WUR advisory group on fossil collaboration presents advice

“We have been studying this complicated issue for months and have spoken to many people inside and outside the organisation,” says committee chair Prof. Dr. Carolien Kroeze, “We see that opinions about collaborating with the fossil industry differ. With this new decision framework we want to do justice to the diverse perspectives on this subject.” 

Three steps 

The committee advice consists of a quick and easy to perform self-scan (step 0 and 1 (see fig. 1)) of risks and opportunities of collaborations with partners that can be executed by a principle investigator/business developer involved in the acquisition. The aim of this self-scan is to identify whether fossil fuel industry is involved in the project, how the partner contributes to sustainability goals, and whether there is a strategic interest of the partnership involved for WUR. Based on this scan, one should be able to quickly reject partners in the fossil industry with a questionable reputation, an insufficient sustainability agenda, and no strategic interest for WUR, and accept partners outside the fossil fuel industry that contribute to the sustainability mission of WUR.   

Only in case of mixed results, for instance a partner in the fossil fuel industry but with a strong sustainability focus and/or strategic interest for WUR, we apply the second step in the assessment procedure of collaboration, which is a more reflective and qualitative assessment of the partner based on the purpose, risks and benefits of the collaboration, written in a brief report. This reflection forms the basis for advice by a new committee to be formed. 

Does the decision framework then provide a ready-made answer in all situations? “I doubt that,” says Prof. Carolien Kroeze, “I will be the first to admit: this framework is not a ‘silver bullet’. Wicked dilemmas will always exist. What we do see – already in recent months – is that this process leads to more awareness. Colleagues wonder: is this project still suitable? These types of questions are exactly what this decision framework can help with.” 

The committee advises the Executive Board to evaluate the decision framework, its operation and results after one year. 

How did this advice come about? 

The advisory committee had a broad representation from within the organisation. For example, people with expertise in ecology, toxicology, technology, philosophy and also a representation of the students. The committee was also diverse in terms of proponents and opponents of cooperation with the fossil industry. 

The committee looked at examples at home and abroad, conducted a literature search and looked at (current and completed) projects. On this basis, the committee drew up a draft decision framework, which was subsequently tested in several consultation sessions within the organisation. More than 150 colleagues and students helped to think through and develop the decision framework. There was also the option to provide input by email, which was widely used. The committee has heard, read, and discussed all of this input. And based on this input, it has further developed and tightened the decision framework. 

First reaction of Executive Board 

Rens Buchwaldt accepted the advice on behalf of the Executive Board. He thanks the committee for its thorough work. “We tasked the committee with a complicated assignment. I have followed the  committee's process and have great admiration for the care with which issues, dilemmas and arguments have been considered and weighed. And not in the least how the diversity of perspectives has been dealt with. People sincerely wanted to understand each other better. 

A simple, one-dimensional answer is not at hand and we believe it is important to make sharper choices about partners in a substantiated, repeatable way. I thank the committee for this framework that should help us do so. As the Executive Board, we will work on this advice and will let you know as soon as possible how we could base decision-making on this body of work.”