A Social Licence for Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage: How Engineers and Managers Describe Community Relations

This article was downloaded by [Temple University Libraries]On 20 November 2014 At 0258Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number 1072954 Registeredoffice Mortimer House 37-41 Mortimer Street London W1T 3JH UK

Social Epistemology A Journal ofKnowledge Culture and PolicyPublication details including instructions for authors andsubscription informationhttpwwwtandfonlinecomloitsep20

A Social Licence for Carbon DioxideCapture and Storage How Engineersand Managers Describe CommunityRelationsAnne-Maree Dowd amp Mallory JamesPublished online 31 Jul 2014

To cite this article Anne-Maree Dowd amp Mallory James (2014) A Social Licence for CarbonDioxide Capture and Storage How Engineers and Managers Describe Community RelationsSocial Epistemology A Journal of Knowledge Culture and Policy 283-4 364-384 DOI101080026917282014922639

To link to this article httpdxdoiorg101080026917282014922639

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor amp Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theldquoContentrdquo) contained in the publications on our platform However Taylor amp Francisour agents and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy completeness or suitability for any purpose of the Content Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authorsand are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor amp Francis The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses actions claimsproceedings demands costs expenses damages and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content

This article may be used for research teaching and private study purposes Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction redistribution reselling loan sub-licensingsystematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden Terms ampConditions of access and use can be found at httpwwwtandfonlinecompageterms-and-conditions

A Social Licence for Carbon DioxideCapture and Storage How Engineersand Managers Describe CommunityRelationsAnne-Maree Dowd and Mallory James

Although extensive research has been devoted to public perceptions and acceptance ofcontroversial energy innovations the perspectives of people developing and implement-ing such technologies are relatively under-examined Other industries such as miningand social researchers have adopted the term ldquosocial licence to operaterdquo (SLO) to con-ceptualise communityndashindustry relationships Despite its potential applicability to car-bon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) technology SLO has received very littleattention in this context specifically from an engineering and managerial perspectiveThe internationally contested nature of CCS highlights the importance of examininghow engineers and managers discuss and understand the term SLO Given the centralrole of engineers and managers in developing CCS technology and contributing to thecreation of the contexts in which people relate to it knowledge of how they understandtheir connection to communities impacted by the technology is a key area requiringdevelopment Drawing upon semi-structured interviews with engineers and managersfrom Australian CCS projects this research considers their opinions of the relationshipbetween CCS projects and the local or national community and their understandingsof the SLO concept Results suggest that the emerging energy technology of CCSexposes some of SLOrsquos limitations for conceptualising and analysing thecommunityndashindustry relationship

Keywords Social Licence to Operate CCS Engineers Managers

Anne-Maree Dowd is a senior social scientist with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research

Organisation (CSIRO) within the Earth Sciences and Resource Engineering Division and works in the areas

of climate change mitigation public acceptance and adaptation Mallory James is a PhD student in the

Department of Anthropology of the University of Chicago 1126 East 59th St Chicago IL 60637 USA

Correspondence to Anne-Maree Dowd Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

PO Box 883 Kenmore QLD 4069 Australia Email Anne-MareeDowdcsiroau

2014 Taylor amp Francis

Social Epistemology 2014

Vol 28 Nos 3ndash4 364ndash384 httpdxdoiorg101080026917282014922639

Introduction

As issues of security of energy supply carbon emissions rising electricity pricesand increased accountability of governments intensify decisions around the final

portfolio of options for low carbon energy are likely to require increased levels ofsocietal acceptance (Batel Devine-Wright and Tangeland 2013) Over the pastdecade there have been a number of studies conducted to understand public

acceptance of a range of energy technologies in various countries (eg Ashworthet al 2010 Graham Stephenson and Smith 2009) Huijts Molin and Steg (2012)

define ldquoacceptancerdquo as behaviour that enables supports or promotes an energytechnology in contrast to open and expressed resistance to it while ldquoacceptabilityrdquo

is an attitude or evaluative judgement towards an energy technology ldquotolerancerdquoon the other hand where people are passively in favour of a technology and do

not take action against it has also been identified as a key concept which is relatedto acceptance but which is distinctly different (Lucke 1997) Some researchersargue that tolerance best characterises the most common status of societal accep-

tance of energy technologies to date (Huijts Midden and Meijnders 2007)Numerous instances of local community opposition to the deployment of spe-

cific energy projectsmdashfor example carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS)mdashhave been documented (Feenstra Mikunda and Brunsting 2010) CCS is still

relatively unknown compared to more established energy technologies such aswind solar coal fired power and hydroelectricity Despite this relative obscurity

there has been a growing body of international research aimed at understandingthe social factors that influence CCS project deployment from the viewpoint of

multiple stakeholders specifically from a community or public perspectiveAlthough extensive research has been devoted to public or community perceptionsof CCS the perspectives attitudes and values of those within the industry itself

(ie the people developing and implementing such technologies) are relativelyunder-examined

For CCS technology to reach its full potential by 2050 significant investmentand effort is required to launch new projects and to progress current demonstra-

tion sites to commercial scale (GCCSI 2012) The technological understanding ofCCS has increased substantially in recent years and public engagement efforts have

also progressed However it is clear that there are many aspects to this complexissue that still need to be investigated and articulated including the perspectives ofthe people who are involved in managing and implementing this technology Con-

sideration of the opinions of technical experts or managers on working with com-munities is limited in the CCS field (eg Gough 2008 Hansson and Bryngelsson

2009) and tends to consider their sense of barriers and opportunities to a projector the technology in general rather than specifically examining their perceptions

of communityndashindustry relationships Knowledge of how CCS engineers managersand decision-makers understand their relationship with the public beyond their

project teams is a key area requiring further investigation Not only do technicalexperts and managers actively transform the future by their work to make

particular innovations available (Franks et al 2010 Latour 1998) they are alsoimportant contributors to the social conversations surrounding new technologies

Their work provides the technical options that public and government stakeholdersmay choose while their knowledge contributes to the decisions made about how

to evaluate and implement such options Investigating what opinions beliefs atti-tudes and values they may hold about the social roles they play is essential to

inform a more complete understanding of current debates over energy and envi-ronmental technologies

In other industries such as mining industry actors and social researchers haveadopted the term ldquosocial licence to operaterdquo (SLO) to conceptualise communityndashindustry relationships (Lacey Parsons and Moffat 2012) Despite its potential

applicability to CCS technology SLO has received very little attention in this con-text This paper presents findings drawn from an environmental psychology per-

spective using an interpretive exploration approach which provide insights intohow engineers and managers in the CCS industry understand the concept of a

SLO and to what degree there is consistency in their understanding and applica-tion of the term This is important because of the role technical professionals play

in developing and framing the communication of the CCS technology

CCS and Industryndashcommunity Relations

The International Energy Agency (IEA) and other authorities state that CCS has

an important role to play in contributing to global energy security and greenhousegas emission reductions and in mitigating human effects on climate (Butt Gid-

dings and Jones 2012 IEA 2009) This technology has been developed as a climatechange mitigation option for fossil-fuelled power plants and other large industriesthat are significant generators of carbon dioxide (CO2) (GCCSI 2011) The CCS

process separates CO2 from other exhaust gases and contaminants and under highpressure compresses the gas into a supercritical fluid The liquid CO2 is then

transported to a location such as a geologic aquifer and ldquostoredrdquo permanentlyunderground The technology was developed as an alternative to the current

practice of releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere (GCCSI 2011) Yet despiteproponents communicating the potential of CCS many people worldwide have lit-

tle-to-no awareness or knowledge of the technology (European Commission 2011)Studies from Australia (Ashworth et al 2009) Canada (IPAC-CO2 2012a 2012b

Sharp Jaccard and Keith 2009) France (Ha-Doung Nadaı and Campos 2009)Germany (Fischedick et al 2009) Japan (Itaoka et al 2009 Itaoka Saito andAkai 2005) the Netherlands (de Best-Waldhober Daamen and Faaij 2009 de

Best-Waldhober et al 2011 de Coninck and Huijts 2005 Paukovic Brunsting andde Best-Waldhober 2011) the UK (Reiner et al 2006a) the US (Curry et al 2005

Palmgren et al 2004 Reiner et al 2006b ) Switzerland (Wallquist Visschers andSiegrist 2009) and Sweden (Reiner et al 2006a) all found that the general public in

these countries have low levels of knowledge about CCS both as a technology

366 A-M Dowd and M James

(particularly compared with other emission-reducing technologies such as windand solar power see European Commission 2011 Duan 2010) and the environ-

mental concerns it addressesWhen engaged on the topic of CCS community members tend to share similar

concerns regarding the technology Some fear that CO2 may leak out of the storagesite or during transportation put water sources at risk or hurt property values (de

Best-Waldhober et al 2011) Others are concerned that CCS is an ldquoend of piperdquotechnologymdashie meant to be added on to existing fossil-fuelled power plant infra-

structuremdashas opposed to a transformative innovation that would drive a changeaway from fossil fuel dependence towards other renewable energy sources(Hobman et al 2012) Furthermore social research addressing other energy infra-

structure projects has identified broad symbolic concerns encompassing mistrust ofcorporations and potential risks to ldquoplacerdquo (Devine-Wright 2011) Some CCS dem-

onstration projects have even experienced social and (eventual) political rejectionof the technology One example is in Barendrecht in the Netherlands in which

public protests were held about the project leading to its cancellation This demon-strates that in some instances CCS is a contested technology (Feenstra Mikunda

and Brunsting 2010)Due to the commercial imperative of the CCS industry the dominant focus

has been on technological innovation and development However public accep-tance of the technology has been identified as a potential showstopper for itsdevelopment and deployment (van Alphen et al 2007) From an environmental

psychology perspective people are not viewed as independent from technologicaldevelopment Therefore the CCS industry could benefit from adopting a socio-

technical systems approach in which technological development and society areperceived as influencing each other and developing in cooperation (Pasmore 2002

Schweizer-Ries 2008) Many terms exist to describe how managers and engineerscan embed a socio-technical systems approach into practice in order to address

the communityndashindustry relationship The terms that social researchers haveobserved in use include corporate social responsibility social responsibility sus-tainability sustainable development accountability ascribed obligations profes-

sional responsibility ethical practice public participation triple bottom line socialcapital and social contracts (Busby and Coeckelbergh 2003 Haase 2013 Kemp

Owen and van de Graaff 2012 Lucena and Schneider 2008 Vanasupa Chen andSlivovsky 2006) Each of these terms has a unique meaning and a particular yet

contested sphere of applicability In recent years professionals consultants andresearchers affiliated with multiple industries such as paper and pulp manufactur-

ing wind energy farming and mining have used the term SLO to conceptualisethe communityndashindustry relationship (Corvellec 2007 Gunningham Kagan and

Thornton 2004 Martin and Shepheard 2011 Thomson and Boutilier 2011a2011b)

Within the academic and consulting industry literature early articulation of

the SLO idea was provided by Warhurst (2001 64) who argued that the nature ofsocial licence is not concrete but relates to a companyrsquos ldquotrack record and

demonstrated intentrdquo Gunningham Kagan and Thornton (2004 308) describethe social licence as stakeholdersrsquo ldquodemands on and expectations forrdquo businesses to

act in certain waysmdashdemands which inspire businesses to go ldquobeyond compliancerdquowith the basic legal requirements with respect to socially valued behaviour Salz-

mann Ionescu-Somers and Steger (2006) elaborate on the notion of expectationsexplaining that the match or mismatch between public expectations and company

behaviour can create or damage a social licence The most extensive articulation ofthe concept derives from Thomson and Boutilier (2011b) who expand on Corvel-

lecrsquos (2007) notion of a ldquospectrumrdquo of licence intensities to describe a hierarchy oflevels of licence ranging from absence or withdrawal to celebration and ldquoco-own-ershiprdquo between community and industry (where ldquoco-ownershiprdquo means that

members of the project identify local industrial activities as somehow ldquotheirsrdquo)Most social researchers who write about SLO frame the relationship between

industry and community as one in which the community holds intangible andnon-permanent beliefs perceptions and opinions which industry attempts to influ-

ence in order to have their project integrated into the communityrsquos social fabricThe goal of this influence attempt is to earn and maintain ldquoongoing approvalrdquo or

ldquobroad social acceptancerdquo and achieve successful integration between the projectand community in a region (Joyce and Thomson 2000 Thomson and Boutilier

2011b) In this context researchers have defined SLO as informal permission givenfrom the local community and broader society to industry to pursue technicalwork (Thomson and Boutilier 2011b) For the purpose of this research the Thom-

son and Boutilier definition of a SLO was adopted and forms the foundation ofthe analytical framework Across the definitions identified in the literature two

clear actors with two distinct roles are acknowledged The first actor is the ldquocom-munityrdquo which from a possession perspective retains particular beliefs percep-

tions and opinions as well as the ability to provide informal consent orauthorisation for industry to pursue its goals The second actor is ldquoindustryrdquo

which from a persuasion and securing perspective continually endeavours to gainintegration and support for their goals

Parsons and Moffat (2014) have critiqued the SLO concept through a discourse

analysis of its use in industry publications and public communications materialsThey found that its use in texts serves to obscure where agency lies and by appro-

priating and ldquopartiallyrdquo accommodating language critical to industry serves tosupport the maintenance of existing power relations The authors state further that

current definitions of SLO can be flawed due to the generalising and non-discur-sive approaches to understanding local and wider issues and legitimacy Boutilier

and Thomsonrsquos (2011) work identifies the role of both economic and socio-politi-cal legitimacy which acknowledges the influence of financial and well-being bene-

fits on community acceptance From a socio-technical systems approachprocedural justice also plays a key role in acceptance (Pasmore 2002) This alignswith Boutilier and Thomsonrsquos (2011) approach to understanding SLO in which

processes perceived to be fair respectful and contributing to the well-being of thecommunity can lead to acceptance Although other similar concepts also adopt

these constructs a SLO is distinctive due to its focus on stakeholder perceptionsrather than seeking legitimisation (Parsons and Moffat 2014) This distinction is

an area of criticism for some academics (eg Owen and Kemp 2013) who perceiveSLO as simply a term used by industry in an attempt to manage community

opposition to developmentsResearchers have also endeavoured to model a social licence and to test it

empirically in the mining industry in Australia and Latin America (ACCSR 2011Moffat Parsons and Lacey 2011 Thomson and Boutilier 2011a) The term has

since become part of how the mining industry speaks about communityrelations and it can be found on mining company websites and in industrypublications as well as in the discourse of governments and non-governmental

and research organisations (Lacey Parsons and Moffat 2012) The concept isnow being extended beyond its roots in mining to other industries such as

energy (Boutilier 2007)

CCS in Terms of a SLO

Considering CCS as a technology and SLO as a concept together can be analyti-

cally and practically productive The SLO term is well used by mining consultantsand is seen as an ldquoindustry termrdquo or ldquoinsider languagerdquo for community relations

(ACCSR 2011 Thomson and Boutilier 2011b) Despite this usage the conceptappears to have received only passing attention and very limited written use in

the CCS context (eg Chabun 2012 Liu Garcia and Vredenburg 2011 Shook2011) This is surprising given the involvement and overlap between engineering

and management professionals across the CCS oil gas and mining industries (egcompanies using CCS in situations such as the ldquoenhanced oil recoveryrdquo processutilise the same technical staff in both operationsmdashGCCSI 2012) In addition the

particular topics of SLO and good community relations generally as conceptua-lised by technical professionals seem to have been largely overlooked by the

majority of CCS researchers The most closely related studies examine how sus-tainability is conceptualised by Danish (Haase 2013) and Australian (Azapagic

Perdan and Shallcross 2005 Carew and Mitchell 2002) engineering students Forthe most part existing empirical studies of how technical professionals relate to

ldquopublicsrdquo or ldquocommunitiesrdquo have been either subcomponents of larger ethno-graphic projects (eg Choy 2011) oriented towards critique and immediate practi-

cal change in areas such as curricula (Brauer 2013 Michelfelder and Jones 2013Vanasupa Chen and Slivovsky 2006) or codes of ethics (Harris 2008) or basedon non-interview data (eg analysis of student writingsmdashCarew and Mitchell

2002) Therefore our research aimed to address this empirical gap by specificallytargeting engineers and managers in the CCS industry and investigating their

understanding and use of and values and attitudes towards the SLO term and itsapplication

The Present Study

Investigating SLO in the context of CCS may illuminate engineer and managerperceptions of communityndashindustry relations by exploring if they view the SLO

concept as adequate or inadequate It could also shed a different light on the SLOconcept itself by demonstrating ways in which CCS is unique among contestedtechnologies and contribute to the understanding of the relationships between

CCS projects and communities Therefore the research question for this studywas how do people in the CCS industry understand the concept of SLO and what

degree of consistency is there in their understanding and application of the term

Methodology

For this study 17 (n = 17) individuals affiliated with CCS technology and its

implementation in Australian projects were interviewed Participants comprisedengineers and managers holding positions in industry (n = 6) non-governmental

organisations (n = 4) research or academic organisations (n = 4) and government(n = 3) None of the participants had worked in CCS throughout their entire

careers rather they had come from backgrounds including mining energy airquality research exploration geology low emissions technologies and transporta-

tion Approximately half (n = 9) of the participants were associated with multipleAustralian CCS projects while the remainder were affiliated or had been affiliatedwith single projects Most reported low to moderate levels of interaction with

members of the public as part of their rolesParticipants were recruited for telephone or in-person interviews by email invi-

tation in a snowball sampling process They were asked to speak from their experi-ence as individuals who work in CCS research and development (RampD) and RampD

management rather than as official representatives of their specific projects Eachwas informed that their responses would be de-identified Most participants con-

sented to have their interview audio recorded and for the few who did not pro-vide consent extensive notes were taken during the interview Recorded interviewswere transcribed and the transcripts were organised for analysis into categories by

type of organisation with which the interviewee was affiliatedSemi-structured questions were used to compare inter-participant agreement or

consistency of the definition of the SLO term and to explore the values and atti-tudes participants attributed to the term Based on questions developed by Lacey

Parsons and Moffat (2012) participants were asked to provide their understand-ing of the SLO concept opinions of appropriate and effective community relations

for CCS and whether and how SLO applies to CCS in Australia In addition somedescriptive questions were used to elicit how the participants describe their own

professional identities values and attitudes regarding the lived experience of theirwork in the CCS context (Anderson et al 2010) Analysis was conducted using aninterpretive exploration approach (Creswell 2012) which entailed identifying board

themes that describe participantsrsquo understandings of SLO and their associatedvalues and attitudes

Results

Understanding of the SLO Term

Most participants considered themselves familiar with the term ldquoSLOrdquo Theyreported having heard it used in the late 1990s typically in the mining explorationor energy fields or at a conference related to CCS technology Most believed that

SLO is not a new term and felt that nearly everyone working in CCS or in theenergy or minerals industries would recognise it As one participant stated ldquoI

think that everybody who is involved in an industry these days would be familiarwith the concept hellip it has worked its way in to peoplersquos way of thinking and talk-

ing about issuesrdquo (interviewee SC146316) Several others mentioned that SLO isused particularly within socially contested industries such as nuclear power and

the defence industry One participant expressed surprise that social researchershave begun to consider SLO so ldquolaterdquo given that industry professionals have been

using it for at least a decade ldquoSLO is something thatrsquos been aroundminusI canrsquot eventhink of when I first heard it Irsquove been in the industry for 30 something years Itrsquoscome to mean different things to different people more recently But basically itrsquos

public acceptance of your right to operate an extractive industry And therersquos animplicit recognition of a fact in there that if the public wishes to make life diffi-

cult of course they canrdquo (interviewee SC153216) This comment reflects the earlierwork captured by Gunningham Kagan and Thornton (2004) and Joyce and

Thomson (2000) which focused on the significance of a SLO having direct andindirect impacts on an operation based on community opposition These impacts

were usually framed as financial costs or damage to corporate reputations Thestatement made by the participant also suggests organisational legitimacy being akey element of a SLO

Participants who expressed familiarity with SLO provided a wide variety of def-initions of the concept The majority stated that SLO exists in addition to a legal

licence and must be arranged with multiple segments of the public However in-terviewees emphasised different aspects of the concept SLO was repeatedly defined

in four related ways

(1) overt acceptance of onersquos ability to operate in an extractive industry

(2) having the community want the project and that it fills a local need(3) being able to contribute to economic prosperity while doing business in an

environmentally sensitive way and giving back to the community whereyou are located and

(4) being able to coexist in a mutually beneficial way

The SLO concept was clearly understood to have a variety of meanings in the CCSindustry Some participants approached the meaning of the concept from an inter-

nal industry dialogue perspective for example ldquoIt is project terminologyrdquo (inter-viewee SC135245) ldquoIt is certainly a term that is used at higher levels in

organisationsrdquo (interviewee SC146316) ldquoI would call it internally always a SLO Imean it sometimes gets dressed up as public opinion or things like that but what

wersquore really talking about is a SLOrdquo (interviewee SC153216) Others identified anoutward looking perspective such as trying to consolidate social issues related to a

CCS project or determining whether one is required ldquoItrsquos a very convenient con-cept to categorise a whole topic of issues that you have to deal with in a particularproject [] just a handy way to categorise issuesrdquo (interviewee SC191994) ldquoit is

clear If you donrsquot have one you need itrdquo (interviewee SC135245)Not only are the needs knowledge gaps and issues related to SLO in the CCS

industry different compared with other industries the meaning of SLO for CCSalso varies based on geographic and community contexts For example ldquothe com-

munity of course is most active in Queensland because of the issues to do withthe coal bed methane industry and the general groundwater issuesrdquo (interviewee

SC161951) Participants also acknowledge that SLO exists on multiple scalesldquoTherersquos themdashyour local community social licence and then a broader community

social licence And then when you get to politicians itrsquos the actual licence itrsquos nota social licence Theyrsquore the ones who create the legislation and the regulation thatusuallymdashthat provide the licencerdquo (interviewee SC161951) On this topic several

participants raised the idea that if a project has ldquono local communityrdquo the localSLO is indistinguishable from or ldquorevertsrdquo to a national SLO This can create an

issue for individual CCS projects that cannot work to establish a local SLOthrough education engagement and communication plans Rather they must rely

on a higher scale SLO of CCS which has been shown to consist of members ofthe general public who often have little-to-no knowledge or interest in the technol-

ogy and who are not directly impacted by it Therefore gaining a SLO in extre-mely remote areas relies on the CCS industry establishing a SLO at the nationallevel which is then applied to their operation This is viewed as a higher risk due

to its reliance on others CCS operators and the willingness of the general commu-nity to gain knowledge and accept CCS without direct involvement or influence

In discussing SLO participants also addressed other terms and concepts relat-ing to the socially responsible conduct of industrial activities including triple bot-

tom line reporting sustainability social contract and corporate socialresponsibility A few participants (n = 4) stated that the term SLO is unnecessary

and that the ldquoold-fashionedrdquo approach of ldquostakeholder engagementrdquo still appliesldquoin the past I would have done the sensible thing of interacting with stakeholdersrdquo

(interviewee SC180139) At times during the interviews when participants werequestioned regarding which terms they favour and how the terms relate theyexpressed that all the concepts are related and the fine-grained distinctions between

them are merely ldquoterminologyrdquo rather than reflective of an important underlyingdifference It appears that most participants did not see SLO as a truly different

discourse from other terminology used to describe responsible corporate practiceldquoThe concept is the same it is how you phrase it If you are doing the right thing

by the environment or the community then you have a SLO and you are actingsustainablyrdquo (interviewee SC175905) In addition one participant explained ldquoyou

can argue about a social licence as something you get from the community but asocial responsibility is probably something that youmdashmore something that you do

or give to start withrdquo (interviewee SC161951)

Attitudes and Values towards the SLO Term

The majority (n = 15) of participants displayed a positive attitude towards SLO

suggesting that it is a ldquouseful termrdquo as it is ldquoclearrdquo ldquoproject terminologyrdquo and aldquoconvenient way to sum up a whole set of issuesrdquo It is particularly useful given

the extreme importance of extra-legal issues in industries such as mining that haveheld long-term relationships with their host communities One participant did not

like the term because it seems to generate various legal considerations aligns withregulatory language and fails to be clearly measurable as present or lacking Someparticipants stated that SLO is not something that they are responsible for while

others even though they were reluctant to define the term were exceedinglydetailed about how they ensure their work has a SLO through testing and measur-

ing various indicatorsSLO and the ideas expressed by the concept clearly held important business

and personal value for participants Many participants (n = 12) argued that theideas and values represented by SLO are part of their organisationrsquos culture or

their own professional histories For example one participant stated that compa-nies ldquothat understand that theyrsquore in it for the long haul and [if] they want to bethe developer of choice will really put a lot of effort into thisrdquo (interviewee

SC153216) Participants who referred to extra-legal considerations spoke aboutissues of principle of right conduct connecting SLO to an ethical framework

ldquothere are things in this society and in others where people simply say lsquonorsquo even ifthe company followed all of the laws there is some overriding principle here that

we would not want them to go aheadrdquo (interviewee SC146316) Others resistedthe term altogether stating that ldquoIt should not apply [to CCS] because in my

opinion we need to develop the closer involvement with the community and notexercise some sort of licenserdquo (interviewee SC314372) Some also preferred to sim-

ply think of the term as ldquointeracting with stakeholdersrdquo (interviewee SC180139) asthey had before hearing of SLO Overall there was a considerable amount of vari-ety in the responses provided by participants when applying the SLO term in a

practical way By mentioning the importance of process and the building of rela-tionships participants reflected an understanding of a socio-technical systems

approach to the development of CCS as well as encapsulating elements of respectand well-being from a socio-political legitimacy perspective This major attitude

characteristic seems to be not only supported by organisational guidelines and pro-cesses but also to be reflected in professional and practitioner standards

Community Beliefs Perceptions and Opinions

The participants shared a common view of the beliefs perceptions and opinions heldby communities towards CCS According to participants the community believes

that CO2 is a pollutant and therefore that CCS is associated with idea of waste dis-posal Further CCS appears to be linked to fossil fuels and to potential subsurfacewater risk and there is a perception among community members that CCS creates

fewer local jobs and less revenue for those who carry it out compared to other extrac-tion industries such as mining and gas Participants also stated that uncertainty

around CCS can detract from community support for the technology In order toaddress the negative perceptions of the technology and to achieve a social licence

participants believe that the CCS industry will have to reduce the costs of the tech-nology and demonstrate that the process can be done safely without impacting com-

munity resources For example regarding costs one participant stated

There are two factors which I fear as being absolutely critical to the discussion andthat is what are the cost estimates that you see for the cost of power out of a CCSplant And when do you see these plants being built And what Irsquom getting at here isthat the potential viability of a financial viability and a business case of a CCS projectand when that might be built necessarily flavours the entire discussion (intervieweeSC153216)

The implication is that if CCS is not perceived as a viable technology for financialreasons it will be hard to motivate public interest (in the broadest sense of atten-

tion) towards developing an opinion regarding it Participants did not believe thatthe CCS industry as a whole currently possesses a SLO from the Australian public

This belief was based on a perception of a lack of public awareness and knowledgeof the technology combined with negative opinions One participant said ldquoI would

say that currently the general public opinion of CCS is more negative than posi-tive and perhaps a bit sceptical whether itrsquos going to be an effective strategy ornotrdquo (interviewee SC191994) A few participants (n = 5) stated that a SLO for CCS

was unclear clouded and dependent on geographic area or that it was too early totell ldquoI think we donrsquot know yet I think it is uncertain at the presentrdquo (intervie-

wee SC146316) In terms of the general public I think at this point in time it isprobably mixed hellip due to the fact that the public generally might not be aware of

the concept or understand the concept well (interviewee SC180139) One partici-pant said that the licence does exist but only with some segments of the public

This is exemplified by the lack of dramatic action by people located geographicallyclose to CCS projects ldquoBroadly speaking there is of late No-one has gone up and

fired a gun at the [project infrastructure]mdashthere are things there although therehavenrsquot been any real protests at the site You know people could do those thingsI guess if they wantedrdquo (interviewee SC161951) Participants typically stated that

the social licence though missing or unclear is being pursued and the fact thatthere are projects currently operating ldquoon the groundrdquo implies that a provisional

SLO has been granted at least in some places Nevertheless any SLO that exists ishighly tentative ldquoany adverse performance by the technology particularly in an

area where there are a lot of people could kill the technology off in this countryrdquo(interviewee SC146316) From this perspective participants were reflecting upon

the volatility and intangibility of a social licence which is only exacerbated by thelack of knowledge held by the public about the CCS technology itself The combi-

nation of these elements showed ambiguity in whether there was or even an abilitygain a SLO for CCS

Managing Community Expectations

With regards to obtaining a SLO from communities participants perceived a needto proactively address community expectations ldquoa significant part of the early

stage of community engagement will be managing the expectations on the onehand and making sure that everyone understands what the deal isrdquo (interviewee

SC153216) Here ldquothe dealrdquo means the likely project effects such as job creationor compensation for land use It was repeatedly asserted that ldquopeople who have

experience of the oil and gas industry are possibly led to expect payments fromthis type of projectrdquo (interviewee SC161951) However not all participants sawexpectations as something to be ldquomanagedrdquo and questioned the appropriateness of

this management approach ldquoThe public are the owners The intruders are the pro-ponents Communities are the ones who belong there the intruders are the guests

One should not have too many expectations in dealing with the communityrdquo(interviewee SC175905) This statement relates to a theme which emerged consis-

tently from the data respect for other peoplersquos needs and concerns Participantsfelt that CCS proponents need to work actively in imagining and anticipating what

those particular needs and concerns could be based on for the specific situation ofthe person and communities experiencing them This approach reflects the currentunderstanding of SLO in the literature which addresses how gaining a SLO

depends on how well an organisation is able to meet stakeholder expectations withtheir actions (Salzmann Ionescu-Somers and Steger 2006) The issue participants

raise specifically concerning the CCS industry is that the expectations set bystakeholders are usually based on previous experiences with other industries such

as mining gas and oil This can be a major issue for CCS projects due to thesmaller scale impact and economic contributions made at the operational level

Gaining a SLO from Communities at the Project Level

A few interviewees (n = 5) suggested participation in CCS projects may not becompletely ldquooptionalrdquo for community members in the sense of a free and uncon-

strained choice among equally viable alternatives Regarding gaining a SLO inregional areas one participant stated ldquoif yoursquore talking particularly about CCS

things might be a bit easier in remote communities partly because small commu-nities are probably spread out not in the vicinity of a plant for example that

might threaten things partly because in remote communities any sort of eco-nomic benefits and spin-offs that come from a project might be a plus point

directlyrdquo (interviewee SC180139) This sense that economic benefits are experi-enced differently depending on geographic area and population density suggests

that when community members offer a social licence to a project their choice todo so may be more or less influenced by economic considerations This challenges

the assumption that providing a SLO or getting involved as a project team mem-ber is a free choice that attains legitimacy due to its unconstrained and voluntary

natureIn addition participants cited that in the case of at least one Australian CCS

project in order to grant an extractive industry legal permission to operate in a

particular geographic area inclusion of the CCS technology in the wider projectwas in fact made mandatory by governmental regulators This challenges any ten-

dency to treat the inclusion of the CCS technology as merely ldquolicencedrdquo by thepublic rather than required or subject to more complex incentives and regula-

tionsFurthermore a few (n = 4) participants affiliated with industry workplaces

expressed that if CCS were to become more visible to the public in the sense ofgaining a negative reputation their companies would be less interested in being

associated with it ldquoIf CCS is perceived as very negative [then] companies that doit as a social contribution [will be less interested]rdquo (interviewee SC135245) Thisstatement relates to an important point that interviewees expressed repeatedly

CCS research does not necessarily create direct financial benefits for its industrydevelopers in the same way that oil gas mining and other industries that refer to

SLO draw benefit from their work

Industry Contributions Values and Attitudes in Gaining a SLO

Participants focused on the contributions they could make to the ldquoeffective work-

ing relationshiprdquo between community and CCS projects They described a need toengage in dialogue early with the local community where ldquoearlyrdquo meant either as

soon as possible or as soon as it becomes likely that the project will take placeParticipants noted that pursuing public dialogue before having the ability to

answer questions from community members should be approached with cautionas it can leave proponents ldquoexposedrdquo It was also noted that individuals external to

the project who attend dialogue efforts are often capable of (and involved in)checking the factual basis of project staffrsquos public remarks

When asked what people beyond the project teams contribute to CCS projects

interview participants identified a wide-ranging list of forms of assistance providedby multiple stakeholders such as local community members and groups non-gov-

ernment organisations and government These included the provision of local staff(eg site liaison officers or information distributors) land access and use local

knowledge to support project activities (eg location of roads) support for public

awareness relevant to the technologyrsquos global status (ie by discussing CCS andpaying their attention to it) and access to tax revenues through government

agencies which support CCS projectsParticipants affirmed a belief in the value of openly addressing the technologyrsquos

capabilities risks opportunities and impact at the international and local levelsNearly all stressed the values of openness transparency and ldquocompleterdquo informa-

tion including clear statements of uncertainties One participant expressed theview that a community should first hear all aspects of a CCS project from the pro-

ject proponents directly However another participant stated that it is critical notto openly discuss any divisions that might exist between the project team partnerswith the public and that messages from the team partners for audiences beyond

the project team must be consistent from one team member to the next In addi-tion participants commented on the importance of getting community members

physically involved in the running of a CCS project (eg attendance at meetingsand consultations or employment)

Finally participants reported on their attitudes towards gaining a SLO basedon the geographical locations of the projects Some CCS efforts are offshore

ldquo[Project name] is likely to be an offshore storage site [] Because the storageis offshore there wonrsquotmdashparticularly depending on how far offshore it is

mdashthere wonrsquot be a direct local community problem in that senserdquo (intervieweeSC161951) Many engineers and managers commented that it is easier to gaina SLO in less populated areas For instance it was stated that lsquoI have to say

that in a couple of our projects we were quite delighted when we found gooddisposal geology where there was absolutely no-one living But it would

increase your costs so it swings and roundabouts Look yoursquore going to needpeople to work on the projectsrsquo (interviewee SC153216) Another stated more

plainly that it is simply easier to have a relationship with 10 people as opposedto 10000

Engineers and managers suggested that for projects further away from a givenpersonrsquos permanent home the person may simply care lessmdashthat is CCS may notbe an issue that is meaningful to them While addressing the technology in terms

of imaginary ldquoscale barsrdquo or gradients indicating the strength of various factors orvariable influencing SLO one participant said ldquoPeople still have an opinion on

whether they think itrsquos a good idea or not on the technology itself but therersquosanother scale bar that you should perhaps consider and this is lsquowhether they think

itrsquos important or notrsquo I suspect the reply will depend on if a project is influencingthem or not on that scale bar they might think that CCS is a great idea if a pro-

ject is a long way away from where they live and itrsquos not affecting them maybe itrsquosnot that important Whereas if you were to try to do a project near where they

live they might think itrsquos really importantrdquo (interviewee SC191994) Intervieweesshared the opinion that the attention awareness and care that publics directtowards a CCS project decreases with the physical distance between them and the

project

Discussion

Inconsistent Understanding of the SLO Concept

The four commonly articulated definitions of SLO provided by participants

encompass community acceptance of industry community desire for industryindustry benefitting the community and mutual benefit Other less frequently

identified definitions of SLO included being allowed to continue to operate (iepublic tolerance) not encountering public ldquooutragerdquo or opposition (ie lack ofopposition) and ensuring that social issues will not cause considerable distraction

for project management (ie ensuring a lack of problematic or distracting opposi-tion) These findings are similar to those found in Lacey Parsons and Moffat

(2012) mining industry research in which most participants perceived the SLOconcept as widely understood and used in the research literature yet provided

diverse conceptual definitions including acceptance desire beneficial relationshipsor mutual benefit and lack of opposition In addition to the diversity of SLO defi-

nitions this studyrsquos research participants also tended to omit discussing one ortwo elements of the theoretical definition of the term such as trust and companyreputation until prompted This indicates not only an inconsistency between

industry representatives on the definition of SLO but also a variation within theacademic scope of the term which has been demonstrated to be inconsistent as

well (Lacey Parsons and Moffat 2012)Despite this inconsistency the research participants did report similar under-

standings of the concept evident in the existing literature identifying for examplethat SLO exists in addition to legal licence (Gunningham Kagan and Thornton

2004) has a ldquospectrumrdquo of intensities (Corvellec 2007) and requires fundamentalstakeholder communication and engagement principles (Ashworth et al 2010)

However most participants were torn between an internal (eg project terminology)and an external (eg categorising community issues) conceptualisation of the termFurther the majority of participants (n = 16) were unable to differentiate between

SLO and other related concepts such as corporate social responsibility These find-ings are also similar to previous research in the mining sector where industry repre-

sentatives did not distinguish between the various terms and showed a discoursefocus on terms like acceptance approval and support which were used in an evalua-

tive context rather than a values approach (Parsons and Moffat 2014) Overall inaddressing the research question our findings show that there is currently no consis-

tent understanding of the SLO concept in the CCS industry Therefore considerationneeds to be given to the possible underlying causes of this inconsistency

Issues Related to a Lack of Knowledge and Interest in Negotiating a SLO

While it has been well documented that people beyond project teams often lackknowledge and awareness of CCS (eg Ashworth et al 2011) the research

participants provided useful insights into the issue of the public understanding ofCCS technology Firstly engineers and managers saw the broader public as lacking

a factual basis for their approval or disapproval of CCS Consequently they arenot able to give the informed consent or refusal implied by SLO Respondents also

commented that both benign and hazardous elements of CCS stand to be misper-ceived by non-specialists Furthermore participants widely agreed that CCS lacks

the broad social visibility of other industries (eg mining) that have adopted theSLO concept No participant believed that it would be valuable or meaningful to

speak about SLO in the absence of public knowledge awareness or understandingof CCS In fact most participants (n = 12) argued against the national-level appli-cability of the SLO concept for this reason suggesting that it would be impossible

to obtain a licence from people who are not informed about the technology Thisdemonstrates the participantsrsquo ability to conceptualise the development of the CCS

industry from a socio-technical systems approach Participants recognised thatboth the technical and social elements need to co-evolve overtime otherwise the

technology will not reach its full capabilitySecondly beyond issues of knowledge participants raised concern of public

interest attention and care Many participants believed that even the act ofinforming oneself about CCS technology or discussing it in a public sphere can

be seen as a contribution towards its development and that this is a contributionthat not everyone beyond the project teams is willing (or should be expected) tomake Participants commented that the attention awareness and care people direct

towards a CCS project varies but is associated with their geographic proximity toproposed or actual CCS projects The further away people are from an actual CCS

project the less attention awareness and care people direct towards CCS in gen-eral This was highlighted as an issue for CCS projects that intend to be located in

extremely remote geographical areas and the reliance those projectsrsquo would haveon a national acceptance of CCS A similar risk therefore emerges in this area If

SLO is judged by visible indicators a lack of knowledge and interest may not beclearly distinguishable from the presence or absence of a ldquolicencerdquo This raises therisk that social actors (including social researchers) who discuss SLO rather than

alternative conceptualisations of the industryndashcommunity relationship may misper-ceive a lack of knowledge interest and care to comprise a lack of a SLO

Values and Attitude towards SLO

Overall participants shared a common belief in the value of open communicationabout CCS although there was some discrepancy on the level and timing of the

dialogue as well as physical involvement of the community Both approaches wereaimed at having a positive effect on building knowledge and acceptance at the pro-

ject level Participants also reflected a respectful attitude towards communitiesparticularly when discussing co-location Attitudes differed in some instances

around the interpretation of the motivation of communities in providing a SLO

which is often perceived as being driven mainly by economic considerations Yetthere was also mixed attitudes with regards to their own motivations for locating

CCS projects in particular locations Attitudes expressed reflected financialconsiderations similar to the perceived community driver but social ones were also

evident for example showing a preference for projects in less populated areas as ameans of avoiding social issues These attitudes reflect a perceived level of

tolerance for the CCS technology from communities as well as a level of toleranceof communities with regards to CCS projects This finding is consistent with the

literature with regards to the difference between acceptance and toleranceAcceptance and acceptability both encapsulate an attitudinal as well as behaviouralexpression of support enabling and judgement towards an industry operation or

technology (Huijts Molin and Steg 2012) Yet tolerance only captures an attitudeof acknowledgement or recognition with no action (Lucke 1997) Therefore

tolerance of CCS from a community perspective is perceived to manifest itself ineconomic demands or expectations and a lack of protests lobbying and other

challenging activities From a CCS industry perspective tolerance of communitiescan be expressed in terms of locating projects as far away from highly populated

areas as possible If the SLO term is to be applied in a legitimate way to the CCSindustry then attitudes of tolerance will create barriers and the use of the term

will be seen as industry attempting to manage potential community oppositioninstead of both parties developing and learning from each other As outlined byThomson and Boutilier (2011) action alongside attitude is needed to embed the

SLO concept Turning attitudes towards acceptance of communities will influencethe way engineers and managers provide technical options contribute

knowledge and participate in decision-making evaluation and communicationframing

Conclusion

Given the transformative potential of new technologies and the fact that industrydecisions inevitably affect project-to-society relationships it is essential to under-

stand how technical staff and decision-makers relate to the surrounding socialenvironment This research examined the consistency of engineersrsquo and managersrsquo

understanding and use of the term SLO in the CCS context as well as their atti-tudes and values The research process revealed that participantsrsquo definition mean-

ing and practical application of the term varied which reflects similar findings inthe mining sector CCS is a technology that is poorly understood and may notseem important to people beyond the project teams if they are located far away

from the research efforts With a lack of public understanding of and clear iden-tity for this type of project the communities in which CCS is or maybe deployed

may not therefore be able to provide a SLO or have a conversation regarding it inthe same way that they could for a more well-known industry and type of research

effort

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank each of the research participants for their timeand to acknowledge the feedback provided by CSIRO colleagues and external

reviewers in the production of this paper

References

ACCSR 2011 Upper hunter mining dialogue Report on the stakeholder survey for the NSW miner-als council Melbourne Australian Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility

van Alphen K Q van Voorst tot Voorst M P Hekkert and R E H M Smits 2007 Societalacceptance of carbon capture and storage technologies Energy Policy 35 4368ndash80

Anderson K J B S S Courter T McGlamery T M Nathans-Kelly and C G Nicometo2010 Understanding engineering work and identity A cross-case analysis of engineerswithin six firms Engineering Studies 2 (3) 153ndash74

Ashworth P N Boughen M Mayhew and F Millar 2009 An integrated roadmap of commu-nication activities around carbon capture and storage in Australia and beyond Energy Pro-cedia 1 (1) 4749ndash56

mdashmdashmdash 2010 From research to action Now we have to move on CCS communication Interna-tional Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 4 (2) 426ndash33

Azapagic A S Perdan and D Shallcross 2005 How much do engineering students knowabout sustainable development The findings of an international survey and possibleimplications for the engineering curriculum European Journal of Engineering Education 30(1) 1ndash19

Batel S P Devine-Wright and T Tangeland 2013 Social acceptance of low carbon energy andassociated infrastructures A critical discussion Energy Policy 58 1ndash5

de Best-Waldhober M D Daamen and A Faaij 2009 Informed and uninformed public opin-ions on CO2 capture and storage technologies in the Netherlands International Journal ofGreenhouse Gas Control 3 (3) 322ndash32

de Best-Waldhober M M Paukovic S Brunsting and D Daamen 2011 Awareness knowl-edge beliefs and opinions regarding CCS of the Dutch general public before and afterinformation Energy Procedia 4 6292ndash99

Boutilier R 2007 Social capital in firm-stakeholder networks A corporate role in communitydevelopment Journal of Corporate Citizenship 2007 121ndash34

Boutilier R and I Thompson 2011 Modelling and measuring the social license to operateFruits of a dialogue between theory and practice The social licence to operate Seminar atthe Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining 15 July University of Queensland Bris-bane

Brauer C S 2013 Just sustainability Sustainability and social justice in professional codes ofethics for engineers Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (3) 875ndash91

Busby J S and M Coeckelbergh 2003 The social ascription of obligations to engineers Scienceand Engineering Ethics 9 (3) 363ndash76

Butt T E R D Giddings and K G Jones 2012 Environmental sustainability and climatechange mitigationmdashCCS technology better having it than not having it at all Environ-mental Progress amp Sustainable Energy 31 (4) 642ndash49

Carew A L and C A Mitchell 2002 Characterizing undergraduate engineering studentsrsquounderstanding of sustainability European Journal of Engineering Education 27 (4) 349ndash61

Chabun W 2012 Carbon sequestration lsquovery importantrsquo IPAC CO2 aims to move tech for-ward Leader Post (Regina) Available from httpwwwleaderpostcomtechnologyCarbonplusmnsequestrationplusmnveryplusmnimportant6539189storyhtml INTERNET

Choy T K 2011 Ecologies of comparison An ethnography of endangerment in Hong Kong Dur-ham Duke University Press

Corvellec H 2007 Arguing for a license to operate The case of the Swedish wind power indus-try Corporate Communications An International Journal 12 (2) 129ndash44

Creswell J 2012 Qualitative inquiry and research design Choosing among five approaches Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage

Curry T D M Reiner S Ansolabehere and H J Herzog 2005 How aware is the public ofcarbon capture and storage In Greenhouse gas control technologies 7 edited by E S RubinD W Keith C F Gilboy M Wilson T Morris J Gale and K Thambimuthu pp1001ndash09 Philadelphia PA Elsevier

de Coninck H C and N M A Huijts 2005 Carbon dioxide capture and storage Public per-ception policy and regulatory issues in the Netherlands In Greenhouse gas control technol-ogies 7 edited by E S Rubin D W Keith C F Gilboy M Wilson T Morris J Galeand K Thambimuthu pp 2491ndash95 Philadelphia PA Elsevier

Devine-Wright P 2011 Place attachment and public acceptance of renewable energy A tidalenergy case study Journal of Environmental Psychology 31 336ndash43

Duan H 2010 The public perspective of carbon capture and storage for CO2 emission reduc-tions in China Energy Policy 38 (9) 5281ndash89

European Commission 2011 Special Eurobarometer Report 364 Public awareness and accep-tance of CO2 capture and storage Available from httpeceuropaeupublic_opinionindex_enhtm INTERNET

Feenstra C F J T Mikunda and S Brunsting 2010 What happened in Barendrecht Case studyon the planned onshore carbon dioxide storage in Barendrecht the Netherlands PullenvaleCSIRO

Fischedick M K Pietzner N Supersberger A Esken W Kuckshinrichs and P Zapp 2009Stakeholder acceptance of carbon capture and storage in Germany Energy Procedia 1 (1)4783ndash7

Franks D M T Cohen B McLellan and D Brereton 2010 Technology futures discussion paperTechnology assessment and the minerals down under national research flagship Prepared forCSIRO Minerals Down Under Flagship Minerals Futures Cluster Collaboration by theCentre for Social Responsibility in Mining Sustainable Minerals Institute Brisbane TheUniversity of Queensland

GCCSI 2011 The global status of CCS 2011 Canberra Global CCS Institute Available fromhttpwwwglobalccsinstitutecompublicationsglobal-status-ccs-2011 INTERNET

mdashmdashmdash 2012 The global status of CCS 2012 Canberra Global CCS Institute Available fromhttpwwwglobalccsinstitutecompublicationsglobal-status-ccs-2012-summary-reportINTERNET

Gough C 2008 State of the art in carbon dioxide capture and storage in the UK An expertsrsquoreview International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 2 (1) 155ndash68

Graham J J Stephenson and I Smith 2009 Public perceptions of wind energy developmentsCase studies from New Zealand Energy Policy 37 3348ndash57

Gunningham N R A Kagan and D Thornton 2004 Social licence and environmental protec-tion Why businesses go beyond compliance Law amp Social Inquiry 29 (2) 307ndash41

Haase S 2013 An engineering dilemma Sustainability in the eyes of future technology profes-sionals Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (3) 893ndash911

Ha-Duong M A Nadaı and A S Campos 2009 A survey on the public perception of CCS inFrance International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 3 (5) 633ndash40

Hansson A and M Bryngelsson 2009 Expert opinions on carbon dioxide capture and storagemdashA framing of uncertainties and possibilities Energy Policy 37 (6) 2273ndash82

Harris Jr C E 2008 The good engineer Giving virtue its due in engineering ethics Science andEngineering Ethics 14 (2) 153ndash64

Hobman E V P Ashworth P Graham and J Hayward 2012 The Australian publicrsquos prefer-ences for energy sources and related technologies Pullenvale CSIRO

Huijts N M A C J H Midden and A L Meijnders 2007 Social acceptance of carbon diox-ide storage Energy Policy 35 2780ndash89

Huijts N M A E J E Molin and L Steg 2012 Psychological factors influencing sustainableenergy technology acceptance A review-based comprehensive framework Renewable andSustainable Energy Reviews 16 (1) 525ndash31

IEA 2009 Technology roadmap Carbon capture and storage Paris IEAOECDIPAC-CO2 2012a Public awareness and acceptance of carbon capture and storage in Canada A

national report Available from httpipac-co2comuploadsFileSurveysIPAC-CO22020201220-20National20Surveypdf INTERNET

mdashmdashmdash 2012b Public awareness and acceptance of carbon capture and storage in SaskatchewanAvailable from httpipac-co2comuploadsFilePDFsIPAC20CO2_Saskatchewan20Report20(22Jun12)pdf INTERNET

Itaoka K Y Okuda A Saito and M Akai 2009 Influential information and factors for socialacceptance of CCS The 2nd round survey of public opinion in Japan Energy Procedia 1 (1)4803ndash10

Itaoka K A Saito and M Akai 2005 Public acceptance of CO2 capture and storage technol-ogy A survey of public opinion to explore influential factors In Greenhouse Gas ControlTechnologies 7 edited by E S Rubin D W Keith C F Gilboy M Wilson T Morris JGale and K Thambimuthu pp 1011ndash9 Philadelphia PA Elsevier

Joyce S and I Thomson 2000 Earning a social licence to operate Social acceptability andresource development in Latin America CIM Bulletin 93 (1037) 49ndash53

Kemp D J R Owen and S van de Graaff 2012 Corporate social responsibility mining andldquoaudit culturerdquo Journal of Cleaner Production 24 1ndash10

Lacey J R Parsons and K Moffat 2012 Exploring the concept of a social licence to operate in the Aus-tralian minerals industry Results from interviews with industry representatives Brisbane CSIRO

Latour B 1998 Give me a laboratory and I will move the world In The Science Studies Readeredited by M Biagioli pp 67ndash83 London Routledge

Liu X P Garcia and H Vredenburg 2011 Greenhouse gas mitigation efforts of Chinese stateoil companies and the impacts on their financial performance Journal of InternationalBusiness amp Economics 11 (4) 121ndash34

Lucena J and J Schneider 2008 Engineers development and engineering education Fromnational to sustainable community development European Journal of Engineering Educa-tion 33 (3) 247ndash57

Lucke D 1997 Acceptance Legitimacy in the voting society Berlin Leske + Budrich OpladenMartin P and M Shepheard 2011 What is meant by the social licence In Defending the social

licence of farming edited by J Williams and P Martin pp 3ndash10 Collingwood CSIROMichelfelder D and S Jones 2013 Sustaining engineering codes of ethics for the twenty-first

century Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (1) 237ndash58Moffat K R Parsons and J Lacey 2011 How does a social licence operate Paper presented at

the Sustainable Development Indicators in the Minerals Industry (SDIMI) Conference14ndash17 June Germany Aachen

Owen J R and D Kemp 2013 Social licence and mining A critical perspective Resources Pol-icy 38 (1) 29ndash35

Palmgren C R M Granger Morgan W Bruine de Bruin and D W Keith 2004 Initial publicperceptions of deep geological and oceanic disposal of carbon dioxide Environmental Sci-ence amp Technology 38 (24) 6441ndash50

Parsons R and K Moffat 2014 Maintaining discursive legitimacy of a contested practice Howthe minerals industry understands its lsquosocial licence to operatersquo Social Epistemology Spe-cial Issue Social Licence to Operate

Pasmore W 2002 Action research in the workplace The socio-technical perspective In Hand-book of Action Research edited by P Reason and H Brandbury pp 38ndash47 London Sage

Paukovic M S Brunsting and M de Best-Waldhober 2011 The Dutch general publicrsquos opinion onCCS and energy transition Development in awareness knowledge beliefs and opinions related toinformation and media coverage Available from httpwwwco2-catoorgpublicationspublicationsthe-dutch-general-public-s-opinion-on-ccs-and-energy-transition-development-in-awareness-knowledge-beliefs-and-opinions-related-to-information-and-media-coverageINTERNET

Reiner D M T E Curry M A de Figueiredo H J Herzog S D Ansolabehere and KItaoka 2006a An international comparison of public attitudes towards carbon captureand storage technologies Eighth International Conference on Greenhouse Gas ControlTechnologies (GHGT-8) Trondheim Norway

mdashmdashmdash 2006b American exceptionalism Similarities and differences in national Attitudestoward energy policy and global warming Environmental Science amp Technology 40 (7)2093ndash8

Salzmann O A Ionescu-Somers and U Steger 2006 Corporate licence to operate (LTO) Reviewof the literature and research options Available from httpwwwimdchresearchpublicationsuploadCSM_Salzmann_Ionescu_Somers_Steger_WP_2006_23pdf INTERNET

Schweizer-Ries P 2008 Energy sustainable communities Environmental psychological investiga-tions Energy Policy 36 4126ndash35

Sharp J D M K Jaccard and D W Keith 2009 Anticipating public attitudes toward under-ground CO2 storage International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 3 (5) 641ndash51

Shook B 2011 Canada faces up to carbon capture challenges Natural Gas Week 27 (4) 12Thomson I and R Boutilier 2011a Modelling and measuring the social licence to operate Fruits

of a dialogue between theory and practice Available from httpsocialicencecompublicationsModelling20and20Measuring20the20SLOpdf INTERNET

mdashmdashmdash 2011b The social licence to operate In SME mining engineering handbook 3rd ededited by P Darling pp 673ndash90 Littleton CO Society for Mining Metallurgy andExploration

Vanasupa L K C Chen and L Slivovsky 2006 Global challenges as inspiration A classroomstrategy to foster social responsibility Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (2) 373ndash80

Wallquist L V H M Visschers and M Siegrist 2009 Lay concepts on CCS deployment inSwitzerland based on qualitative interviews International Journal of Greenhouse GasControl 3 (5) 652ndash7

Warhurst A 2001 Corporate citizenship and corporate social investment Drivers of tri-sectorpartnerships Journal of Corporate Citizenship 2001 (1) 57ndash73

Abstract

Introduction

CCS and Industry-community Relations


The Present Study

Methodology

Results







Discussion




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References

A Social Licence for Carbon DioxideCapture and Storage How Engineersand Managers Describe CommunityRelationsAnne-Maree Dowd and Mallory James

Although extensive research has been devoted to public perceptions and acceptance ofcontroversial energy innovations the perspectives of people developing and implement-ing such technologies are relatively under-examined Other industries such as miningand social researchers have adopted the term ldquosocial licence to operaterdquo (SLO) to con-ceptualise communityndashindustry relationships Despite its potential applicability to car-bon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) technology SLO has received very littleattention in this context specifically from an engineering and managerial perspectiveThe internationally contested nature of CCS highlights the importance of examininghow engineers and managers discuss and understand the term SLO Given the centralrole of engineers and managers in developing CCS technology and contributing to thecreation of the contexts in which people relate to it knowledge of how they understandtheir connection to communities impacted by the technology is a key area requiringdevelopment Drawing upon semi-structured interviews with engineers and managersfrom Australian CCS projects this research considers their opinions of the relationshipbetween CCS projects and the local or national community and their understandingsof the SLO concept Results suggest that the emerging energy technology of CCSexposes some of SLOrsquos limitations for conceptualising and analysing thecommunityndashindustry relationship

Keywords Social Licence to Operate CCS Engineers Managers

Anne-Maree Dowd is a senior social scientist with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research

Organisation (CSIRO) within the Earth Sciences and Resource Engineering Division and works in the areas

of climate change mitigation public acceptance and adaptation Mallory James is a PhD student in the

Department of Anthropology of the University of Chicago 1126 East 59th St Chicago IL 60637 USA

Correspondence to Anne-Maree Dowd Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

PO Box 883 Kenmore QLD 4069 Australia Email Anne-MareeDowdcsiroau

2014 Taylor amp Francis

Vol 28 Nos 3ndash4 364ndash384 httpdxdoiorg101080026917282014922639

Introduction

The Present Study

Methodology

Results

project

Discussion

Conclusion

effort

Acknowledgements

References

Abstract

Introduction



The Present Study

Methodology

Results







Discussion




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References

Introduction

The Present Study

Methodology

Results

project

Discussion

Conclusion

effort

Acknowledgements

References

Abstract

Introduction



The Present Study

Methodology

Results







Discussion




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References

The Present Study

Methodology

Results

project

Discussion

Conclusion

effort

Acknowledgements

References

Abstract

Introduction



The Present Study

Methodology

Results







Discussion




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References

The Present Study

Methodology

Results

project

Discussion

Conclusion

effort

Acknowledgements

References

Abstract

Introduction



The Present Study

Methodology

Results







Discussion




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References

The Present Study

Methodology

Results

project

Discussion

Conclusion

effort

Acknowledgements

References

Abstract

Introduction



The Present Study

Methodology

Results







Discussion




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References

The Present Study

Methodology

Results

project

Discussion

Conclusion

effort

Acknowledgements

References

Abstract

Introduction



The Present Study

Methodology

Results







Discussion




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References

The Present Study

Methodology

Results

project

Discussion

Conclusion

effort

Acknowledgements

References

Abstract

Introduction



The Present Study

Methodology

Results







Discussion




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References

Results

project

Discussion

Conclusion

effort

Acknowledgements

References

Abstract

Introduction



The Present Study

Methodology

Results







Discussion




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References

project

Discussion

Conclusion

effort

Acknowledgements

References

Abstract

Introduction



The Present Study

Methodology

Results







Discussion




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References

project

Discussion

Conclusion

effort

Acknowledgements

References

Abstract

Introduction



The Present Study

Methodology

Results







Discussion




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References

project

Discussion

Conclusion

effort

Acknowledgements

References

Abstract

Introduction



The Present Study

Methodology

Results







Discussion




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References

project

Discussion

Conclusion

effort

Acknowledgements

References

Abstract

Introduction



The Present Study

Methodology

Results







Discussion




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References

project

Discussion

Conclusion

effort

Acknowledgements

References

Abstract

Introduction



The Present Study

Methodology

Results







Discussion




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References

project

Discussion

Conclusion

effort

Acknowledgements

References

Abstract

Introduction



The Present Study

Methodology

Results







Discussion




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References

Discussion

Conclusion

effort

Acknowledgements

References

Abstract

Introduction



The Present Study

Methodology

Results







Discussion




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References

Conclusion

effort

Acknowledgements

References

Abstract

Introduction



The Present Study

Methodology

Results







Discussion




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References

Conclusion

effort

Acknowledgements

References

Abstract

Introduction



The Present Study

Methodology

Results







Discussion




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References

Acknowledgements

References

Abstract

Introduction



The Present Study

Methodology

Results







Discussion




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References

Abstract

Introduction



The Present Study

Methodology

Results







Discussion




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References

Abstract

Introduction



The Present Study

Methodology

Results







Discussion




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References

Abstract

Introduction



The Present Study

Methodology

Results







Discussion




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References

Documents

A Social Licence for Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage: How Engineers and Managers Describe Community Relations