On 4 December 2013 a special Global CCS Institute webinar was held where Laurent Jammes from Actys-BEE and Philippe Vervier from Acceptables Avenirs presented “findings and insights” from the ULCOS Study: http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/social-site-characterisation-stakeholder-management Since the early work of Sarah Wade and Sally Greenberg, comprehensive social site characterisation and stakeholder identification and analysis have been recognised as fundamental components of any successful CCS stakeholder engagement strategy. To bring these critical concepts to life for CCS project developers, the Institute supported two of France’s leading public engagement specialists to perform and record each of the key stages of a social site characterisation and prepare a stakeholder engagement process plan to an actual CCS project - the ULCOS Blast Furnace CCS project in Lorraine, France. The final report comprised four detailed case studies capturing all the processes and tools used to manage the following key public engagement processes: context analysis stakeholder identification and mapping issues identification and materiality analysis design and evaluation of the project stakeholder engagement plan. During this webinar, the report authors, Laurent Jammes, COO at Actys-BEE, and Philippe Vervier, CEO Acceptables Avenirs, introduced the key findings from the case study work and took questions on the processes and techniques used to achieve a comprehensive social site characterisation and create a successful stakeholder engagement strategy.

1. Examining processes of social site characterisation and
stakeholder engagement through detailed case studies of the
ULCOS CCS Project
Webinar – 4 December 2013, 1900 AEDT

2. Laurent Jammes
COO – Actys-Bee

Chief Operating Officer at Actys-Bee.

Expert consulting on subsurface engineering projects and
related public acceptance issues.

Member of several evaluation committees for research
programs on CO2 Capture and Storage and decarbonised
energy systems (EU, Germany and France).

23 years with Schlumberger, last position was Marketing &
Technique Director for Carbon Services.

Variety of technical and managerial positions in R&D, in
France and China.

Laurent gives many short courses and lectures on CCS to
Utilities, Oil & Gas companies and governmental agencies.

He teaches at the Nancy School of Geology and at the Earth
Physics Institute of Paris.

He has a PhD in Physics, an Engineering Diploma from
Ecole Centrale de Paris and a Masters in Psychology.

Laurent is a member of SPE.

3. Philippe Vervier
CEO – Acceptables Avenirs

Chief Executive Officer, Acceptables Avenirs .

Developing e-technology to support the social acceptance of
projects that have proven or potential environmental and
societal impacts.

Senior Researcher at the French National Research Centre
(CNRS) for 30 years, Philippe was the Executive Officer of a
cluster of 44 laboratories.

Research was on modeling complex systems, leading a
team of 30 scientists in biology, hydrology, ecotoxicology
and ecology.

Leads several multidisciplinary International and European
research programs combining social and natural sciences.

Developed methods and hybrid networks for science-policystakeholder interface.

Concert’Eau Methodology – a technological platform to
support environment planning with the participation of
stakeholders and integration of experts.

4. QUESTIONS
 We will collect questions during
the presentation.
 Your MC will pose these
question to the panel of
presenters after the
presentation.
 Please submit your questions
directly into the GoToWebinar
control panel.
The webinar will start shortly.

5. Outline
 An attempt to define social acceptability
 Towards Social Acceptance – a 2-phase methodology
o Social site characterisation:
1) Context analysis
2) Stakeholders identification and mapping
3) Materiality analysis of project-related issues
o Stakeholder engagement
 Conclusions and lessons learnt

6. What is social acceptance?
A socio-economical and ecological perspective introduces key
concepts…
Social acceptability is the result of a process during which stakeholders and project
developers work together to decide on the conditions to be fulfilled, so that the project
is seamlessly integrated, at a given time, in its natural and human environment.
A psychological approach highlights the dynamics of the process:
Conditions that result from a judgmental process by which individuals impacted by or in capacity to impact – a project:
1.Compare the perceived conditions in which a project is to be implemented with the
current situation and alternatives
2.Decide whether these conditions are acceptable or not
3.If existing condition are judged not to be sufficient, individual will initiate behavior often, but not always, within a constituency group - that is believed likely to shift
conditions toward a more favorable alternative.

7. Social acceptance in the CCS world
Practices
Findings and recommendations
Bełchatów
Findings
Involvement of scientists and NGOs
Monitoring of media
Opponents kept involved
Early stakeholder engagement does not
ensure public acceptance
Public opinion cannot be rushed – to do so
only raises resistance
Educating the public does not always
increase acceptance
Local opposition should not be
underestimated
Porto Tolle
Strong collaboration between supportive
stakeholders
Compostilla
Transparent communication and dialogue
Local presence of a scientist
Don Valley
Engagement approaches adapted to
stakeholders categories
Use of thematic groups
ROAD
Engagement based on stakeholder
mapping (interest/influence)
Jänschwalde
Use of a stakeholder engagement model
Acceptance of new ideas and solutions
Recommendations
Adapt communication to stakeholders
Adopt a transparent and open-minded
communication
Obtain support from local and central
governments
Involve scientists / research institutes and
supportive NGOs

8. In search of social acceptance…
Standard practices
Accounting for the context
Engaging stakeholders
1 - Project context analysis
Environmental and
Social Impact
Assessment
2 - Stakeholder
identification and mapping
Limited stakeholders’
interviews
3 - Materiality analysis of
issues and impacts
Definition of stakeholder
engagement strategy
Risk mitigation plan
4 - Stakeholder
engagement
Societal action plan
Social acceptability ?
Social acceptability

9. Outline
 An attempt to define social acceptability
 Towards Social Acceptance – a 2-phase methodology
o Social site characterisation:
1) Context analysis
2) Stakeholders identification and mapping
3) Materiality analysis of project-related issues
o Stakeholder engagement
 Conclusions and lessons learnt

10. 1 – Context analysis
Objectives
 Characterise and understand the characteristics of the project scope
 Identify key stakeholders
 Identify the main issues in the project area
Structured multi-factor analysis (PESTEL)
Political: What is the local political landscape? Its alignment with central
government?
Economic: How is structured local economy?
Social and cultural : What are the socio-demographic characteristics of the
area? Its cultural specificities? The industrial history?
Technological: What are the regional R&D activities? The competitive
advantages?
Environmental : What are the local conditions of flora and fauna? Protected
areas and species?
Legal: What is the regulatory framework for the project? Any local characteristics?

11. 2 – Stakeholder identification mapping
Who are the project stakeholders?
A project stakeholder is characterised
by their/its relationship to the project
A broad typology of stakeholder
can be adopted
C. In capacity to
influence the project
Public authorities

Economic actors
Civil society organisations

Local communities

Research institutes and
universities

B. Concerned by the
nature of project
impacts


A. Impacted by
the project
Company internal

12. 2 – Stakeholder identification mapping
Objectives
 List project stakeholders
 Evaluate the positioning of the stakeholder with respect to the project
 Evaluate the intensity of the relationship with the project
Power
Intensity of relationship:
High
Medium-High
Medium
Medium-Low
Low
High
Low
Low
High
Hostile
Challenging
Opportunist
Collaborative
Interest
Attitude

13. 2 – Stakeholder profiling
Objectives
 Identify stakeholder profiles which can be used to predict behaviour
Background influence
Attitude
Interest
(Attitude*)
Power /
influence
(Selfefficacy*)
Behavioural
Intention
(*) in the model of rational behaviour
Attitude
Profile
Intensity
High
High
Collaborative
Sponsor
High
High
Hostile
Opponent
High
High
Low
Challenging
Cynic
MediumHigh
High
Low
Collaborative
Sleeping
giant
Medium
High
Control beliefs &
perceived power
Interest
High
Behavioral beliefs &
outcome evaluation
Power
Low
Opportunist
Walking his
way
Medium
low
Low
Low
Opportunist
Silent
gambler
Low

14. 3 – Identification of project-related issues
Objective
 Identify topics of concerns for stakeholders and project developer

15. 3 – Materiality analysis of issues
Objective
 Evaluate the significance of issues for both stakeholders and project developer
Significance to
stakeholder
Important issue for stakeholders
and project developer:
Critical issue for external
stakeholders, but not for project
developer
Minor issue for external
stakeholders
Not material
Issue C
Issue A
Issue B
Significance to project
developer

16. Illustration with ULCOS – Social site characterisation
Project Description
Context Analysis
 Project supported by all politicians,
local to national.
 Moselle (Capture): Industrial
background but strong impact of
the economic crisis.
The CCS chain includes:
Capture on a Blast Furnace in
Florange, Moselle.
Transportation over about 80 km.
Storage in a deep saline aquifer in
Meuse.
 Meuse (Storage): Agricultural
activity.
 Nature (water, landscape) is an
important asset.
 Regulatory framework in place
(CCS directive and national
legislation).

17. Illustration with ULCOS – Social site characterisation
Stakeholder Mapping
Project Material Issues
Time-Bomb
Sponsor
Punisher
Ambusher
Cheerleader
Watchdog

18. Outline
 An attempt to define social acceptability
 Towards Social Acceptance – a 2-phase methodology
o Social site characterisation:
1) Context analysis
2) Stakeholders identification and mapping
3) Materiality analysis of project-related issues
o Stakeholder engagement
 Conclusions and lessons learnt

19. 4 – Stakeholder engagement
Objective
 Create an appropriate social context for successful project implementation.
Methodology
A step-by-step process to push forward the stakeholder involvement by revealing
and asserting their expectations, and by taking into account their positions and
demands.
To run the step-by-step process, the ULCOS Project has been split into 3 areas:
CO2 capture, transport and storage.
The engagement methodology was then simulated with ArcelorMittal data of a
stakeholder survey.

20. Context
3 components
Capture
Capture
Transport
Transport
Storage
Storage
Stakeholder concerns are specific regarding these 3 components
Focus group
Focus group
Capture
Capture
Focus group
Focus group
Transport
Transport
Focus group
Focus group
Storage
Storage
3 categories of strategic issues
Techno-economic
issues
Techno-economic
issues
Techno-economic
issues
Environmental
issues
Environmental
issues
Environmental
issues
Socio-economic
issues
Socio-economic
issues
Socio-economic
issues

21. Process
STEP 1
STEP 2
STEP 3
CONFIGURATION
EVALUATION
COMPARISON
 Focus groups
Evaluation matrix
 Options
 Criteria for options assessement
Environmental
Options are evaluated according to two criteria:
1.Equilibrium illustrates the propensity to balance the
three strategic issues (position of the circle)
2.Performance informs on the ability to comply with
strategic issues (size of the circle)
Socio-economic
Techno-economic

22. Results – Example of the storage component
The stakeholder engagement phase was simulated in a role-playing
exercise. Four ‘stakeholders’ were asked to propose and evaluate project
options (12 in total):
The project developer
The environmental alliance (local NGO)
A representative of the administration
A local government
Storage conditions (5)

Medium depth (around1000 m)

Deeper storage solution (> 1000m)

Safety barriers to ensure containment of
fluids (Prevention of leakage toward the
exploited part of aquifer)

Long-term trapping efficiency

Participation of stakeholders in project
management

Long-term operator liability (> 60 years)
Multiple storage complex

Project governance and liabilities (3)
 Stakeholder participation in the design of
the CO2 losses monitoring system
Local development (1)
 Creation of a research and education
platform
Operating conditions (3)

23. Results – Example of the storage component
Ranked Options based on simulation
1. Technical monitoring of CO2 losses survey (S5)
2. Research and education platform (S4)
3. Stakeholder participation in the design of the
CO2 losses monitoring system (S6)
Environmental
The previously identified material issues are
partially addressed by options:
•
1 and 3 for “Health and safety”
•
2 for “Social equilibrium”
•
2 and 3 for “Company image”
S11
S10 S7
S6 S12
S3
S8 S2
S9
S5
S4
S1
Techno-Economic
Socio-Economic

24. Main lessons learnt
Final stakeholder acceptance relies on each party’s ability to disentangle and
make preferences clear through science-based assessment and
comparison based on jointly-established rules.
 The adaptation to the socio-cultural, economic, political, environmental and
technical context.
 The respect of each proposed option (each proposed option is evaluated).
 The opening of the evaluation process to the stakeholders.

25. Conclusion and lessons learnt
 Social acceptability is the result of stakeholders’ judgment on the
conditions in which a project is implemented.
 These conditions should not be given but discussed and agreed upon
during the stakeholder engagement process.
 The favorable outcome of this ‘negotiation’ process depends on:
o The understanding of the project context
o The acknowledgement of stakeholders’ concerns (as well as project developer
constraints)
o The attitude and willingness of the project developer to engage into a dialogue
o A careful planning of the engagement strategy.
 A successful process requires a multidisciplinary team of to liaise
between project stakeholders and project developer.
 Conditions for social acceptability, including stakeholder engagement,
should be maintained throughout the project life.

26. QUESTIONS / DISCUSSION
Please submit your questions in
English directly into the
GoToWebinar control panel.
The webinar will start shortly.

27. Please submit any feedback to: webinar@globalccsinstitute.com
Report available from:
www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/social-site-characterisation-stakeholder-ma