An increasing implementation of renewable energy technologies (RET), andimprovements on energy efficiency, have not shown an overall significant CO2 emissionsreduction yet. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) represents a sustainable way reducing CO2emissions in the long-term run of the energy and industry sector.Even if technology exists to capture CO2 emissions, there has not been any significantleap taken. A dearth of a working business model and other regulatory, social and financial,barriers are given reasons for that. This thesis will investigate if our proposed CCUS businessmodel will be accepted by involved CCS stakeholders. Our business model endorses a bonusmalustax policy instrument to promote the industry to divert CO2 emissions to storage (orutilization), instead of emitting to air.Extensive techno-economic evaluation has been done on CO2 capture and storage, butlimited that show a working CCS business model for different industries. Further, no study hasyet evaluated the bonus-malus tax mechanism, in relation to business model for CCS.Our selected method for this thesis is semi structured interviews with experts in the fieldof CCS. The interviewees represent CO2 emitters [A], [N-A], storage providers [S], and thirdpartyviews [R] from researchers and senior experts. The reason for this type of interviews is tofind reasons on the slow CCS implementation and how our business model is perceived.The research questions for this thesis is “How will public financial incentives shape theestablishment of a business model for CC(U)S in the industries in Norway, Sweden and TheNetherlands?”. From a total of 11 interviews with experts, we have found out that a bonusmalustax system will not have a full acceptance (as it is) from selected industries, for variousreasons. We have also got good insights in what the barriers of implementing CCS are.Analysis of the answers show that barriers still lie on: a lack of a legal framework, theneed of a CCS Network Operator, and a market for green products related to CCS. Also, thefinancial drivers aren’t there yet, as it still is cheaper to emit CO2 into air, compared to usingCCS technology. The price of emitting CO2 into air is controlled by ETS. As ETS is generatingmoney to government, when emission rights are auctioned to the industry, ETS can also be afinancial tool to support implementation of CCS.Another part of analysis comments on transport and storage of CO2 and a requirementof a CCS Network Operator. The role of the CCS Network Operator is to smoothen out bumpsin a CCS-system, which can be to handle daily differences in capacity (ton/day) for emittersand receivers, by utilizing several storage facilities and serving several emitters.As our proposed business model needed reshaping, we have proposed hypotheses to betested and further studies, on an adjusted new business model, based on our findings in thisthesis.