Guidelines for public engagement on H2 technologies' implementation (D3.4)

D3.4 Guidelines for public engagement on H2 technologies' implementation Ref. Ares(2025)7531285 - 10/09/2025 Contributors NAME ORGANISATION Daniela Martin IMI Dr Fanie van Rooyen IMI Peer Reviews NAME ORGANISATION Diego Iribarren IME Miroslava Tzekova BH2C Marianna Franchino ENVI Ilaria Schiavi ENVI Revision History D3.4 Guidelines for public engagement on H2 technologies' implementation DELIVERABLE TYPE Report MONTH AND DATE OF DELIVERABLE Month 28 WORK PACKAGE WP 3 LEADER IMI DISSEMINATION LEVEL Public AUTHORS Daniela Martin Dr Fanie van Rooyen PROGRAMME HORIZON EUROPE GRANT AGREEMENT 101111933 START June 2023 DURATION 28 months VERSION DATE REVIEWER VERSION NOTES 1 04/09/2025 Diego Iribarren (IMDEA) Small amendments suggested 2 05/09/2025 Ilaria Schiavi (ENVI) No additional comments 3 08/09/2025 Miroslava Tzekova (BH2C) No additional comments The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Union, neither the European Union Institutions and Bodies nor any person acting on their behalf. Partners’ short names ENVI Parco Scientifico Tecnologico Per L’ambiente Environment Park Torino Spa IMI Institute for Methods Innovation IME Fundación IMDEA Energía APRE Agenzia per la Promozione della Ricerca Europea CNH2 Centro Nacional Del Hidrógeno RIGP Regionalna Izba Gospodarcza Pomorza CLUSTER TWEED Cluster Tweed BH2C Balkanski Vodoroden Klaster Index of contents 1. Introduction 5 2. Public engagement in the context of hydrogen technologies 6 2.1 Why public engagement matters for hydrogen implementation 6 2.2 Key drivers and barriers 7 3. Guiding principles for effective engagement 9 4. The public engagement toolkit: Step‑by‑step process 11 4.1 Planning public engagement for hydrogen implementation 11 4.2 Develop products and materials 18 4.3 Implementing hydrogen public engagement activities 20 4.4 Analyse and report 23 4.5 Evaluate and refine 26 5. Resources 28 5.1 Templates and checklists 28 5.2 Engagement and communication toolkits 28 5.3 Evidence base and further reading 28 References 29 Index of tables Table 1: Key drivers of public acceptance 7 Table 2: Key barriers to public acceptance 8 Table 3: 3i analysis template 11 Table 4: Example of H₂ stakeholder types classified using the 3i framework 12 Table 5: Contextual considerations for hydrogen engagement 13 Table 6: Examples of SMART objectives for H₂ public engagement 13 Table 7: Template for building a Theory of Change 15 Table 8: Example of a Theory of Change for a hydrogen bus depot project 15 Table 9: Example audience profiles and communication tips 16 Table 10: Engagement formats – when to use them and what to watch out for 17 Table 11: Content formats for H₂ public engagement 19 Table 12: Practical tips for H₂ engagement logistics 20 Table 13: Common questions and short responses 22 Table 14: Safety actions for different phases of engagement 22 Table 15: Tools and metrics for live data monitoring 23 Table 17: Tips for presenting engagement results to different audiences 25 1. Introduction These guidelines are a practical tool for designing and delivering hydrogen-related projects that are trusted by local communities and backed by meaningful public engagement. They are written for people involved in project delivery, policy, and communication; municipal officers, EU project coordinators, NGOs, and industrial actors responsible for outreach and compliance. The guidance is grounded in real experience and tested methods. It draws on four main sources: a state-of-the-art review and EU-wide public opinion survey on hydrogen awareness 1 , an analysis of public engagement with H₂ via social media channels across the EU27 2 , a series of national workshops and international webinars involving citizens and professionals 3 , and a social life-cycle assessment examining the societal impacts of hydrogen production and use 4 . Together, these provide a rich evidence base on what people want to know, what concerns they have, and what builds or breaks public trust. The guidelines start with eight core principles that reflect what the evidence shows about good public engagement, including clarity, inclusiveness and responsiveness. These principles are then translated into practical steps: how to plan engagement activities, how to adapt materials for different audiences, how to run inclusive sessions, and how to monitor what’s working. Ready-to-use templates and tools are provided throughout. Each section is designed to be used on its own or as part of a full engagement process, from first planning workshop to final evaluation. Everything here is meant to be useful, usable, and grounded in what actually works. 1 Deliverables 1.2 and 1.3 synthesise more than 30 peer‑reviewed studies and a pan‑EU sentiment survey to isolate drivers of acceptance such as perceived safety, cost fairness and trust in institutions. 2 Deliverable 1.4 offers a snapshot of current social media engagement with hydrogen technology in the EU27 and a roadmap for shaping future public-facing interactions and dialogues around hydrogen energy. 3 Reported in Deliverable 3.3, these events engaged 177 citizens and 52 professional stakeholders across six Member States, capturing real‑time hopes, fears and information needs through polls, breakout tasks and scenario testing. 4 Deliverable 3.1 quantifies social hotspots in two illustrative hydrogen value chains (on‑site electrolysis in a hydrogen refuelling station at a bus depot and fuel‑cell bus operation), underscoring why transparent risk communication and gender‑sensitive outreach are critical for legitimacy. 2. Public engagement in the context of hydrogen technologies Public engagement in hydrogen is more than communication. It is a two-way, co-creative process that involves people and local stakeholders throughout the planning, design and roll-out of new technologies. Its purpose is to build trust, surface local knowledge, and make implementation smoother and more legitimate. Done well, public engagement reduces friction, avoids permitting surprises, and strengthens project design by capturing insights early. It also builds confidence by showing transparent trade-offs and follow-through on commitments. When engagement is weak or late, projects risk opposition, redesigns, and loss of trust that can be costly and hard to recover from. This approach is not just good practice; it also matches EU policy guidance. Current frameworks (European Commission, 2023, 2024a, 2024b) emphasise early, regular and meaningful dialogue, citizen-centred innovation, and participatory decision-making across the energy transition. Horizon Europe Missions similarly require climate-related actions to mobilise all relevant actors, citizens included, and adopt participatory approaches. Readers working in EU programmes will find the language and expectations familiar here, but with added tools to make them practical on the ground. 2.1 Why public engagement matters for hydrogen implementation Hydrogen projects have tangible impacts on daily life. They change what people see and experience: new refuelling stations or storage depots may appear, traffic patterns can shift, and new jobs may be created. Engagement is what determines whether these changes unfold smoothly or meet resistance. It is meant to build trust, strengthen design, and keep timelines on track. When neglected or left too late, it inevitably leads to opposition, appeals, redesigns, or misinformation. Safety and trust Within this context, perceived safety is just as important as technical safety. Accidents elsewhere, or even rumours, can quickly undermine local support if people feel fearful or uninformed. Engagement should therefore include open conversations that explain risks and safeguards in plain language, show evidence of testing and standards, and involve trusted local voices such as emergency responders and technical experts. Communities judge projects not only on the facts, but on how honestly and clearly those facts are shared. Siting decisions and local acceptance Support for hydrogen in principle does not always translate into acceptance when a facility is proposed nearby. Concerns about noise, traffic, visual impact and emergency response are common, and if they are not addressed early, they can fuel formal objections and delays. Engagement should begin long before permit applications, should involve co-designing of practical mitigations with affected communities, and should show how feedback influences the design. Even when outcomes are difficult, people are more likely to accept them if the process is open and fair. Closing the loop after every activity with a short “you said / we did / what stays the same and why” update helps reinforce legitimacy. Visible co-benefits Hydrogen can bring cleaner air, new skills and business opportunities, but these benefits are not always initially obvious to local communities. Engagement should highlight concrete examples: pathways into skilled maintenance jobs, SME opportunities in supply chains, or partnerships with training providers. Using social impact indicators such as fair pay or local development contributions alongside technical metrics shows that benefits and burdens are being shared fairly. Quick polls and surveys can help track sentiment and adjust activities. Keeping co-benefits visible and evidencebased is essential for maintaining support beyond a single consultation. In short, weak engagement tends to bring: ● delays at permitting ● costly redesigns ● persistent safety rumours ● perceptions of “tick‑box” consultation ● missed opportunities to anchor local jobs and training Strong engagement instead leads to: ● faster and clearer decisions ● designs that reflect local context ● higher community acceptance ● trusted messengers ● visible pathways to local benefits 2.2 Key drivers and barriers Evidence from HYPOP activities highlights the factors that most strongly influence whether hydrogen projects gain or lose public acceptance. Practitioners can use these insights to shape engagement strategies, reinforcing drivers and proactively addressing barriers. Table 1: Key drivers of public acceptance Driver What the evidence shows What this means for practice Climate and decarbonisation mandate Citizens see hydrogen as a realistic pathway to cut CO₂ in hard-to-abate sectors like steel and freight. Link your project explicitly to climate targets and explain its contribution to decarbonisation. Jobs, skills and new value chains People expect roles in electrolyser manufacturing, logistics and e-fuels to create high-skill jobs. Show clear pathways into local employment, skills development, and SME opportunities. Cleaner mobility and airquality gains Urban residents associate hydrogen buses and rail with cleaner city air. Demonstrate tangible local benefits for air quality and health. Renewable integration and grid balance Using surplus renewable energy for electrolysers is seen as smart and efficient. Connect projects to renewable integration and energy security goals. Trust-building and governance High trust in political and scientific actors boosts acceptance; low trust fuels NIMBY responses. Use trusted local messengers, transparent and well-grounded decision-making, and consistent updates. Preference for genuinely green hydrogen A large majority of stakeholders prefer renewable-based hydrogen, even at higher cost. Be specific about the energy source and avoid exaggerated “green” claims. Table 2: Key barriers to public acceptance Barrier What the evidence shows What this means for practice Cost competitiveness Stakeholders worry high costs undermine long-term viability. Acknowledge cost concerns openly and explain price pathways or support mechanisms. Infrastructure gaps Lack of pipelines, import terminals and stations is seen as a bottleneck. Be realistic about timelines and show how infrastructure development is coordinated. Safety perceptions Concerns about flammability and storage hazards persist. Communicate risks transparently and involve first responders in demonstrations and discussions. Water use People worry hydrogen production could strain freshwater resources. Provide clear data on water sourcing, efficiency measures and safeguards. Policy fragmentation Divergent rules across countries create uncertainty. Emphasise alignment with EU frameworks and clarify the regulatory pathway. Local acceptance and trust deficit Younger groups show stronger NIMBY tendencies when trust is low. Build trust early through transparency and youth-focused outreach. Taken together, these drivers and barriers show why engagement must be deliberate and welldesigned from the get-go. The next section sets out eight guiding principles to help practitioners put this into practice. Tips for using SMART objectives in practice ● Start with the core challenge you need to address (safety, acceptance, inclusivity, visibility, etc.). ● Phrase your objective as a change you want to see, not just an activity you want to run. ● Use data you already have (surveys, polls, participation rates) to set baselines and decide what a realistic improvement looks like. ● Always add a deadline to turn a general aspiration into a commitment. ● Review your SMART objectives every six months to check whether they remain realistic as the project and its context evolve. d) Impact framing using a theory of change A Theory of Change (ToC) makes the causal logic of an engagement programme explicit. By mapping Inputs → Activities → Outputs → Outcomes → Impacts, project teams can test assumptions, monitor progress and adapt quickly when conditions shift. How to build a Theory of Change (using the template in Table 7) 1. Define the problem you want to solve. 2. Identify the audience you need to reach. 3. Decide the best entry point. 4. Set the sequence of activities. 5. Define measurable effects. 6. Spell out wider benefits. 7. Anchor the long-term change you are working towards. 8. List assumptions that must hold true. Table 7: Template for building a Theory of Change What is the problem you are trying to solve? Who is your key audience? What is the entry point to reaching your audience? What steps are needed to bring about change? What is the measurable effect of your work? What are the wider benefits of your work? What is the long-term change you see as your goal? Key assumptions: To show how this template works in practice, Table 8 offers a full worked example for hydrogen public engagement. Table 8: Example of a Theory of Change for a hydrogen bus depot project What is the problem you are trying to solve? Who is your key audience? What is the entry point to reaching your audience? What steps are needed to bring about change? What is the measurable effect of your work? What are the wider benefits of your work? What is the long-term change you see as your goal? Local residents are sceptical about safety and doubtful of community benefits. Residents near depot site, bus drivers, first responders, local SMEs. Addressing concerns about traffic, safety, and jobs. Stakeholder mapping → safety demo day with firefighters → co-design workshop on traffic routing → info campaign on job/training pathways. ≥20% increase in residents who agree hydrogen buses are safe (pre/post surveys). Three co-created design changes adopted. Safer and more acceptable project design; visible local job opportunities. Increased public trust in hydrogen transport; smoother rollout of further depots. Key assumptions: Political continuity, sustained funding, transparent safety data, engaged local media. Keep in mind that a ToC is not static. Revisit it after each engagement cycle to update assumptions, refine steps, and record what actually worked. e) Audience profiles and targeted communications Different groups of people will care about different aspects of hydrogen. A “one size fits all” message risks missing the mark. Audience profiling helps you think about who you’re speaking to, what motivates them, what concerns them, and how best to reach them. Below are four simplified audience types that often come up in hydrogen engagement, based on the HYPOP evidence base. These are not strict categories, but starting points to help you design tailored communication that feels relevant and credible. Table 9: Example audience profiles and communication tips Profile What motivates them What worries them What works best Eco-conscious tech enthusiast (25-45, urban) Climate action, innovation, leadership in green tech. Greenwashing or hype without proof. Share data-rich visuals, cutting-edge demos (e.g., XR experiences), LinkedIn or professional networks. Informed optimist (50+, small-town) Local jobs, energy independence, community pride. Grid reliability, stability of supply. Local press articles, town-hall Q&A sessions with engineers, case-study videos of nearby projects. Cautious sceptic (35-55, suburban) Family safety, affordability, avoiding disruption. Explosivity risks, rising bills. Myth-busting reels, open safety demonstrations with first responders, easy-to-use cost calculators. Pragmatic realist (40-60, vocational) Business continuity, saving money, clear ROI. Downtime, disruption to current operations. Hands-on trials with buses or forklifts, short fact-sheets on Return on Investment (ROI), peer-to-peer testimonials. How to use audience profiles in practice ● Pick the 2–3 audience groups most relevant to your project instead of trying to cover everyone at once. ● Pair each audience with trusted local voices (engineers, SMEs, first responders, local leaders). Remember that sometimes who says it matters more than what is said. ● Use local examples and stories. A small-town audience won’t connect with global supply chain benefits, but they will with a nearby hydrogen bus route. ● Try out messages with a pilot group (through a poll, short interview, or workshop exercise) before rolling them out widely. f) Selecting fit-for-purpose engagement approaches No single activity will reach every audience or answer every question. The best plans combine formats, mixing depth (e.g., a small co-creation workshop) with reach (e.g., a social-media campaign). The table below works as a menu of options. Each format has strengths and trade-offs. Your job is to pick the mix that fits your context, resources, and goals. Table 10: Engagement formats – when to use them and what to watch out for Approach When it works well Benefits Watch-outs Co-creation workshop Early in project design, when input can still shape outcomes. Builds ownership, surfaces local insights, enables rapid prototyping. Needs skilled facilitation; risk of fatigue if sessions run too long. Living-lab demonstration When you can show technology in action at pilot or demo sites. Makes hydrogen tangible; attracts media attention; builds confidence. Expensive to run; requires permits and strong safety planning. Social-media sprint To raise quick awareness or reach younger groups. Rapid visibility, measurable analytics, strong youth appeal. Requires creative assets and moderation; short shelf-life. Pop-up H₂ experience (mobile exhibit or XR booth) At festivals, shopping centres, or transport hubs. Reaches non-technical audiences; delivers a sensory, memorable experience. Logistics heavy; short dwell-time with each visitor. Stakeholder round-table To align narratives among decision-makers and technical actors. Builds coalitions, fosters shared framing. Dominant voices can crowd out others; requires strong preparation. Hackathon / datathon When open data can drive new tools, apps, or solutions. Crowdsources innovation, engages students and young professionals. Needs follow-up funding/resources; IP ownership can be tricky. Safety drill and open-house For communities near refuelling stations or depots. Demonstrates preparedness, builds trust, involves first responders. Requires heavy coordination; may raise anxiety if not framed carefully. Storytelling media partnership (mini-series, podcast, feature article) When you need to sustain public interest over time. Creates a longer-term narrative, reaches broad audiences. Costly; limited editorial control if media partner leads the story. How to choose formats ● Balance reach and depth. For example, a single town-hall may reach many people but with limited interaction, while a workshop gives richer dialogue but fewer participants. Use both where possible. ● Match the format to the audience. For example, digital channels usually work best for younger groups, while face-to-face Q&A is more effective for sceptical or cautious groups. ● Think in sequence. For example, use lighter formats (infographics, short videos) to spark curiosity, then follow up with deeper engagement (living-labs, co-creation sessions). ● Be realistic about resources. For example, high-cost formats like XR demos or livinglabs can be powerful but should be complemented by lower-cost tools for continuity. 4.2 Develop products and materials Engagement materials should do three things at once: give participants the information they need (and no more), build trust through transparency, and remove barriers to participation. This section offers practical guidance on how to design and adapt resources so they are clear, accessible and inclusive. a) Participant information sheet and consent forms These documents are the ethical foundation of any engagement process. They explain why data are collected, how they will be used, and what rights participants retain. To build confidence and encourage participation, keep in mind the following practices: ● Be clear about intent. State what the activity is about, what it involves, and what participants can expect. Include GDPR compliance, data storage, and media consent. ● Use a professional but approachable tone. Plain language in a question-and-answer format works well, with each item followed by an “I consent / I do not consent” tick box. ● Be specific about data use. Seek consent separately for each intended use of data or media. ● Be considerate with the timing of provided materials. Share the sheet at least one week before the event and again on the day, giving people enough time to absorb the material and space to ask questions. ● Ensure digital accessibility. Offer screen-reader-friendly PDFs and an HTML version that conforms to WCAG 2.2 AA (e.g., form fields with programmatic labels and visible focus indicators). Keeping these simple guidelines in mind will help to ensure participants feel comfortable with what they have signed up for, which in turn will allow for more informed and dynamic participation. b) Content formats Different materials work best in different settings. The table below outlines common options, when they are most useful, and design tips for accessibility. Table 11: Content formats for H₂ public engagement Format When to use Design tips Factsheet (≤ 2 pp.) Pre-engagement primer for policymakers, journalists or cautious stakeholders. Post-engagement takehome resource. One core message per page. Use short headings and a lead paragraph explaining “Why it matters”. Add QR codes for more resources. Ensure reading order is logical for screen readers. Provide alt-text for visuals. Export as tagged PDF or HTML. Infographic Social-media campaigns, workshop ice-breakers, or quick handouts. Stay within project colour palette and maintain high contrast. Limit to 5–7 data points with simple charts. Add short plain-language headlines. Provide long descriptions or tables. Test legibility on mobile screens. Short explainer video (≤ 90 s) To raise awareness quickly, especially among younger audiences or those with limited time. Write a concise script that follows problem → solution → next step. Add captions and transcripts. Avoid visual overload. Ensure strong text contrast. Host on accessible platforms. XR demo At site visits or exhibitions where participants can experience a hydrogen facility. Provide a fallback option such as a 3D model on a tablet. Limit interactions to five steps with a skip option. Include tutorial overlays with captions. Optimise for lower-spec devices. Collect basic analytics to refine design. Hybrid slide deck For webinars or briefings that mix polls with static content. Use a 16:9 layout with high-contrast colours. Write slide titles as clear statements. Keep text concise. Insert polls or chat prompts every 7–10 slides. Add alt-text to images and export as accessible PDF. c) Accessibility Accessibility should be planned from the start. Inclusive design ensures broader participation and prevents marginalised groups from being excluded. Keep the following in mind: ● Adopt ISO 24495-1 (2023) principles for plain language: clear purpose, logical structure, familiar words, short sentences. The European Commission’s Clear Writing for Europe resource offers practical check-lists. ● All digital outputs should meet WCAG 2.2 level AA for contrast, keyboard navigation, focus appearance, and new criteria such as Dragging Movements and Accessible Authentication. ● Provide appropriate, descriptive alternative text for every graphic; for complex charts, supply a data table or long description. Video and audio must carry accurate captions (and, where feasible, sign-language overlays). ● Collect access needs during registration (e.g., captioning, screen-reader-compatible slides) to ensure inclusive participation. Follow up individually to confirm arrangements. In short, combining sound consent processes, varied content formats and robust accessibility standards makes engagement materials transparent, practical and inclusive. This creates the conditions for meaningful dialogue about hydrogen technologies. 4.3 Implementing hydrogen public engagement activities This section turns the strategic principles introduced earlier into a practical guide for putting engagement plans into action. Each part explains why the step matters and offers tools, tables or checklists that can be applied directly. a) Logistics for in‑person and virtual engagement Good logistics are what make the difference between a smooth workshop and one that fails due to preventable issues such as late starts, missing interpreters or broken equipment. Planning tasks against time, venue and people frees organisers to focus on dialogue quality rather than housekeeping. Table 12 lists practical tips based on HYPOP experience. Treat the final column as a living checklist and adapt deadlines to local circumstances. Table 12: Practical tips for H₂ engagement logistics Planning element HYPOP experience Practical guidance Scheduling Recruitment of participants, facilitators and speakers must start well in advance, along with any necessary translation of workshop materials. ● 12–8 weeks out: secure venue/platform, draft multilingual invitations, open registration. ● 8–4 weeks: circulate fact sheets; send reminder invitations, confirm technical experts and translators. ● < 4 weeks: test facilitation flow, finalise materials and translations, test platform. Tools testing All tools must be tested thoroughly before the event. ● For in-person events, test the physical audio-visual systems. ● For online events: ○ Test the video calling platform. ○ Enter the meeting room early (5-15 mins) with speakers. ○ Set breakout‑room recording permissions. ○ Assign co-hosts as backup facilitators. Encouraging participation Active involvement increases learning and trust. ● For in-person events: use neutral venues, limit numbers to around 50, display safety posters, and allow time for peer discussion. ● For virtual events: encourage cameras on, use breakouts, live polls and captioning. ● For hybrid events: ensure both groups have equal access to polls, Q&A and materials. Facilitator preparation Facilitators must be ready for tough questions. ● Anticipate predictable questions, such as comparisons between hydrogen and electric batteries, and prepare evidence-based answers. ● Make clear that hydrogen is part of a broader renewable energy mix. ● Use simple analogies when helpful, for example comparing hydrogen to champagne: still expensive, best for certain uses. Expert inputs Technical voices increase credibility. ● Involve at least one expert from a local hydrogen project to answer questions. ● Connect discussion to real-world examples. Planning element HYPOP experience Practical guidance Preparing materials Clear take-home resources help participants become advocates. ● Share slide decks after events. ● Use infographics for complex topics. ● Provide fact sheets on local projects and national strategy. ● Translate materials into relevant local languages. Accessibility Make sure every participant can contribute. ● Recruit diverse participants. ● Provide captioning and translated materials. ● Design visuals to be colour-blind-friendly and videos with captions. b) Facilitation tips Even the best logistics cannot prevent disengagement if facilitation is weak. Moderators need to encourage participation, handle misinformation and protect minority voices. The following practices are useful: 1. Start with a round-robin introduction and a short prompt such as “one word you associate with hydrogen” to build rapport and surface preconceptions. 2. Display a safe-space charter, restating that the workshop is not a sales pitch but an exploration of hydrogen’s role in the wider energy mix. Reassure participants about data protection and their rights. 3. Use inclusive moderation techniques such as speaker stacking, anonymous Q-cards or polls for sensitive issues, and rotating rapporteurs in breakout groups. 4. Prepare short, evidence-based responses to common questions and misconceptions (see Table 13) and use them to steer discussion back into dialogue rather than lecturing. Table 13: Common questions and short responses Question/Misconception Response hook Is hydrogen just competing with electric batteries? Show the use-case matrix: batteries are better for short trips under 100 km, while hydrogen is suited to long-haul heavy duty transport cycles. Hydrogen is unsafe or explosive. Compare ignition properties with petrol, highlight fast vertical dispersion, and reference EU H₂ Safety Panel data. Grey hydrogen negates climate gains. Explain the colour spectrum of hydrogen and highlight that EU targets aimed at renewable and green hydrogen. Facilitators can research these questions and memorise the hooks or print them on cue‑cards for easy reference. When the question surfaces, provide the fact, then pivot back to participant dialogue rather than mere lecturing. The goal is empowerment, not one‑way correction. Try to think of every difficult question the audience might pose in order to research it (or ask an expert) before the workshop date. c) Safety protocols and risk communication Perceived risk is one of the strongest drivers of opposition. Transparent safety measures and credible marshals help to put people’s minds at ease, turning fear into informed caution. Table 14 summarises recommended preventive safety actions across phases of engagement. Table 14: Safety actions for different phases of engagement Phase Risk-communication action Rationale / reference Before site visit or demo ● Conduct Hazard and Operability (HAZOP) walkthrough (safe routes, gas sensors if demo equipment present, etc.). ● Issue “no ignition sources” brief. Aligns with ISO 31000 and builds trust. During site visit or demo ● Nominate an independent safety marshal. ● Require PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) within 3 m of pressurised kit. Creates clear accountability. Virtual events Share a safety fact card and EU H₂ Safety Panel infographic. Keeps safety visible online and digitally accessible. Speaker presentations (inperson or virtual) Encourage use of the Concern–Evidence– Explanation pattern. Matches best practice in other high-risk sectors. References BetterEvaluation. (n.d.). Stakeholder engagement toolkit. Retrieved August 20, 2025, from https://www.betterevaluation.org/tools-resources/stakeholder-engagement-toolkit Clean Hydrogen Joint Undertaking. (n.d.). FCH JU projects—Communication & dissemination (communication guidance/toolkit). Retrieved August 20, 2025, from https://www.cleanhydrogen.europa.eu/fchju-projects-communication-dissemination_en Clean Hydrogen Joint Undertaking. (2023, July 6). Awareness of hydrogen technologies: Survey report. Clean Hydrogen Partnership. https://www.cleanhydrogen.europa.eu/media/publications/awareness-hydrogen-technologies-surveyreport_en Clean Hydrogen Joint Undertaking. (2024, November 15). Programme Review Report 2024. Clean Hydrogen Partnership. https://www.clean-hydrogen.europa.eu/media/news/check-out2024-programme-review-report-2024-11-15_en COMPILE project. (2022, June). COMPILE Toolkit: Stakeholder engagement guide for energy communities (PDF). https://energycommunityplatform.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2022/06/COMPILE-Toolkit-Stakeholder-Engagement-Guide.pdf European Commission. (n.d.). Clear writing for Europe. Directorate-General for Translation. Retrieved August 20, 2025. https://commission.europa.eu/about/departments-and-executiveagencies/translation/clear-writing-europe_en?utm_source=chatgpt.com European Commission. (2023). A Pact for Engagement. https://energy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/202311/Pact%20for%20Engagement%202023.pdf European Commission. (2024a). Horizon Europe support for citizen engagement. https://europeanresearch-area.ec.europa.eu/horizon-europe-support-citizen-engagement European Commission. (2024b). Public acceptance and stakeholder engagement: 10 Guiding Principles for early public engagement for energy infrastructure projects. https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/infrastructure/public-acceptance-and-stakeholderengagement_en HYPOP Consortium D1.2. (2024). State-of-the-art analysis of public perceptions and reactions to hydrogen and fuel cell technologies (Deliverable D1.2). HYPOP Project, Horizon Europe (Grant Agreement No. 101111933). European Commission. Retrieved from https://www.hypopproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/D1.2.pdf HYPOP Consortium D1.3. (2024). Identification of the main individual-level determinants of public understanding and acceptance of FCH technologies (Deliverable D1.3). HYPOP Project, Horizon Europe (Grant Agreement No. 101111933). European Commission. Retrieved from https://www.hypop-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/D1.3.pdf HYPOP Consortium D1.4. (2024). Analysis of public engagement with H₂ via social media channels across the EU27 (Deliverable D1.4). HYPOP Project, Horizon Europe (Grant Agreement No. 101111933). European Commission. Retrieved from https://www.hypopproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/D1.4.pdf HYPOP Consortium D3.1. (2025). S-LCA of two selected hydrogen systems and set of indicators for citizenship (Deliverable D3.1). HYPOP Project, Horizon Europe (Grant Agreement No. 101111933). European Commission. Retrieved from https://www.hypopproject.eu/results/ (public deliverables uploaded via Zenodo) HYPOP Consortium D3.2. (2024). Public information and engagement strategy (Deliverable D3.2). HYPOP Project, Horizon Europe (Grant Agreement No. 101111933). European Commission. Retrieved from https://www.hypop-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/HYPOPD3.2_Public-information-and-engagement-strategy_FINAL.docx.pdf HYPOP Consortium D3.3. (2025). Report on public engagement activities (Deliverable D3.3). HYPOP Project, Horizon Europe (Grant Agreement No. 101111933). European Commission. Retrieved from https://www.hypop-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/HYPOPD3.3-Report-on-public-engagement-activities.pdf International Organization for Standardization. (2018). ISO 31000:2018—Risk management: Guidelines. https://www.iso.org/standard/65694.html International Organization for Standardization. (2023). ISO 24495-1:2023 Plain language—Part 1: Governing principles and guidelines. ISO. https://cdn.standards.iteh.ai/samples/78907/d194fac21d6a45f38bfcfec9657f7498/ISO24495-1-2023.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com Reed, M. S., Jensen, E. A., Noles, S., Conneely, D., Kendall, H., Raley, M., Tarrant, A., Oakley, N., Hinson, C., Hoare, V., Marshall, K., & Pugliese, L. (2025). Analyzing who is relevant to engage in environmental decision-making processes by interests, influence and impact: The 3i framework. Journal of Environmental Management, 373, 123437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.123437 World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). (2023, October 5). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 (W3C Recommendation). W3C Web Accessibility Initiative. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/?utm_source=chatgpt.com