Shell Shock: Academia vs. Industry - A Clash Over Greenwashing Tactics

6th December, 2023 – Leiden, Netherlands

In a nexus where academia meets industry, the dichotomy between academic autonomy and societal responsibility looms large. Recent conversations at Leiden University have unveiled a complex debate surrounding research funding, corporate ties, and the subtle shades of greenwashing tactics adopted by fossil fuel giants like Shell.

At the heart of this dialogue was the revelation of greenwashing tactics utilized by corporate behemoths like Shell, sparking intense deliberations on the institution's susceptibility to industry influence.

Led by Professor James Bigby and fellow colleagues at Leiden University, the discussions dissected the intricate nature of funding sources and their far-reaching implications on scientific research. “You can compare places that take fossil funding and those that don’t. The latter tend to have very different views on whether these kinds of projects are actually beneficial or necessary. And that’s where you see how the money - it distorts the perspective you take,” argues Bigby, a professor of Sociology.

If not goodwill, what is the purpose of these tactics? Bigby argues that it allows companies like Shell to cultivate a public image that says they are a responsible partner in the transition, “when in fact those investments only account for a very small percentage of their overall budget and what you're mostly doing is pumping money into New Orleans gas exploration.”

The oil and gas industry invested USD 20 billion in clean energy in 2022, the IEA reports. To us normal folk, spending billions like this might seem like an exorbitant effort on their part, but in fact this accounts for only 2.5% of its total capital spending. When put into perspective, it is easy to see how marginal these ‘green’ investments truly are compared to the industry’s true loyalties, and just how much profit they stand to lose if they commit to the energy transition. “The money that they spend today is not spent out of the goodness of their hearts or out of a genuine desire to promote the transition, because there's plenty of evidence that they have no interest whatsoever in that,” says Bigby.

Within these debates, a stark dichotomy emerged between the seemingly neutral domain of scientific research and the inextricable entanglement with socio-political factors. “Waiting for the right political leadership to propel the transition is like putting the cart before the horse,” aptly points out Bigby. “Scientists started raising the alarm on climate change for about 50 years. Hasn’t worked.”

The rift in perspectives became evident as experts like Professor Peter Menken advocated for maintaining ties with fossil fuel companies to ensure critical projects and preserve academic freedom. “We need to just simply implement as fast as possible. And for that we will need the expertise and the capital of the fossil industry,” says Menken.

However, sociologists stressed the perils of such affiliations, citing biases in research integrity and the industry's diversionary tactics through greenwashing. The focal point of contention was Shell's strategic emphasis on hydrogen projects while sidelining more proven and economically viable renewable energy sources like solar and wind power. Critics like Bigby highlighted Shell's hydrogen investments as a facade that sustains existing fossil fuel infrastructures, impeding genuine progress towards sustainability.

This discourse spotlighted the urgent need for academia to reassess funding streams, prioritize transparency, and uphold ethical considerations. Leiden University’s Executive Board is set to release their statement on the issue in February. This would be a year since the first public hit they took from climate activists holding them to account for their problematic ties.

The unfolding narrative at Leiden University echoes a global dilemma, urging institutions, researchers, and policymakers to navigate the delicate balance between academic integrity, industry influence, and societal obligations. As the institution faces critical decisions regarding fossil fuel ties, this discourse resonates as a clarion call for a redefined scientific paradigm—one that harmonizes scientific integrity with ethical responsibilities towards society and the environment.

*For ethical reasons, all informants' names were pseudonymized.