Although extensive research has been devoted to public perceptions and acceptance of controversial energy innovations, the perspectives of people developing and implementing such technologies are relatively under-examined. Other industries, such as mining, and social researchers have adopted the term "social licence to operate" (SLO) to conceptualise community-industry relationships. Despite its potential applicability to carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) technology, SLO has received very little attention in this context, specifically from an engineering and managerial perspective. The internationally contested nature of CCS highlights the importance of examining how engineers and managers discuss and understand the term SLO. Given the central role of engineers and managers in developing CCS technology and contributing to the creation of the contexts in which people relate to it, knowledge of how they understand their connection to communities impacted by the technology is a key area requiring development. Drawing upon semi-structured interviews with engineers and managers from Australian CCS projects, this research considers their opinions of the relationship between CCS projects and the local or national community, and their understandings of the SLO concept. Results suggest that the emerging energy technology of CCS exposes some of SLO's limitations for conceptualising and analysing the community-industry relationship.

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. SAMS SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) CGSC SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)Command and General Staff College (CGSC) 1 Reynolds Avenue Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027 SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S) DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for Public Release; Distribution is Unlimited SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ABSTRACTTrust is an essential element that forms the core of the professional military ethic. As a foundational concept, trust, from an organizational perspective, facilitates the lasting commitment to meet strategic aims. Trust involves the expectation that the object of trust will behave in a favorable manner, or at least a non-harmful manner, and includes the willingness of a person to be vulnerable to the actions of another based on this expectation. Trust binds the Army together as a cohesive unit. However, internal to the Army profession, defined more directly as the Officer Corps, there is the perception of serious erosion of trust perhaps reaching dangerously dysfunctional levels.The mechanisms and building blocks for trust revolve around communication and relationships. In order to build relationships that foster trust, one must engage in communication. However, for the Army profession, the concept of communication is misunderstood. More importantly, the Army as a profession does not truly understand the concept of dialogue. This lack of understanding has allowed the perceived erosion of trust amongst the Officer Corps.This monograph seeks to address this issue by defining trust and the profession. It identifies the source of the perceived trust erosion within the profession. It provides a more complete definition of communication involving the concepts of discourse, dialogue and discussion, emphasizing the use of dialogue. It shows how the Army in attempting to build a learning organization, has failed to include dialogue in its efforts. Finally, this monograph provides recommendations on how the Army profession can seek to rebuild and sustain trust in the future through these concepts. Trust is an essential element that forms the core of the professional military ethic. As a foundational concept, trust, from an organizational perspective, facilitates the lasting commitment to meet strategic aims. Trust involves the expectation that the object of trust will behave in a favorable manner, or at least a non-harmful manner, and includes the willingness of a person to be vulnerable to the actions of another based on this expectation. Trust binds the Army together as a cohesive unit. However, internal to the Army profession, defined more directly as the Officer Corps, there is the perception of serious erosion of trust perhaps reaching dangerously ...