Skip to content

Panel Discussion: Cutting Ties Between Universities and the Fossil Fuel Industry: Why and How?

[this page was translated from Dutch by ChatGPT]

On Monday, June 19, 2023, we organized the monthly ‘Green Idea Café‘ at Scheltema, Leiden. The evening revolved around cutting the ties between universities and the fossil fuel industry. We spoke with three individuals who are closely involved in this discussion about how these ties were formed, the pros and cons of these connections, and what we should do about them in times of climate crisis. Below is a report of the evening.

There are various ties between universities and the fossil fuel industry, such as funding research and endowed chairs, sponsoring student associations, presence at career events, giving guest lectures, and more. Universities are not very transparent about these connections, which is why we are working with a coalition of groups to make these ties visible: www.mappingfossilties.org.

There is increasing discussion about these connections; for instance, an open letter to Leiden University has already been signed more than 1,000 times by students, staff, and alumni, calling for the severing of fossil fuel ties.

We have all agreed in the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 2°C and strive for 1.5°C. This means we should not start new oil and gas projects (IEA, 2021).

Fossil fuel companies like Shell have spent decades casting doubt on climate science and actively opposing climate policy through lobbying. Even now, they are delaying the transition through greenwashing—they claim to be working on the transition, but in reality, in 2021, only 3% of their investments were in this area. The new CEO publicly announced in June 2023 that Shell is once again fully committed to fossil fuels.

Additionally, fossil fuel multinationals commit human rights violations in countries with less regulation and oversight. There are numerous examples of this, extensively documented by Amnesty.

More and more students and staff are taking action and want their universities to cut ties with fossil fuel companies. But why do these ties exist, and how did they come about? And what should we do about them now, in these times? We discussed this with our panelists:

  • Dr. Jorrit Smit (Researcher in Science and Technology Studies at Leiden University and Vrije Universiteit Brussel)
  • Dr. ir. Martijn Duineveld (Associate Professor of Cultural Geography at Wageningen University, Scientists4Future Wageningen)
  • Ir. Charlotte Braat (Junior Researcher at TU Delft, Reclame Fossielvrij, End Fossil LU&TUD)

Summary of Jorrit Smit’s Presentation

After World War II, there was large-scale investment in universities, but a significant portion of scientific research in certain fields (such as catalysis) took place in major companies like Philips, Akzo, Unilever, Shell, and DSM. These multinationals maintained research departments that resembled universities in atmosphere, organization, and working methods. In certain disciplines, the social connections were close, both in terms of moving from industry to university (especially senior researchers becoming professors) and from university to industry (recruiting good students as employees). In some places, companies invested heavily in university education and research, such as Shell at Delft’s Department of Applied Physics.

After the oil crises of the 1970s, this science and innovation system began to change. In the wake of ’68, many students, citizens, and scientists called for socially engaged science that addresses socio-economic and environmental issues and opposes dependence on powerful industrial players. Nearly all universities established ‘science shops’ where education and research were used to address the questions and problems of the ‘non-affluent’ in society.

During the same period, multinationals began to downsize or divest their research centers due to increasing competition and globalization. To stay current with the latest scientific developments, they sought new forms of collaboration with universities. The rise of science parks during this period is telling: literal space was made on university campuses for more interactions between industry and academic research.

Government cutbacks on research made the ‘third funding stream’ (money from industry and society towards research) relatively more important at universities. In 1985, knowledge transfer (or ‘valorization’) became the third core task of universities (in addition to conducting research and providing education): ‘making scientific insights useful for society.’ Although this was intended to support both science shops and science parks as activities, it mainly benefited the commercial form of knowledge transfer.

From the 1990s onwards, the growing importance of public-private project subsidies requiring co-financing by third, often private, parties became evident. The NWO (the governing body that allocates government funding for research) requires researchers to obtain a certain portion of funding from a societal organization to qualify for research funding (recently, this can also be fulfilled in kind if a participating organization can provide manpower but not capital).

This brief overview of Dutch science and innovation policy—leaving out the natural gas revenues, innovation platforms, top sectors, and the science agenda—shows that the current entanglement of academic research with private parties has developed over many decades. This has created various mutual dependencies that are difficult for many researchers to break. At the very least, structural alternatives can be offered and encouraged, enabling different types of collaboration or more independent work, both practically and financially. This also leads to a new question about agenda-setting—how do we, and with whom, determine which research is crucial for a faster and fairer sustainable transition?

Martijn Duineveld’s lecture

Samenwerken aan de fossiele shitshow die moeder aarde verstikt. Over de banden tussen wetenschap en de fossiele industrie.

Quote:

“What many researchers at universities do not always fully realize is that they are complicit in climate obstruction. By collaborating with and receiving money from the fossil fuel industry, researchers grant this industry a green and serious image. They contribute to delaying the necessary and radical or systemic changes needed for a just society. In doing so, we sustain a society, a way of life, and an organization that comes at the expense of many other people, animals, and ecosystems, and ultimately, ourselves.

By collaborating with the fossil industry, we blind ourselves to the many alternative future possibilities that are worth exploring but remain out of sight because the fossil industry’s money primarily serves its own interests.

By working with fossil fuel companies, we legitimize a world where a small portion of humanity devours a large slice of the pie and then has to swallow antacids to counter the sour burps, all while chewing with their eyes closed to avoid seeing the suffering of distant people and future generations.”

Summary of Charlotte Braat’s Presentation

Reclame Fossielvrij (Fossil-Free Advertising) advocates for a ban on fossil fuel advertising, including ads by the fossil fuel industry, for polluting travel, and for polluting transportation. Similar to how tobacco advertising is banned—fossil fuels cause more deaths through air pollution alone than tobacco (and this doesn’t even account for deaths due to climate change).

Reclame Fossielvrij started by fighting against a children’s marketing festival called Generation Discover. At this festival, Shell told children that fossil fuels like gas would be needed for a long time. The campaign against the festival was successful: The Hague, followed by Amsterdam and Rotterdam, distanced themselves from the festival, recognizing it as greenwashing.

Fossil advertising and sponsorship have various effects:

  • Polishing Image (Greenwashing): By repeatedly stating how much Shell is working on the transition, people believe they are doing good, and that the transition will be fine—Shell and other fossil companies have been reprimanded by the Advertising Code Committee multiple times. However, this can only happen after the fact—companies can keep launching new greenwashing campaigns.
  • Normalizing Fossil Behavior: If we constantly see advertisements for cheap and distant flights, we continue to see such fossil behavior as normal and are encouraged to engage in it.
  • Strengthening Lobbying: Example of RWE: RWE does not sell products directly to consumers in the Netherlands, but they ran a major ad campaign in 2020. This was because a law was proposed in the Netherlands to limit coal production earlier than 2025. RWE has two coal plants in the Netherlands. Through their ads, RWE tried to create political goodwill. The campaign was deliberate and precisely timed.
  • Associating with Culture, Sports, and Universities: Fossil companies try to polish their image and gain a ‘social license to operate’—the ongoing acceptance of a company’s standard business practices and operational procedures by its employees, stakeholders, and the general public.

Some interesting insights from the panel discussion

  • Fossil companies fund research on topics that align with their business model, such as hydrogen and carbon capture and storage.
  • By influencing the direction of research, fossil companies colonize the future. Many futures are possible, but by steering research in a certain direction—namely towards ‘technofix’, other futures become less likely. For example, ‘degrowth’, where we work less, consume less, but have more time for enjoyable activities and are surrounded by more greenery, is harder to fund research for.
  • Fossil companies like Shell are everywhere and embedded in our institutions, and for some people, researchers, they are even important for their identity. Fossil companies lend legitimacy to this.
  • Fossil ties are not the problem of individual researchers. It is a structural issue, and therefore a structural solution is needed.
  • Deciding with which parties the university collaborates and under what conditions should be done democratically with students and staff.

Pub Quiz

At the end of the evening, as is customary at the Green Idea Café, a pub quiz was held. This time, the theme was ‘greenwashing’: Can you guess who the quote was from? Feel free to copy it and play with your own friends, family, or colleagues.

Thank you for your interest! For questions or comments about the program, please contact Linda and Aaron at info@solid-sustainability.org.

For questions about the Green Idea Café, or if you are interested in joining the program team, you can reach out to groenideecafe@gmail.com.