Student council wants stricter conditions for UvA collaboration with fossil fuel industry
What has the reaction been to the UvA’s decision on collaboration with the fossil industry among students and researchers? The Central Student Council (CSR) is not yet satisfied, according to unsolicited advice to the CvB. “In fact, under the current conditions, greenwashing is still possible.”
After a year of UvA-wide dialogue on collaboration between the UvA and the fossil fuel industry, the Executive Board (CvB) made a decision this summer. Only under strict conditions will UvA still work with the fossil fuel industry. The UvA will continue with current projects.
- The project must have the explicit goal of contributing to the achievement of the Paris Agreement
- In addition, the project cannot be done in any other way or with other, non-fossil fuel partners
- A multidisciplinary and broadly composed advisory committee will advise, where appropriate, whether the intended contribution to the climate goals justifies this collaboration.
“As far as I am concerned, it is a workable compromise,” says Professor Joost Reek, who is working with Shell on hydrogen production and CO₂ conversion. “There are still opportunities to collaborate substantively with companies and there is a serious analysis of whether the project contributes to a sustainable future. So in that sense, it’s not a bad compromise.”
But according to political scientist Enzo Rossi, who previously wrote an opinion piece on the issue in Folia, little will change in practice. “Under these conditions, as a university you can still collaborate on green energy with fossil fuel companies. That means you can still legitimize the existence of a company that contributes the vast majority of fossil emissions.”
Disa Sauter, UvA psychologist and member of Scientists for Future, is also disappointed by the decision. “The UvA does a lot in the field of sustainability: insulating buildings, funding research projects, and incorporating sustainability into education. So this came as a surprise, especially since there is a precedent for a more principled approach like at the VU.”
.jpg)
The Central Student Council (CSR), which co-initiated the debate at the UvA with action groups Amsterdam Autonomous Coalition and the Activist Party, is not satisfied either. “The UvA presented the decision as a ‘No, unless’ decision, while in fact it is a ‘Yes, provided that’ decision,” said CSR president Noah Pellikaan.
It is now clear that the UvA is not prepared to completely sever ties with the fossil fuel industry, but it will avoid greenwashing “wherever possible” in the future. The advice CSR sent to the Executive Board last week attempts to narrow that definition to prevent greenwashing as much as possible. A company greenwashes when it pretends to be more sustainable or socially responsible than it actually is.
More stringent terms of cooperation
In the 11-page letter, also signed by the student union ASVA, the CSR calls for several things, including a binding consultative committee to the advisory committee regarding cooperation with third parties, participation councils in that advisory committee, and stricter cooperation conditions.
During this period, the UvA is also considering the policy framework for collaboration with third parties, specifically the precise details of the new conditions the UvA presented this summer (see box above). The CSR’s advice will be included in this, according to a UvA press officer. The new policy framework will be published in November on denkmee.uva.nl where there will be room for comments.
Binding consultative committee
A binding consultative committee does not seem to be a possibility. “A binding committee would call into question the dean’s legal responsibility for academic practice,” a UvA press officer quotes from the Stolker Committee report. According to this report, a binding consultative committee would limit the academic freedom of researchers. Scientists should be able to choose their own non-academic partners. Indeed, this stems from the “third task” of the university: to share and develop scientific knowledge in close cooperation with society.
Upon inquiry, it appears that the SRC is not referring to a binding consultative committee, but to a binding advisory power, a legal nuance. The SRC does not intend for the consultative committee to be able to prevent scientists from engaging with certain companies but to enforce a written justification for not following negative advice. “This enhances the accountability of the committee,” said CSR member and author of the letter, Stefana Fecuic.
CSR participation in advisory committee
The CSR also wants to enable participation councils such as the CSR, the Central Works Council (COR), and the Central PhD Council (CPC) to join the advisory committee on cooperation with third parties. The dean nominates one scientist from each faculty with experience in ethical issues on research and collaboration with third parties to sit on that committee.
According to the UvA press officer, participation of the CSR in the advisory committee is not necessary since the participation councils already have the power to advise on guidelines and policy. They can do so by means of their participation in the General Institutional Ethics Committee (AIEC), which advises the board on guidelines on ethical aspects related to the work of the institution. The consideration for each research project then lies with a committee of experts.
In the letter, the CSR writes that the AIEC has been functioning less since the creation of the advisory committee on collaboration with third parties in 2021 but was not functioning properly before then, either.
According to Sauter, having a truly diverse advisory committee would be important. “We know that the faculty is generally not very diverse. It seems important to me to have diverse representation on the advisory committee including members who do not benefit from fossil fuel grants.”
Water over the dam
At the same time, the water already seems to be over the dam and fatigue has set in when the topic of third-party collaboration is broached. Political scientist Rossi says: “The UvA-wide dialogues have been extremely successful in neutralizing protests over the past year. By dragging it out so long, people lose interest, students graduate. The CvB does listen, but I wonder if they will take any action.”
Professor Reek wants to work toward a greener future via a different route. “I maintain that climate change is too unilaterally put on companies. We want to get rid of fossil fuel subsidies but then say ‘no’ to excise taxes on fossil fuel that we use ourselves.”
The fastest path to a green future, according to Reek, is meaningful collaboration between business, government, and society, initiated by the academic community. “It will only move fast if we get these parties to work together. If we let them act individually, then companies will go for the money, politics for the voters, and society for using cheap fossil fuel.”
Sauter is also uncomfortable with the discussion that so clearly pits scientists against each other. “I understand that we cannot simply eliminate research grants without a proper replacement. But this decision feels unsatisfactory. Our input was solicited, and a decision was made based on that input. But it’s an open question as to whether the decision represents the majority of UvA staff and students.”
