In recent years, the various options of CCU have increasingly been discussed and developed by industry, economy, and academia. After capturing CO₂—e.g., from power plants by pre-combustion, post-combustion, oxyfuel processes, or the recently discussed air capture—CO₂ can be transported using trucks, ships, or pipelines to the respective production sites (Markewitz et al., 2012). Once it arrived, there are several ways to utilize CO₂, such as physical utilization, chemical utilization, or the preparation of inorganic materials. Calcite and hydrotalcite are examples of inorganic materials, which can be prepared using CO₂ whereby the CO₂ is not, or only partially, fixed (Yong et al., 2002). Physical utilization is highly promising as CO₂ can be involved in a wide range of applications, it can, e.g., be used as refrigerant for fire extinguishers or cleaning processes (Markewitz et al., 2012) and for the carbonation of beverages (Duran et al., 2008). In comparison diverse types of chemical utilization revealed to be most efficient (Fan et al., 2015) as there are diverse options which allow the long-term, partially permanent, storage of CO₂, e.g., by producing urea, methanol (e.g., production of fuels), cyclic carbonates, and salicylic acid (e.g., Markewitz et al., 2012). Currently, a lot of these innovations are on the threshold of technological implementation, are currently being tested, or have already been implemented in pilot projects [e.g., foam mattresses (Covestro, 2016) or fuels (MacDonald, 2015)]. CCU is highly promising for the production of (poly)carbonates and fuels, since the demand and sales volume are high in these sectors. Consequently, there is also a high potential to exploit CO₂ as a renewable resource thereby replacing fossil resources (mostly oil) which are otherwise used (Markewitz et al., 2012). In the case of producing plastics, such as (poly)carbonates, polyol, polypropylene, or polyurethane, CO₂ might serve as a basis for manufacturing by splitting the carbon block (C1) and could therefore be used for a variety of products, e.g., building materials or household articles (von der Assen and Bardow, 2014). An example in the field of synthetic fuels is the diesel-like synthetic oxymethylene ether (OME fuels) which can help to achieve climate targets by reducing NOx and soot emissions (Härtl et al., 2014; Feiling et al., 2016). Of course, a significant reduction of the global emission budget cannot be reached solely by applying CCU. However, studies on the life-cycle-assessment of CCU processes revealed that significant amounts of fossil resources (especially oil and gas), and also of CO₂ emissions during production, can be saved in comparison to conventional production (von der Assen and Bardow, 2014; von der Assen et al., 2014)

Next to technological, environmental, and economic perspectives on technology and innovative product development, it is of great importance to analyze, whether and how future users accept novel products, and what the underlying positive and negative arguments for public perception and acceptance are (Shackley et al., 2005; van Heek et al., 2017a). Understanding the public perception and acceptance of novel products allows the development of user-specific recommendations, public information, and guidelines for the development process—even before end products reach the market (Cooper et al., 2004)

Within social science research on the acceptance of sustainable energy technologies, several terms and concepts regarding social and public acceptance and public perception are used interchangeably. In the present study, (public) perception regards the public's subjective understanding of technologies which can be assessed empirically using measurable indicators (e.g., the level of awareness of CCU, or people's knowledge on and attitudes toward the technology). Acceptance refers to an active (intention to use novel products) or passive (tolerance toward novel products) approval or adoption of technologies and corresponding products. In this case, public acceptance is to be understood as the approval of large-scale energy technology development or implementation, which is assumed to be present if there is no active opposition against it (e.g., protests; Schweizer-Ries, 2008).

Large scale technologies with multi-year development processes are often abstract, and not easily comprehended by the general public, as potential consequences of the technology are usually unknown and therefore often perceived as risky or hazardous (Zaunbrecher and Ziefle, 2016). Integrating knowledge about public acceptance in the development process as early as possible, is therefore essential to adapt the technological development (Kowalewski et al., 2013), and to shape information and communication strategies (Zaunbrecher and Ziefle, 2016). For potential consumers, CCU as well as CCU products represent a novel, unfamiliar technology, for which hands-on experience does not exist yet.

To analyze the perception and acceptance of CCU, it is not appropriate to use traditional acceptance models [e.g., the technology acceptance model (TAM) (Davis, 1989) or derived models] as a theoretical basis, because these models mainly focus on existing technologies in the context of the usage of job-related information and communication technologies. Technology acceptance models referring to other large-scale technological areas (e.g., Siegrist, 2000; Huijts et al., 2012) provide a more suitable basis as they also integrate further factors such as trust, social norms, and the individual characteristics of the users and consumers. Siegrist (2000) found that trust in institutions influences the perception of benefits and barriers of a technology (here: gene technology), which is directly related to the acceptance of this technology. Huijts et al. (2012) presented a framework for the acceptance of technology thereby explaining the acceptance of sustainable energy technologies based on psychological theories. The model assumes that acceptance is influenced by individual factors, perceived costs, risks, and benefits, affective responses, (dis)trust, fairness of the implementation process, and personal and social norms. Similar to Siegrist (2000), Huijts et al. (2012) also integrated trust, defined as “trust in actors,” in their acceptance framework, modeling direct influences from trust on positive and negative affects as well as perceived benefits, costs, and risks.

Of course, these two models predominantly referred to large-scale technologies, which is why they cannot be simply transferred to the context of CCU on the product-level. Additionally, a more detailed definition and concept of trust is necessary to analyze trust as a presumably acceptance-relevant factor. Nevertheless, both models give an idea of acceptance relevant criteria concerning innovative energy topics and deliver a basis for the present study as there has been hardly an acceptance study referring to the product level in the CCU context so far.

Focusing on innovative technologies, products, and their evaluations, future customers or users weight and balance perceived benefits as well as perceived barriers and risks (trade-offs). Particularly with regard to risk perception and risk communication (Slovic, 1993), credibility as well as trust of future users in companies, operators, or manufacturers are of major importance and address different concepts (Renn and Levine, 1991).

On the one hand, trust means the expectancy that messages or information are true and reliable and represents a prerequisite for the assignment of credibility to a source. More detailed research investigated different concepts with regard to trust in organizations, i.e., competence-based and integrity-based trust, and revealed influences on risk perception and technology acceptance (CCS) (Terwel et al., 2009).

Credibility—in turn—rests on “long-term evidence and commonly shared experience that a source is competent, fair, flexible to new demands, and consistent in its task performance and communication efforts” (Renn and Levine, 1991, p. 180). In line with this definition of credibility, there is also the often used term “confidence” which refers to “the belief, based on experience or evidence, that certain future events will occur as expected” by Siegrist (2010) as well as Earle (2010).

Hence, these definitions suggests a distinction between credibility in information sources and trust in actors, companies, or industry as a multi-dimensional construct. As trust in actors and credibility of information sources were known to be influencing factors for the acceptance of large-scale energy technologies (Siegrist, 2000; Wüstenhagen et al., 2007; Huijts et al., 2012), we assume that these factors are also crucial for the acceptance of CCU technologies and derived products. For the current study, we defined trust based on Renn and Levine (1991) and used also their definition of credibility (not confidence) as it seems to be most suitable for the investigation of the underlying research question (see RQ2).

Furthermore, it is of relevance—within trust-related research and in line with McKnight et al. (2004)—to distinguish between trust and distrust as separate concepts arguing that both are able to co-exist and differ with regard to their emotional structure and impact: “while trust concepts tend to be calm and collected, distrust concepts embody significant levels of fear and insecurity” (p. 39–40).

Summarizing, the presented concepts show that it is necessary and useful to differentiate between credibility (in information sources) as well as trust and distrust when the acceptance and perception of innovative technologies and products is investigated.

In particular with regard to a marketing point of view, trust, and credibility are of major importance in the context of innovative “green” product acceptance (Pickett-Baker and Ozaki, 2008). Previous research on innovative technologies, products, and their marketing shows that it is of great importance (a) to highlight benefits for the environment, (b) to highlight the innovative character of products, and—simultaneously—(c) to pay attention to inform people equitably about benefits as well as potential risks (de Vries et al., 2016). If this is not the case, there could be consequences like perceptions of manipulation or greenwashing which will impede building trust and decrease credibility of involved actors and companies. The marketing of CCU and low-carbon products as an example of innovative energy technologies will have to face exactly these challenges.

During the last decades, numerous acceptance studies focusing on the predecessor technology of CCU—Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS)—have been conducted worldwide. The results revealed that the acceptance of CCS greatly varied depending on the different countries. In particular the storage of CO₂ on diverse storage sites was considered to be critical, e.g., in the Netherlands (Huijts et al., 2007; van Alphen et al., 2007), Japan (Itaoka et al., 2005), China (Yang et al., 2016), Germany (Fischedick et al., 2009), USA (Krause et al., 2014), and also in a study focusing on a comparison of Japan, Sweden, UK, and USA (Reiner et al., 2006). In the case of CCS, several studies investigated misconceptions and pseudo-opinions, missing and misleading information, as well as insufficient trust in the actors and institutions (e.g., Yang et al., 2016), as relevant factors which could lead to rejection or even protests against large-scale technologies and the accompanying manufactured products (Wallquist et al., 2010; Terwel et al., 2011; de Vries et al., 2016). Simultaneously, diverse studies revealed a lack of knowledge and awareness with regard to CCS which could also be related with missing trust and rejecting attitudes (e.g., Shackley et al., 2005; Yang et al., 2016; van Heek et al., 2017a,b). The results suggest that these factors might also be crucial in the context of CCU acceptance and should therefore be investigated in detail.

It is a current topic of public discussion and has been argued critically, that CCU and CCS are cofounded in the public and the media, even though both technologies address different technological issues and take up different roles in the environmental policy debate (Bruhn et al., 2016). For this reason, the present study aimed to investigate CCU separated from CCS, and did therefore not mention the potential relationship to CCS storage processes and technical issues in the introduction and instruction parts.

Jones et al. (2017b) summarized the current state of the art and provided a research agenda referring to the social acceptance of carbon dioxide utilization presenting previous qualitative and quantitative approaches. Within these studies on the acceptance of CCU, perceived benefits and risks concerning the technology itself were identified—e.g., conceptual, technological, and societal issues (Jones et al., 2015). The results of Jones et al. (2014) showed—among others—that people differ in their preferences for CCU options (e.g., the production of cement was ranked best, while transport fuels were ranked least) and that people are skeptical over the worth of CCU (e.g., “only delay an inevitable release of CO₂,” preventing societal change). Another study (van Heek et al., 2017a) investigated associations and acceptance of CO₂-derived plastic products revealing that people differ in their evaluation of product options (e.g., rejecting products which are close to the body). Further, research focused also on different dimensions of risk perception (Arning et al., 2017) differentiating between environmental risks, health risks (rated lowest), product feature and quality risks as (rated highest) well as sustainability risks. Current studies also concentrate on country-specific similarities and differences in the evaluation of CCU (Germany and UK, Jones et al., 2017a) and on people's awareness and evaluation of CCU whilst focusing on sustainability issues (Perdan et al., 2017).

In combination with the presented concepts and theories (section Acceptance of Sustainable Energy Technologies), it is therefore useful to conceptualize an explorative approach integrating perceived benefits and perceived barriers concerning CCU products, on the one hand, as well as trust, distrust, and credibility in information sources as potential acceptance-relevant factors, on the other hand.

This procedure is particularly necessary because (a) existing theoretical models for technology acceptance might not be able to assess the acceptance of the highly context-specific field of CCU technology acceptance (Arning et al., 2010) and (b) the field of trust in CCU industry and its relationship to the acceptance of CCU products is still underexplored.

Even though the number of studies which focused on the acceptance of CCU increased in the last few years, trust and distrust, specifically related to the CCU industry, have not been investigated so far as factors for the acceptance of CCU and CCU products. Therefore, the aim of the present study's research was to identify relevant trust and distrust criteria as well as acceptance parameters referring to the CCU industry. In order to gain a deeper understanding, we first conducted a qualitative preceding study in which the main relevant trust-related arguments in favor of or against CCU products were identified. On the base of the outcomes, a quantitative questionnaire study was run afterwards. The questionnaire aimed to analyze and measure levels and dimensions of trust, distrust and credibility, and their relationship to the acceptance of CCU products. Beyond the main factors revealed in the preceding interview study, previous CCU acceptance research findings (e.g., Jones et al., 2015) were integrated to connect the findings to, and to extend, previous knowledge as well as to examine the relationship between (dis)trust, perceptions, and the acceptance of CCU products. Hence, the following research questions were investigated in our study:

How do potential users evaluate diverse potential benefits, potential barriers, and the acceptance of different CCU products? (RQ1)

As the acceptance of specific CCU products, especially the impact of trust and distrust in companies as a factor for the acceptance of CO₂ derived products, has hardly been explored (see section The Public Perception of CCU), a preceding qualitative study was necessary to identify relevant perceived benefits and barriers, as well as trust and distrust criteria, in the context of CCU acceptance. Only after these factors have been determined, is it possible to reliably analyze the specific research questions and the relationships with the interacting acceptance. For that reason, we first used a qualitative interview study to reveal the most important factors concerning trust and CCU acceptance. Subsequently, we used an online questionnaire to quantify and weigh the previously identified acceptance- and trust-related factors. Within the next sections, a short summary of the interview study's key aspects and a detailed description of the quantitative online questionnaire's conceptualization, is given.

This section provides a short overview focusing on the method, the characteristics of the interviewed participants, and the key results that served as a basis for the quantitative study's design.

An online survey was developed to measure and weight the previously identified relevant aspects concerning trust and distrust in energy and chemistry companies, acceptance, and perception of CCU products, as well as desired information and marketing issues regarding CCU products. This section describes the design of the survey, the sample, and the statistical methods that were applied to analyze the results.

As mentioned in section Qualitative pre-study, the quantitative study's questionnaire items were based on the findings of the preceding qualitative interview study (full questionnaire can be seen in Data Sheet 1). After an introduction of the general topic (acceptance of CCU) and a short explanation of CCU as a technology which decreases CO₂ emissions (realistic proportions were labeled; von der Assen and Bardow, 2014) and saves fossil resources, the first part of the questionnaire addressed the participants' demographic characteristics namely age, gender, postal code, educational level, and family status.

In the second part, the participants were asked to assess the following attitudinal variables each by using several items that were based on validated constructs and aiming for assessing the participants' subjectively perceived attitudes or characteristics: attitude toward technology (using four items, α = 0.90; Beier, 1999; item example: “I really enjoy cracking a technical problem”), environmental awareness as well as conscious environmental behavior (using 12 items, α = 0.78; Kuckartz et al., 2007; item example: “If we continue as before, we are heading for an environmental disaster”), general interpersonal trust (using nine items, α = 0.86; McKnight et al., 2002; item example: “In general, people keep their promises”) (McKnight et al., 2002), and trust in experts (using three items, α = 0.90; (McKnight et al., 2002); item example: “Most experts are very competent in their field”). All these items were measured using six-point Likert scales (min = 1 = “I strongly disagree”; max = 6 = “I strongly agree”).

Afterwards, basics of the CCU technology were described in more detail and different usage options were introduced. The introductory texts were developed in collaboration with technical experts, were checked for comprehensibility by experts and laypeople in several iteratively conducted pretests, and contained the most important information about the CCU technology process steps based on Olfe-Kräutlein et al. (2014). As examples of products, products with different levels of proximity toward people were chosen: using CO₂ for the carbonization of beverages, a CO₂-derived mattress as an example of plastic products, and CO₂ derived fuels. The introduction was deliberately kept condensed, but still informative and objective. The questionnaire's introduction of CCU and CCU products is depictured in Figure 1.

After the introduction, the participants evaluated potential environmental benefits (using five items, α = 0.86; item example: “CCU is a solution to tackle climate change”), economic benefits (also using five items, α = 0.77; item example: “CCU technology will create new jobs”), and sustainability related benefits (using three items, α = 0.70; item example: “CCU gains time while trying to fight climate change”). Moreover, potential barriers were assessed by focusing on health risks (using four items, α = 0.74; item example: “CO₂ is a pollutant and could pose a hazard to human health”), unknown risks (using five items, α = 0.78; item example: “The CCU technology could pose unknown risks”), and sustainability related risks (using six items, α = 0.79; item example: “CCU promotes the continued use of fossil fuels”). All benefit, barrier, and risk items, which showed a high sensitivity toward CCU acceptance, were taken from previous studies in this field (e.g., Jones et al., 2015).

Furthermore, the participants assessed the acceptance of CO₂ derived products in general (by using three items, α = 0.80; item example: “I can generally imagine using CO₂ products”), but—differentiating between various usage options—also rated the acceptance of CO₂-utilization for the production of beverages (using two items, α = 0.88), the manufacture of mattresses (using three items, α = 0.88), and the production of fuels (also using three items, α = 0.85).

To analyze the relevance of trust and distrust (see section The Public Perception of CCU), the participants rated trust factors (using 20 items, α = 0.91) as well as distrust factors (using 13 items, α = 0.88). All used trust and distrust factors are illustrated in Tables 3, 4 in section Identification of Relevant Dimensions for Trust and Distrust in CCU Companies (RQ4). Additionally, the credibility of different information sources (see Figure 2) was evaluated based on Siegrist's (2000) trust in institutions construct (see section Acceptance of Sustainable Energy Technologies; the term “credibility” was used to distinguish it from the CCU industry related trust and distrust factors).

Finally, the participants' need for information concerning the manufacture of products (using eight items, α = 0.79), corresponding manufacturing companies (using seven items, α = 0.88), and desired marketing issues (using seven items, α = 0.88), were evaluated based on the findings of the preceding interview study (all aspects can be found in Table 2).

The assessment of all these items (benefits, barriers, acceptance, information need, marketing, trust, distrust) was also based on six-point Likert scales (1 = “I totally disagree”; 6 = “I totally agree”). Values >3.5 indicated approval, while values <3.5 showed the rejection of a statement.

During the completion of the online questionnaire, the participants were asked to assess several statements regarding the CCU technology in general to capture their opinion on the technology itself. Table 1 illustrates the results of descriptive and, compared to the mid-point of the scale, inference statistical analyses. The means for the following statements were significantly higher than the mean of the scale indicating that the participants were positive about the following attributes of CCU: CCU should only be considered as an alternative, next to other technologies, to combat climate change, and CCU signals a commitment to combat climate change. Furthermore, the participants were also positive about the statement that CCU should be accepted by the public (again, the mean was significantly higher than the mid-point of the scale). In contrast, the participants were neutral about the statement CCU is a “green” technology, as its mean was not significantly different from the mid-point of the scale.

Addressing RQ1, the results in Table 1 show that the participants were generally positive about CCU products (indicated by a significantly higher mean than the mid-point scale). Besides evaluation-related differences to the mid-point of the scale, t-tests were also calculated to investigate differences with regard to the perception of CCU products: among the given CCU product options, CCU fuels were perceived as the best option for the utilization of CO₂ (M = 4.3; SD = 1.0), while CCU mattresses [t_{(1, 126)} = 6.826, p < 0.01] and CO₂ usage for the carbonization of beverages [t_{(1, 126)} = 4.171; p < 0.01] were both evaluated significantly less positively in comparison to CCU fuels. CCU mattresses were the only product the participants were ambivalent about as the mean was not significantly different from the mid-point of the scale.

To obtain deeper insights into the acceptance motives and to answer RQ1, different dimensions of perceived benefits and barriers were also assessed by the participants (see Table 1). Concerning the perceived benefits, environmental, sustainability related, and economic benefits were evaluated on a similar level of significant agreement (as the means were significantly higher than the mid-point of the scale). In contrast, the participants were ambivalent about sustainability related risks and unknown risks as the means were not significantly different from the mid-point of the scale. The mean of health concerns was significantly lower than the mid-point of the scale indicating that the participants were negative about those type of risks (slight rejection).

As a basis to analyze the connection between trust, distrust, and the perception of CCU, it was very important to know, how the credibility of companies as information sources is evaluated in the context of CCU as well as in comparison with other institutions. Therefore, the participants were also asked to assess the credibility of different information sources. As depicted in Figure 2, the participants indicated to trust research institutions (M = 4.7; SD = 0.8) and environmental organizations (M = 4.5; SD = 1.0) the most, indicated by agreements that were significantly higher than the mid-point of the scale. Moreover, NGOs (M = 4.1; SD = 1.0) were also considered to be trustworthy indicated by significantly higher means than the mid-point of the scale. In contrast, the participants were ambivalent about the credibility of governmental institutions (M = 3.7; SD = 1.2) and companies (M = 3.4; SD = 1.0) indicated by means that did not differ significantly from the mid-point of the scale.

T-tests revealed that companies (M = 3.4; SD = 1.0) received the significantly lowest credibility evaluations compared to all other information sources, i.e., compared to governmental institutions [t_{(1, 126)} = 2.386; p < 0.05], NGOs [t_{(1, 126)} = 6.015; p < 0.01], environmental organizations [t_{(1, 126)} = 8.958; p < 0.01], and research institutions [t_{(1, 126)} = 12.809; p < 0.01].

To understand which information concerning CCU products, the manufacturing companies, and CCU product marketing, the participants desire, for each construct seven (information on companies, marketing) and eight items were evaluated (information on CCU products). Table 2 shows the results of descriptive and, compared to the mid-point of the scale, inference statistical analyses.

Regarding CCU products (see Table 2), significantly higher means than the mid-point of the scale indicated that the participants had a strong need for information on the price performance ratio and product quality. Likewise, the participants required information on the product ingredients as well as the country of production. The participants were ambivalent about information concerning the sustainability of production and animal testing as the means were not significantly different from the mid-point of the scale. Significantly lower means compared to the mid-point of the scales showed that information on working conditions and production procedure were not perceived as being relevant.

In respect to the need of information on CCU companies (see Table 2), the participants desired information on the company's image indicated by significantly higher means compared to the mid-point of the scale. The participants were ambivalent about information on the company's values and environmental management as the means were not significantly different from the mid-point of the scale, while the participants were significantly more negative about desiring information on the company's divisions, history, employees, and partner companies indicated by significantly lower means than the mid-point of the scale.

As a final aspect concerning the need of information, the participants were asked how CCU products should be marketed (see Table 2: all aspects were rated significantly higher compared to the mid-point of the scale). The aspects simplified representation of CCU technology, integrity, and highlighting sustainability were evaluated highest and were thus desired to be emphasized during the marketing of CCU products. Other aspects such as a seal of approval, an introduction to the company, an advertisement of the CCU technology, and general sobriety were also rated as being important for the marketing of CCU products.

Based on the findings from the interview study, the participants evaluated 20 trust- and 13 distrust-related items (see Tables 3, 4). All trust items were rated positively: Min: introduction of staff (M = 4.0; SD = 1.0); Max: observance of safety standards (M = 5.2; SD = 0.9). In the same way, all distrust-related items were rated positively: Min: using terminology customers don't understand (M = 4.6; SD = 1.2); Max: conscious customer deception (M = 5.5; SD = 0.7).

To figure out, of how many and which relevant dimensions trust and distrust consist, Principal Component Factor Analyses (PCA) were conducted. This was combined with item reliability analyses (Cronbachs's alpha) to test the internal homogeneity of each trust construct scale. The PCA was calculated for trust and distrust items separately as well as together in one analysis. The first “separate” calculation revealed 4 trust and 4 distrust dimensions, whereas the second alternative (“all in one”) revealed 8 dimensions. Those 8 dimensions were actually the same as the 4 trust and 4 distrust dimensions from the first calculation. Based on McKnight et al. 2004 (see section Acceptance of Sustainable Energy Technologies), the trust and distrust dimensions are reported separately due to the assumption that the dimensions have different emotional structures and impacts.

Quality criteria for factor analyses proved that the data matrix was suitable (Bartlett's test of Sphericity p < 0.001) and the KMO measure was 0.896, which indicates high levels of sampling adequacy. Four items with factor loadings and reliability coefficients < 0.6 were excluded from further analyses (Table 3) (Hair, 2011), and this way the number of trust-related items was reduced from 20 items (evaluated in the questionnaire) to 16 trust-relevant items (Table 3).

The analysis revealed four relevant trust dimensions: the first trust dimension was called “customer relationship” and contained aspects which mainly addressed a direct contact with the company or the company's staff. The second trust dimension was the “company's transparency” also referred to as fair and safe working conditions. The third trust dimension, “moral values,” focused on social commitment and the compliance with values, while the fourth factor dealt with the “company's reputation” and—next to a good reputation—it also regarded the recognized certifications of the company. All trust-related items were rated significantly higher than the mid-point of the scale (see Table 3).

The same analysis procedure was conducted for all distrust-relevant items, i.e., aspects that increase distrust in companies. Table 4 shows the results for distrust in CCU companies revealing four relevant distrust dimensions. Here, the Bartlett's test of Sphericity (p < 0.001) again proved that the data matrix was suitable and the KMO measure was 0.831. Two items with factor loadings and reliability coefficients < 0.6 were excluded from further analyses (Hair, 2011).

The first distrust dimension was called “customer deception” and—in addition to the conscious deception of customers—it also referred to the opacity of, and the contradiction of statements and actions made by the company. The second distrust factor, “bad customer orientation,” dealt with the direct contact to the staff, which also included the presence of unfriendly or incompetent staff and the usage of terminology which customers cannot understand. As a third distrust dimension “bad working conditions” referred to bad or missing working and safety conditions, while the fourth dimension, “negative image,” also included negative incidents concerning the company. All distrust-related items were rated significantly higher than the mid-point of the scale (see Table 4).

To statistically analyze the relationship between the factors and addressing RQ5, bi-variate correlation analyses were conducted. While care should be taken not to assume causality, the results indicated that there were linear relationships.

First, significant relationships between the acceptance and the perception of benefits (r = 0.444; p < 0.01), barriers (r = −0.329; p < 0.01), credibility of information sources (r = 0.376; p < 0.01), and the way CCU products should be marketed (r = 0.302; p < 0.01), were revealed. As illustrated in Table 5, the results showed linear interrelations between the perception of benefits and credibility of information sources (r = 0.501; p < 0.01), between the credibility of information sources and marketing issues referring to CCU products (r = 0.470; p < 0.01), as well as between the perception of benefits and perception on how the CCU products should be marketed (r = 0.696; p < 0.01).

When integrating trust and distrust dimensions in the analysis, the results revealed significant linear relationships between the perception of benefits and the following trust dimensions: “company's reputation” (r = 0.407; p < 0.01), “moral values” (r = 0.375; p < 0.01), and “customer relationship” (r = 0.198; p < 0.05). The perception of barriers was significantly related to the distrust dimension “negative image” (r = 0.258; p < 0.01) and correlated negatively with the trust dimension “company's reputation” (r = −0.233; p < 0.01). Furthermore, the perception of credibility of information sources was significantly related to the trust dimensions “moral values” (r = 0.362; p < 0.01) and “company's reputation” (r = 0.385; p < 0.01), and it correlated negatively with the distrust dimension “negative image” (r = −0.389; p < 0.01).

Table 5 also illustrates the correlation results focusing on the perception on how CCU products should be marketed. The perception of marketing issues significantly correlated with all trust dimensions: “customer relationship” (r = 0.423; p < 0.01), “company's transparency” (r = 0.279; p < 0.01) and “moral values” (r = 0.483; p < 0.01), while the dimension “company's reputation” showed, overall, the highest correlation (r = 0.598; p < 0.01). Concerning the distrust dimensions, “bad customer orientation” (r = 0.221; p < 0.05), “customer deception” (r = 0.328; p < 0.01), and “negative image” (r = 0.392; p < 0.01) correlated also significantly with the perception on how CCU products should be marketed.

Overall, the results show that the trust and distrust dimensions were related with the acceptance of CCU products by correlating with the perception of benefits, barriers, the credibility of information sources, and the way of marketing CCU products.

Whereas previous studies focused on trust in general, the current study took a closer look into the specific (dis)trust dimensions. Four dimensions, specifically trust and distrust in CCU companies and industry, were revealed covering different areas: personal contact with the company, (in)transparency of the information policy, public image of the company, working conditions, and moral values in general.

The results revealed that the perception of CCU products is directly connected to the acceptance of CCU products. On one hand, this is in line with previous findings on the perception of benefits and barriers (other technologies: Siegrist, 2000; Huijts et al., 2012; CCU: van Heek et al., 2017b). On the other hand, the results identified the perception on the credibility of information sources, and the perception on CCU product marketing, as (new) related and relevant parameters for the acceptance of CCU products. Moreover, our analyses revealed an indirect connection between CCU-industry-related trust and distrust dimensions and the acceptance of CCU products as there is a direct correlation of trust and distrust with the perception of CCU (benefits, barriers, credibility, and—in particular—CCU product marketing). Siegrist (2000) already postulated this relationship in the context of gene technology. Terwel et al. (2009) adapted the Siegrist model 2000 in the context of CCS and showed that institutional trust influenced the perception of benefits and barriers which in turn impacted the acceptance of CCS. The presented study found the same effect in the context of CCU, thereby confirming the acceptance model by Huijts et al. (2012) in which trust is also connected with the perception of benefits and barriers in the context of renewable energy infrastructures. Therefore, the presented results confirm existing acceptance models (Siegrist, 2000; Huijts et al., 2012) and extend the validity of the model assumptions for the context of CCU.

In addition, the present research contributes to an understanding of trust in the field of CCU acceptance by modeling trust as the credibility of information sources and by identifying and relating diverse dimensions of trust and distrust, which are relevant for the acceptance: the contact to the CCU company (customer relationship, customer deception, bad customer orientation), a (lack of) information transparency, the company's reputation and image, underlying moral values, and working conditions. It is noteworthy that the company's reputation is the only trust dimension (among the ones that were studied in this research) that was not only significantly related with the credibility of information sources, but also with the perceived benefits and barriers. Apparently, it is of utmost importance for companies, in the context of renewable energy technologies, to provide a clear, trustful, and honest public image as users attach a high value to this.

The results showed that the participants indicated a higher need for information on the CCU products than on the corresponding manufacturing company. Hence, information on the respective products should be provided to the consumers and to interested buyers before, and during, the purchase. The results also revealed a need for detailed product information which focuses on the product price, the product's ingredients, and product's quality, while information on the production procedure is not required. The participants' feedback (e.g., in open comment fields) showed that information should be communicated transparently and honestly to future users.

In accordance with previous studies (e.g., van Heek et al., 2017a), the participants demand to be informed exactly on the CO₂ derived products, even though, from an expert's point of view, the products' base substance is not different from conventional ones. In contrast to the experts' suggestion not to provide information on the products (as they are not substantially different from conventional products), this study explicitly showed the importance of informing “lay people” and fulfilling their need to be informed about CCU products. As taken from the comments in the interviews, participants expect that responsible stakeholder transparently informing the consumer as an inevitable precondition for building trust which—in turn—is an inevitable precondition for the acceptance of, and the willingness to adopt, CCU products. If companies choose to conceal this information—irrespective of the individual reasons for concealing information (“too complicated for laypeople,” “too bothersome to provide information,” “too risky to evoke public protest”)—people may perceive this information strategy as not being transparent or opaque, or they may even feel deceived by the company selling the CCU products, which evokes a feeling of distrust.

Previous studies on mental models regarding CO₂ and CCU confirm these suggestions as the participants frequently mentioned irrational (from a technical point of view) but psychologically understandable concerns, such as toxicity and harmfulness (“CO₂ is toxic and harmful for human health”) if they were asked for their associations to CO₂ (van Heek et al., 2017b). Research on risk communication in diverse areas has already shown that people need to get “good information” in order to be able to make sound choices and that the respective information has to be “carefully selected and clearly presented” (Morgan et al., 2002). Further, risk communication including specific information has to be designed and evaluated adequately in order (1) to avoid poorly structured or superfluous risk information that bore or frustrate recipients or lead to misconceptions and (2) to enable completing and correcting of existing mental models (Atman et al., 1994; Bostrom et al., 1994).

Therefore, if information is given to people in the context of CCU and CO₂ products, information and communication strategies also have to be developed carefully and should address the wishes and needs of future users of CCU products.

The participants also indicated to need a CCU product marketing that depicts the CCU technology in a simplified way and highlights the environmental and sustainability related benefits, but also the potential disadvantages. The openness when communicating benefits as well as potential disadvantages, is seen as an unmistakable indication of the companies' honesty and thus a sign of esteem toward the users. Out of the interviewees' perspective, users must be able to make the choice to adopt or not to adopt a technical product on the basis of all information on the product, the production process, and the manufacturer—in contrast to the product being coaxed and forced on by companies or politicians which market products for their own benefits (making money, winning elections). In this line of argumentation, a seal of approval—ideally provided by independent institutions—was requested by the participants, which could promote the communication of environmental benefits (especially savings of emissions and fossil resources). Future studies should investigate whether the fact that products use such a seal is even more important for specific groups of people, as our participants' feedback (in survey and interviews) suggests that people with a low inclination to need trust sources also differ regarding their previous trust experiences. For people who experienced distrust concerning innovative products, trust and distrust might generally be more important and—since “first impressions count”—the distrust experience shapes their behavior concerning the acceptance or rejection of innovative products (Dwyer et al., 1987; Cho, 2006).

A specific issue in developing effective communication strategies is the adequate handling of laypeople that do not have much technical knowledge, but rather rely their acceptance or trust decisions on affective beliefs and perceptions toward the reliability of public information and communication (Rowe and Wright, 2001; Achterberg et al., 2010). Schmidt and Donsbach (2016) reported that experts and laypeople do have different thematic priorities regarding information needs, which makes it essential to address those knowledge gaps of laypeople in order to steer an effective communication (Brunsting et al., 2013). Therefore, novel forms of public information strategies need to be developed: (a) laypeople should not be overloaded by generic information about technical facts (which they might not be interested in and which do not fill their knowledge gaps), and (b) the public should be integrated in policy decisions to learn in which way, about what, and also when in the product development process people need to be informed. In addition, public communication should be as transparent as possible and include both, an open-mined exchange of benefits and drawbacks as well as potential risks of a technology. By this, laypeople are empowered to correctly evaluate the trade-off between benefits and concerns (Brunsting et al., 2013). In this context, work done by Ashworth et al. (2009) and Pisarski and Ashworth (2013) is of impact. They argue that changes in opinion toward renewable energy technology can happen if community audiences are included in open and critical discussions (e.g., in form of round tables) which, in turn, increases laypeople's interest in engaging in energy-related topics and allow to form attitudes and opinions on a richer and more trusted information basis.

Using these recommendations might help to increase public knowledge about CCU and CCU products, increase consumers' trust in the technology and producers, and reduce the probability of forming misconceptions related to CO₂ derived products.

The present study was useful as a first study in the field of (dis)trust in CCU industry and its relationship to the acceptance of CCU products. Our approach gained insights into relevant trust and distrust criteria, and revealed an indirect relationship of trust and distrust with CCU product acceptance by a directly connection of trust and distrust to the perception of benefits, barriers, credibility, and desired marketing issues. However, there are still some methodological and content-related limitations which should be considered in future studies.

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.