{"id":127354,"date":"2021-05-28T12:31:08","date_gmt":"2021-05-28T10:31:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/?p=127354"},"modified":"2025-12-19T11:25:39","modified_gmt":"2025-12-19T10:25:39","slug":"researchers-of-contested-report-on-business-climate-acted-with-culpable-negligence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/2021\/05\/28\/researchers-of-contested-report-on-business-climate-acted-with-culpable-negligence\/","title":{"rendered":"Researchers of contested report on business climate acted with \u2018culpable negligence\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Netherlands Board on Research Integrity concluded that former RSM professor Henk Volberda and his fellow researchers acted with \u2018culpable negligence\u2019 when they did not name the external financers in their study of the Dutch business climate. There was, however, no indication of a violation of research integrity. The Executive Board accepts this judgement.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/figure>

Former professor at the Rotterdam School of Management (RSM) Henk Volberda and the RSM research team should have named Akzo Nobel, DSM, Philips, Shell and Unilever as financers of their research into the strategic value of head offices of multinationals in the Netherlands. This was the conclusion of the Netherlands Board on Research Integrity (LOWI) in an advisory report for Erasmus University, after an official complaint. Volberda was responsible for the report, Wederzijds Profijt [mutual profit], published in 2009, together with scientists Marc Baaij, Frans van den Bosch and Tom Mom. The research was used in 2018 by the Rutte III Cabinet as a scientific source in the discussion about the abolition of the dividend tax.<\/p>\n\n\t

LOWI issued an advisory report after an official complaint about the study was submitted earlier in 2017. The complaint was first evaluated by an internal academic integrity committee of the university, then by LOWI. It found that not everything about the procedure was in order. That is why the study had to be repeated, and Erasmus University set up a new, independent academic integrity committee. Ultimately, LOWI issued a judgement, after appeals by Volberda and complainant Vatan H\u00fczeir. LOWI sent the current advisory report to Erasmus University in March.<\/p>\n

What went wrong? The Confederation of Netherlands Industry and Employers (VNO-NCW) sponsored the study into the strategic value of head offices in the Netherlands. But five members (Akzo Nobel, DSM, Philips, Shell and Unilever) provided the funding. This was not mentioned by the researchers. They also failed to mention in follow-up publications that the data derived from that sponsored research.<\/p>\n

No violation of research integrity<\/h2>

For these kinds of violations, LOWI applies three qualifications: negligent conduct, culpable negligent conduct and violation of research integrity, with the last one being the severest form. Because intention could not be proven, and according to LOWI it seems apparent from the documents that it was not clear to Volberda and his fellow researchers \u2018from the beginning\u2019 that the five companies would pay for the research, there is no indication of a violation of research integrity. LOWI considers not naming the five companies to be culpable negligent conduct and classifies not stating that some of the data in the follow-up articles derived from sponsored research as negligent conduct.<\/p>\n

Erasmus University accepts the conclusions of LOWI. Rector Magnificus Frank van der Duijn Schouten issued a declaration that the Executive Board has informed all those directly involved about the decision. The university board is learning lessons from the advisory report for the future, according to the press release. \u201cOtherwise we consider this issue now resolved.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\t

\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Read more<\/h2>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t