Sustainability dialogue on the fossil fuel industry: most present support cooperation

“Which of you are students?”, asked moderator Malou van Hintum at the start. A third of the audience raised their hands. “It’s nice that there’s more than two!”, Van Hintum joked (there were only two students at the first dialogue). The attendees included Rector Magnificus Annelien Bredenoord and Vice-President of the Executive Board Ellen van Schoten.

After the opening, Wilfred Mijnhardt, policy director at the Rotterdam School of Management, discussed his research on the partnerships between the university and the fossil fuel industry.

In order to outline the partnerships, we first need to understand EUR’s structure, he argued. EUR consists of public and private domains. The university’s faculties and departments are part of the public domain, while the various holdings and associations are part of the private domain. Mijnhardt divided the private domain into two categories: EUR property and EUR affiliates. “RSM BV, the EUR holding and Erasmus Enterprise are property of the university, while the Trust Fund and the various student associations are examples of institutions that are affiliated with EUR. They’re part of EUR, but operate independently”, Mijnhardt clarified. “EUR cannot decide policy for these institutions.”

A student raised his hand. “Why not? These organisations carry the name of the university, don’t they?” Mijnhardt nodded. “I agree with you. They also play a role in determining EUR’s reputation.”

Another student asked: “I read the report on the climate impact of EUR partnerships. There are only 103 partnerships in the report. I believe the university has far more partnerships. Where are the others?” Mijnhardt: “In the report, we took a sample to assess the impact of all the partnerships.” He pointed at the PowerPoint presentation. “As you can see here, we have data about more than 73,000 partnerships from 2018 until 2022. For these partnerships, we worked with more green than red companies.” Green partnerships have a positive impact, while red ones have a negative impact. The student: “But it’s not about the amount, right? Even if we only have three ‘red’ partnerships, we should still look at with which companies they are, what kind of agreements we have with them, what kind of negative impact they make and how big the impact is.”

After the presentation, moderator Van Hintum showed video messages from three external parties: BP Netherlands, Greenpeace Netherlands and The Ocean Cleanup. The three representatives in the videos each answered the question of whether EUR should continue working with the fossil fuel industry.

“Definitely. It’s a no-brainer”, said Corné Boot, Head of Country for BP Netherlands. “We’re currently making the transition to green energy, and you can help us with that. We must work together to speed up this process. We want to be part of the solution, not the problem.” Andy Palmen, CEO of Greenpeace, held the opposite view: “Cooperation is pointless. The fossil fuel industry doesn’t want to change, it’s just greenwashing. As an educational institution, you should have nothing to do with these companies. Don’t be naive – steer clear of the fossil fuel industry.”

Nisha Bakker from The Ocean Cleanup had no problems with cooperating with the fossil fuel industry. “As long as you make sound agreements”, she emphasised. “The fossil fuel industry is a part of society, and if we want to cooperate with it, we need to make clear demands. I don’t think we should completely shut out the fossil fuel industry.”

A student reacted to the videos. “I understand that cooperation with the fossil fuel industry can contribute to increased sustainability, and I’d agree with The Ocean Cleanup if we were a government institution that works to benefit a large audience. But we’re a university: we can decide for ourselves whether or not to associate with the fossil fuel industry.”

At the end of the dialogue, moderator Van Hintum asked the audience for its opinion. The first question was whether the university should continue its cooperation with the fossil fuel industry. The majority of the audience, with 27 votes, believed the university should continue, but with clear agreements in place.

Van Hintum was just finishing up a point of discussion when someone in the back raised their hand. “I work at BP, and I can see how seriously the company is working on sustainability. We’re investing billions into the transition to green energy. I’d like to send a message that there are young people working at these companies who are doing their best to make the world a better place. Keep an open mind. We have the same goal, so why can’t we work together?”

Someone in the second row responded: “I also think that the university has a moral obligation to use its knowledge to aid in the transition. If we say that we want to make a positive impact on society, we can’t just observe developments from the sidelines.”

“It’s good that you mentioned the moral obligation”, another said. “Because I want to use the moral argument to oppose cooperation. The reason we shouldn’t work with BP or Shell is because they lie. They cause mass deaths on a global scale, and they’re still lying about it. Until these companies meet their moral obligation and admit to and take responsibility for their crimes, which have resulted in the deaths of people in Hawaii, South Africa and Bangladesh, we have no moral obligation as a society to work with them.”

The last question on the screen: what have you learned from this dialogue? The reactions really summed up the afternoon: “People are angry, and they should be!”, “The university still has a long way to go.”