, Q-NPT’s interaction with existing nonproliferation regimes (e.g., NPT and IAEA safeguards) requires careful navigation, as sovereignty concerns and national security priorities may constrain transparency. These barriers do not negate the framework’s value but highlight the importance of phased implementation, context-sensitive adaptation, and strong international coordination. Recognizing these constraints ensures that Q-NPT is applied with both ambition and realism, strengthening its practical credibility and policy relevance.

To further strengthen its applicability, this manuscript proposes a preliminary set of operational indicators (Table 3) that translate Q-NPT’s propositions into measurable dimensions of governance. Indicators such as survey-based trust in regulators, distributional analysis of risks and benefits, and the frequency and representativeness of stakeholder consultations provide a foundation for comparative application and cross-national learning. These tools help move Q-NPT from a conceptual framework toward a practically implementable governance model.

Conceptually, this study extends Q-NPT by empirically validating its propositions and situating the framework within contemporary debates. Potential critiques—such as concerns about feasibility or fit with existing governance regimes—are addressed through evidence-informed insights, demonstrating the framework’s robustness and complementarity. Future research should pursue cross-cultural validation, comparative assessments against other governance models, and the development of quantitative measures of trust, equity, and inclusion.

In sum, Q-NPT bridges theory and practice by integrating ethical, social, and technical dimensions into nuclear energy governance. Its emphasis on legitimacy, transparency, and fairness provides a roadmap for current projects and the responsible adoption of emerging technologies. By aligning stakeholder perspectives, empirical evidence, and policy insights, the framework helps ensure that nuclear energy governance remains not only technically sound but also socially acceptable, ethically grounded, and globally relevant. Additionally, the potential criticisms towards the Q-NPT framework are addressed in Appendix A.