Executive Summary: Unsolicited Advice – Third Party Collaboration

What is asked for in the 22nd of September unsolicited advice? The CSR demanded a set
of updates relating to third party collaboration. These updates cover: the Third-Party
Advisory Committee, transparency measures, as well as a revision of research
collaboration agreements (dual use). Collectively, the CSR found this as an essential step in
retaining academic integrity within ethical boundaries – showing a responsible lead towards
a greener society in times of multiple global crises. The CSR demanded a formal response for
each of these topics, as well as a possible roadmap of implementation. The letter has found the
support of the ASVA Studentenvakbond as a co-signatory.

On what premises? In line with the White Paper on Sustainability, the UvA recognizes a
“crucial responsibility in accelerating sustainable change in society”. Within the Strategic
Plan, the UvA accentuates that it “must redefine itself and innovate in ongoing dialogue
between its leadership, strong Works and Students Councils and a committed academic
community. Based on our core values and public position, we must find the right partners –
knowledge institutes, businesses, and social institutions – to enable us to achieve this”.

How is ‘greenwashing’ defined? The CSR chose to depart from a narrow definition of
‘greenwashing’ as concerning merely communications and marketing. The reason for this is
the UvA’s need to take more steps to combat forms of greenwashing more intimately related
to research itself. Therefore, the chosen functional concept of ‘greenwashing’ includes (1)
product-level forms of greenwashing and (2) firm-level greenwashing. The first regards
‘claims centering on the ecological high performance of a production process technique, and/
or an ecological disposal method’, unveiling the need to focus on genuine renewable energy
instead of low-carbon technologies. Firm-level greenwashing conceptualizes practices
‘belonging to an inherently unsustainable business, but promoting sustainable practices or
products that are not representative either for the business or the society’. All in all, an
effective conceptualization of greenwashing should strive to respond to the question: are we
doing enough?

1
Requested Policy Update
1. Functioning of the Third-Party Collaboration Advisory Committee

The CSR would like to reiterate its position that a system of case-by-case reviewing by an
ultimately advising committee is insufficient. The proposed measures to ensure the
highest level of protection against greenwashing are:

 Making the verdict of the Advisory Committee binding, to avoid neglecting

sustainability considerations at different levels of decision-making

 Making the submission of research proposals compulsory, in line with Vice-President

Jan Lintsen’s response to the December 2022 petition

 The composition of the Advisory Committee should include people from a range of
disciplines and representation from participatory bodies (e.g. COR and the CSR)

 For avoiding dual use, the Advisory Committee shall assess all new research projects
in the area

 The Advisory Committee should be endowed with the necessary personnel and
facilities and, for efficiency reasons, as assessment on core business level should be
considered.

 Advisory Committee should be able to use its expertise to give (non-binding) advice to
other types of research-related collaborations

2. Transparency Measures

Along the already proposed policy changes, the CSR requests further transparency measures
to enhance accountability:

 Medezeggenschap bodies should be able to get a live report of when an Advisory

Committee evaluation is taking place and in what phase it is

 Full transparency of the agreement documents and accept parts of it to be

redacted (see letter for included/redacted info)

 An internet portal centralizing the information is needed to make information

accessible and clear

3. Dual Use and Product-Level Greenwashing

The CSR emphasizes the importance of dual use clauses in research agreements, considering:

 The technology developed within the PARADISE measurements project, initially

purposed as medical and later revealed to also be of fossil fuel applications

 That fossil fuel companies may still be able to participate in the formulation of research
directions (Ministry of Economic Affairs report on ‘‘Interim evaluation of the TKI
allowance scheme’)
2
 College van Bestuur Nieuwe Achtergracht 170
Postbus 19268 1018 WV Amsterdam
1000 GG Amsterdam (020) 525 3726
csr@uva.nl
studentenraad.nl/csr

Datum 26 september 2023 Ons kenmerk CSR2324-01

Contactpersoon Stefana Feciuc E-mail csr@uva.nl
Bijlage(n) 1
Betreft Research Ethics Reform

Dear Executive Board, Dear Geert, Dear Peter-Paul, Dear Jan,

We, the CSR, write this letter to demand a set of updates to the Third-Party Advisory
Committee, as well as a revision of research collaboration agreements. We further request a set
of corresponding and complementary transparency measures. Collectively, the CSR finds this as
an essential step in retaining academic integrity within ethical boundaries that will show a
responsible lead towards a greener society in times of multiple global crises. We would like to
have a formal response for each of the numbered topics under the ‘Recommended Policy
Update’ heading, as well as a proposed, but concrete, roadmap of implementation.

Introduction
In line with the White Paper on Sustainability, the UvA recognizes a “crucial responsibility in
accelerating sustainable change in society” and a wishes to be a leading university when it
comes to sustainability.i The UvA has committed to adapt its business processes and its daily
behaviour by making the desirable choices attractive. In this sense, the UvA takes the Paris
climate targets as a yardstick for reducing its ecological footprint, aiming to be ‘Paris-proof’ by
2040 the earliest.ii This explicit stress on sustainability as a core issue should not only translate
to processes and daily behaviour (i.e. by transitioning away from Deutsche Bank, which has
major investments in fossil fuel), but also to UvA’s research.

The UvA recognizes its important position within academia and its visibility, but also its
accompanying responsibility. In the ‘Inspiring Generations’ Strategic Plan 2021-2026, the
university emphasizes, as its first value, the independence of science from the interests of public
authorities and industries, and, as its second value, putting practice into sustainability.iii

Within the Strategic Plan, the UvA accentuates that it “must redefine itself and innovate in
ongoing dialogue between its leadership, strong Works and Students Councils and a
committed academic community. Based on our core values and public position, we must find
the right partners – knowledge institutes, businesses, and social institutions – to enable us to
achieve this”.iv

Considering its strong commitment to sustainability, as well as an emphasis on collaboration

with medezeggenschap bodies, it is important that the CvB gives weight to participatory
bodies, and to the UvA community at large, in drafting its policy regarding third party
collaborations.

Chronological Context of Past Year

Jan 2022 Start Advisory Committee on Cooperation with Third Parties
Sep 2022 Launch of the petition, currently at 1892 signaturesv
Nov 2022 Adoption of the stance of the CSR to cut ties with Shell
Dec 2022 Jan Lintsen statement on the ties with Shellvi
Dec 2022 Petition handovervii and response by the CvBviii
Jan 2023 Occupation of the Amsterdamse Academische Clubix
Feb 2023 Moratorium on research with Shellx
Mar-Jun 2023 UvA-wide dialogue on collaboration with 3rd parties:
Fossil fuel industryxi
May 2023 Occupation ABC building Roeterseiland campusxii
Jun 2023 Final report: UvA-wide dialogue on collaboration with 3rd parties:
Fossil fuel industryxiii
Jul 2023 New principles regarding collaboration with the fossil energy sectorxiv
Sep-Dec 2023 Updating Policy framework Cooperation with third parties in
research (‘Beleidskader Samenwerking met derden in onderzoek’)

The Current State of Affairs

On the 19th of October 2022, the CSR voted in favour of UvA cutting ties with Shell. This
entailed, firstly, stopping the UvA from featuring Shell in lectures, career events and interviews.
Secondly, this meant having the UvA reject funding from Shell and replace the funding from
more green companies. However, it was decided that there will be a continuation

of the collaboration with fossil fuel companies, under a “no, unless...” condition, as confirmed
in the OV dating 5th of July 2023.

This came as a response to the increased student awareness of the ties of the UvA with Shell.
The company is slowing the energy transition, by investing as little as 1.5% of its capital
expenditures to develop genuine renewablesxv and by scrapping projects in green energy due to
projections of weak returns on profit.xvi This comes despite the legal obligation to strictly
reduce its CO2 emissions by 2030 by a net 45%, as espoused in the groundbreaking Dutch
Milieudefensie case.xvii Not only is Shell one of the biggest contributors to climate change, but
the company has also proven to be an unreliable unethical partner when it comes to the
violation of human and environmental rights. A widely known example is, inter alia, the
pollution of the Niger Delta (recklessly spilling about seven Olympic swimming pools of oil),xviii
which infringes on the internationally recognized rights to life and to a clean environment.

Pagina 2 ~ 10
 Centrale Studentenraad
studentenraad.nl/csr ~ csr@studentenraad.nl
[!!! DATUM INVOEREN] ~ [ONDERWERP INVOEREN]

Structure of the Unsolicited Advice

The proposed unsolicited advice would be structured as follows: first off, it would support the
strengthening of a more efficient system of an Advisory Committee, followed by proposing
measures to ensure collaboration transparency and, lastly, proposing conditions to combat
dual use and research greenwashing. The unsolicited advice would thus serve to qualify the
“no, unless…” condition favoured by the CvB. Because the complete prevention of
greenwashing is not possible within this frame, as stated by the CvB during the 5th of July OV,
and because the decision to cut ties with fossil fuel companies is not permanent, the UvA will
have to impose clear safeguards against greenwashing.

Towards a Water-tight Definition of Greenwashing

Preliminarily, the way we, the CSR, understand greenwashing goes beyond mere
communication tactics. Greenwashing may be understood, in its narrow definition, as strictly
related to the marketing of a product/service or a practice. This is exemplified in spending a
disproportionate amount of money on communication and advertising to frame a company as
green-oriented versus making genuine investments in averting the climate crisis. An example
of this type of greenwashing is Shell’s ‘The Great Travel Hack’ series, where two teams
compete in travelling from London to Istanbul to have the lowest CO2 emissions.xix The
YouTube production is in line with Shell’s larger PR strategy to generate significant media
coverage on online media,xx to appeal to younger consumers and build brand loyalty and
advocacy. The municipality of Amsterdam issued a response to such advertising, delineating
that it is not consistent with GVB’s focus on zero-emission public transport.xxi

Considering that the UvA already accounts for the need for a communication strategy before
entering into research collaborations,xxii we believe that the UvA should take more steps to
combat forms of greenwashing more intimately related to research itself. The functional
concept of greenwashing should further focus on product-level forms of greenwashing of a
certain technology, accounting for ‘green’ claims on process orientation in the wider context of
the climate crisis (“claims centering on the ecological high performance of a production process
technique, and/ or an ecological disposal method”).xxiii Compare, for example, research focused
on developing long-term, genuine renewable energy (zero-carbon energy such as wind or solar)
versus temporary fixes such as low-carbon products (i.e. carbon capture, biofuels, hydrogen). It
is only the former that would contribute to UvA’s promise of truly accelerating sustainable
change in society, whereas the ‘green’ character of the latter is a still debated. While, at this
point of the climate crisis, any solution should be welcome, research attention should not be
aiming at patching, but at actually moving towards a permanent energy solution. Due to the way
private funding works, and associated benefit schemes, profit motives leave “less room within
the instruments to work on issues that lie further in the future”.xxiv Therefore, the UvA needs
water-tight guidelines that focus on genuine renewables research and combat greenwashing
at a research technology level.

Further, a comprehensive definition should account for firm-level greenwashing, which

concerns the environmental practices of an organization.xxv One type of such greenwashing is
labeled as ‘dirty business’ – “belonging to an inherently unsustainable business, but promoting
sustainable practices or products that are not representative either for the business or the
society”.xxvi Here, it is important to point out that approximately 90% of Shell’s investments

Pagina 3 ~ 10
continue to go to fossil fuel, while the company refuses to disclose its detailed reports on
genuine renewable energy.xxvii Because of its poor profits from renewables, Shell will keep oil
output steady or slightly higher into 2030.xxviii Further, it simultaneously decided to increase
its investments in oil production and oil products by 30% to $12.5 billion, which goes against
the need to completely phase out fossil fuel by the end of the next two decades. In line with VU’s
approach on collaborating with the fossil fuel industry,xxix a company that increases fossil
exploration and infrastructure is not ‘Paris-proof’ in a short term and demonstrable way.
As such, to avoid firm-level greenwashing, the UvA needs to draft a policy that is in line with
international standards, such as the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals,
also mentioned in the current ‘Beleidskader Samenwerking met derden in onderzoek’ (Policy
framework Cooperation with third parties in research).

All in all, an effective conceptualization of greenwashing should strive to respond to the

question: are we doing enough?

Requested Policy Update

1. Functioning of the Third-Party Collaboration Advisory Committee

The collective problem of climate change naturally requires that the problem is dealt with in a
collective forum – such as the Advisory Committee. Given the ‘no, unless…’ condition, the UvA
will need a strengthened checking system. Therefore, the CSR would like to reiterate our
positionxxx that a system of case-by-case reviewing by an ultimately advising committee is
insufficient.

Firstly, the verdict of the Advisory Committee should be made binding, and not an advice. Due
to the current structure of approval of a potentially unethical (read as: unsustainable) project
within the beleidskader, it is extremely easy for sustainability considerations to be
neglected. The multi-layered decision-making process (going through research directors,
deans, and the Executive Board), in combination with no right of initiative, means that there is
room left for an arbitrary decision on a research collaboration that does not account for the
urgency with which climate change should be treated. This problem is reflected in Vice-
President Jan Lintsen’s response to the December 2022 petition, in which it was
recognized that, even if the involvement of the Advisory Committee is currently optional, it
should be made compulsory. In the same letter, it was stated that “the Committee will then be
able to issue advice based on both academic and social considerations. This requires a new
yardstick that – among other things – allows the following question to be asked: does this
research actually contribute to a sustainable future?”.xxxi If a potential third party is deemed
controversial or if it cannot commit to the agreements in terms of transparency and technology
transfer, the UvA should not enter into partnership with that third party. A binding, semi-
centralized model of decision-making would prevent greenwashing at the product level by
being able to only concentrate on genuine renewables research.

In terms of the Advisory Committee’s constitution, we, the CSR, demand that its decisions
should always be taken in dialogue (in which a range of disciplines are consulted and in which
participatory bodies are represented). While medezeggenschap is represented in the
Algemene Instellingsgebonden Ethische Commissie van de UvA (AIEC), its functioning was

Pagina 4 ~ 10
 Centrale Studentenraad
studentenraad.nl/csr ~ csr@studentenraad.nl
[!!! DATUM INVOEREN] ~ [ONDERWERP INVOEREN]

seriously affected by the introduction of the Advisory Committee in January 2022 and seems to
not work properly since 2020.xxxii The interests of both the Workers and Student Councils
should be represented in the committee since potentially unsustainable and unethical research
has both academic and social implications. The emphasis on dialogue with medezeggenschap is
outlined in the UvA Strategic Plan,xxxiii while the importance of the social dimension of academic
responsibility is delineated in the current beleidskader.xxxiv

Further, in addition to the promise that the dean must always submit plans for new research
collaborations with partners from the fossil fuel sector to the Advisory Committee, for the same
reasons as combatting product-level greenwashing, the Advisory Committee should assess all
new research projects. This is because unethical misuse by third parties goes beyond only the
fossil fuel industry (see section on dual use below), and we must avoid a selective use of the
policy when it is convenient. As an academic institution, we should stay consistent and evaluate
all third parties objectively through the new framework.

Due to the foreseen increased workload of the Advisory Committee, the UvA should make the
budgetary space to endow it to perform its duties. Therefore, we demand a plan that accounts
for such money allocation. Further, because of the increased number of projects that would
have to be reviewed, it makes more practical sense that the research collaborations are not
reviewed on a case-by-case basis, but on a core business level of the third party. In the specific
case of Shell, the core business (compare the 90% investments in fossil fuel versus other types
of investments) is quite clear. This would further contribute to avoiding firm-level
greenwashing and would allow for an eventual categorization of third parties as either
controversial or uncontroversial in time. Once this list would be completed, the evaluations of
the Advisory Committee would be done quicker and more efficiently. We believe that such third
parties should have the opportunity to be re-evaluated every few years.

Lastly, the Advisory Committee should be able to use its expertise to give (non-binding) advice
to other types of research-related collaborations, such as guest lectures and events. From
the information the CSR has collected last year, researchers are invited to different fossil fuel
companies’ symposiums for networking purposes. What is more, beyond the financing of a
certain research project, fossil fuel companies establish meetings to monitor the progress of
such collaborations. Often, the researchers become employed by the companies after their
candidacy.

2. Transparency Measures

We are pleased with UvA’s push for transparency measures for collaboration projects. However,
the CSR does have a few demands that go further than the publicized measures concerning,
firstly, the Advisory Committee and, secondly, access to information about projects and
financial resources.

2.1. Transparency measures within the Advisory Committee

The Advisory Committee, as an overseer of controversial research collaborations, should, as
much as possible, be accountable to the UvA community at large. At the moment, all previous
reports made by the Advisory Committee are confidential. The new proposed policy update

Pagina 5 ~ 10
promises that the body will report annually on how many and what kind of intended
collaborations it has advised, and what kind of advice it has given. However, this does not
correspond to the emphasis put on ongoing dialogue between leadership, Works and Student
Councils, as well as a committed academic community, as emphasized in the Strategic Plan.xxxv
For purposes of accountability, the Medezeggenschap councils should be able to have access to
a live report of when an evaluation is taking place and in what phase it is.

2.2. Transparency measures relating to access to information about projects

and financial resources
This section moves its focal point from participatory bodies to the UvA community at large. The
new policy updates stress the inclusion of the projects, as well as the financial resources
involved, in a publicly accessible register. This is a welcomed development by the CSR, as it is
conducive to accountability and academic responsibility. As the forth runners of transitioning
towards a green society, researchers also have a social type of responsibility when conducting
research, as highlighted in the current beleidskader.xxxvi We, the CSR, request an
implementation roadmap for the CvB commitments of the 5th of July 2023 OV – in which the
CvB undertook to “communicate information about projects, such as the goals and the
budgeting and the reasoning why it falls within the category ‘no, unless…’. The CvB will further
communicate the total percentage of funds of the UvA research budget that comes from the
fossil fuel industry”. This is important because, as experienced by the CSR last year, there were
many hurdles to collecting information on third party collaboration.xxxvii The first block
that was met was that information about collaborations within different departments is taking a
long time to collect. Secondly, there was a confidentiality block about the financial flows of fossil
fuel companies funding through UvA. Enhanced transparency would be ultimately conducive to
efficiency gains in terms of information flow between different parts of the UvA community.
Further, a comprehensive and clear overview of all the collaborations would serve to avoid
situations such as the recent discovery of a new collaboration with Shell through the list
published on their site (BatteryNL project).

However, we consider that the only way of holding collaborations transparent is to have full
transparency of the agreement documents and accept parts of it to be redacted.

Amongst all, the project information should include:

- the third-party name,
- the technology transfer (given licensees),
- intended use of license,
- terms and conditions of the research agreement, and
- the research plan (including the nature and scope of the
research, the approach to the research as well as the
intended results)

Examples of pieces of information that, due to privacy or trade secrets issues, is sensitive, and
should not be disclosed to the public would include:
- Personal information
- Details of the technology
- In terms of the NWO:

Pagina 6 ~ 10
 Centrale Studentenraad
studentenraad.nl/csr ~ csr@studentenraad.nl
[!!! DATUM INVOEREN] ~ [ONDERWERP INVOEREN]

- The names of rejected applicants, as well as any

information that may reveal their identity
- The names of referees, as well as any information
that may reveal their identity
- competition-sensitive information in research
proposals

Such disclosure of information should serve as checks and balances for, firstly, dual use of
technologies (by checking for intended uses, research scope and results). In line with the new
principles delineated in July 2023, full disclosure of licenses and terms of conditions may be
further conducive to taking anti-shelving precautions (in terms of exclusive licences), and to
overviewing the awarded non-exclusive licences (so that other interested parties can work on
the new knowledge too).

All in all, this information should be made accessible and clear. A proposed solution would be an
internet portal centralizing the information that is not only accessible to staff, and where
there is no login needed. According to the White Paper, one of the goals is to make it clearly
visible on the UvA sustainability page which institutes share which relevant common ground
with green sustainability and which research is taking place in the field of sustainability. xxxviii

3. Dual Use and Product-Level Greenwashing

The beleidskader puts some emphasis on dual use clauses in research agreements, but it does
so mainly in the context of military or terrorist groups. While sustainability is mentioned in the
current beleidskader, the CSR trusts that the new beleidskader, as well as the general terms and
conditions in research collaborations, will detail on the dual use of technologies. Clauses on dual
use stop a certain technology from being used in unsustainable ways. An example of such dual
use can be found in the PARADISE measurements project, of which Shell is part of the
consortium. While the research collaboration is framed, in its short public description, as
developing a medical technology (“what is the cause behind the patient’s symptoms? Is this
drug safe? Is this substance explosive?”),xxxix the technology may have a dual use in efficient oil
mixtures (fossil fuels applications). In contrast to the previous beleidskader, such dual use
should further be monitored by the Advising Committee, and not fall solely on the shoulders of
individual scientists to determine.xl This would take some weight off in terms of workload away
from the researchers, considering the complexity of dual use.

Dual use clauses are even more important when considering that fossil fuel companies may
still be able to participate in the formulation of research directions. For example, under
the TKI (Top consortium for Knowledge and Innovation) allowance scheme of funding research,
where research is more demand-driven (and therefore more responsive to the markets), the
focus of the research agenda may still be influenced by the collaborating companies. Hereby is a
fragment from the Ministry of Economic Affairs-commissioned ‘Interim evaluation of the TKI
allowance scheme’:xli

“Whereas previously knowledge institutions were less dependent on external funding, this has
greatly increased in recent years. The TKI allowance is important because it helps knowledge
institutions to obtain both private contributions and an allowance. In order to use the allowance,

Pagina 7 ~ 10
the deployment projects also require co-financing (although nowadays not necessarily private).
This mechanism implies that knowledge institutions are forced to program research for
which they can find sufficient commitment. Within the scheme, the involvement of companies is
thus much less non-committal; they have to make hard(er) commitments. At the same time,
knowledge institutions also have to adapt more to the research questions/wishes of the
companies.”

In light of the above, the CSR requests the UvA to come with a comprehensive roadmap for
combatting dual use and technology-level greenwashing.

Conclusion
The present unsolicited advice demands that, by going through with the “no, unless…” condition
of collaboration with the fossil fuel industry, the UvA should develop tight guidelines to combat
greenwashing. Such measures include: strengthening the Advisory Committee, offering it
compulsory involvement and binding rights to the reports produced, taking in-depth
transparency measures, and overseeing dual use clauses.

Kind regards,

Stefana Feciuc
On behalf of the CSR 23/24

Noah Pellikaan
Chair of the CSR 23/24

Co-signatory:
ASVA Studentenvakbond

Pagina 8 ~ 10
 Centrale Studentenraad
studentenraad.nl/csr ~ csr@studentenraad.nl
[!!! DATUM INVOEREN] ~ [ONDERWERP INVOEREN]

Sources
i
White paper on Sustainability: Five objectives for a Sustainable UvA, page 3, and Inspiring
Generations: Strategic Plan 2021-2026, page 20.
ii
Strategic Plan, page 22.
iii
Strategic Plan, page 20.
iv
Strategic Plan, page 5.
v https://actie.fossielvrij.nl/petitions/uva-cut-ties-with-shell
vi
https://www.uva.nl/en/content/news/news/2022/12/four-questions-for-jan-lintsen-cvb-
on-the-ties-with-shell.html
vii https://www.folia.nl/actueel/154808/uva-rebellion-overhandigt-anti-shell-petitie-aan-

uva-bestuur
viii https://www.uva.nl/binaries/content/assets/uva/nl/nieuws-en-agenda/brief-aan-

university-rebellion-23-12-2022-en.pdf
ix https://www.uva.nl/binaries/content/assets/uva/nl/nieuws-en-agenda/brief-aan-

university-rebellion-23-12-2022-en.pdf
x https://www.uva.nl/en/content/news/news/2023/02/moratorium-on-research-with-

shell.html
xi https://www.uva.nl/en/content/news/news/2023/04/dialogues-on-cooperation-with-

fossil-fuel-industry-to-continue-in-may-and-june.html
xii https://www.parool.nl/amsterdam/politie-beeindigt-protest-uva-campus-14-

arrestaties~b60c2456/
xiii https://www.uva.nl/en/content/news/news/2023/06/final-report-on-dialogues-with-

external-parties-published.html
xiv https://www.uva.nl/en/content/news/news/2023/07/climate-emergency-requires-new-

policy-on-fossil-fuel-industry.html
xv https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/feb/01/shell-renwable-energy-spending-

sec-global-witness
xvi https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/shell-pivots-back-oil-win-over-investors-

sources-2023-06-09/
xvii https://nos.nl/artikel/2382398-milieudefensie-wint-rechtszaak-tegen-shell-co2-

uitstoot-moet-sneller-dalen
xviii https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/niger-delta-oil-spills-decoders/
xix https://www.shell.nl/media/venster/eerder-verschenen/schoner-op-reis-met-the-great-

travel-hack.html
xx https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2016/07/07/leaked-strategy-behind-shells-low-

emissions-pr-push/
xxi https://verbiedfossielereclame.nl/gvb-weert-greenwashing-shell/
xxii Beleidskader Samenwerking met Derden (Memo, 13 januari 2022), page 3.
xxiii Sebastião Vieira de Freitas Netto, Marcos Felipe Falcão Sobral, Ana Regina Bezerra

Ribeiro and Gleibson Robert da Luz Soares (2020) ‘Concepts and forms of greenwashing:
a systematic review’ in Environmental Sciences Europe, page 8.
xxiv Ministerie van Economische Zaken (2016) ‘Tussenevaluatie TKI-toeslagregeling’, page

58. Available at: https://dialogic.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/2016.034-1626.pdf

xxv Ibid, page 7.
xxvi Ibid, page 9.
xxvii https://www.follow-this.org/shell-still-not-reporting-investments-in-renewable-

energy-around-90-in-fossil-fuels/
xxviii https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/shell-pivots-back-oil-win-over-investors-

Pagina 9 ~ 10
sources-2023-06-09/
xxix
https://www.advalvas.vu.nl/en/nieuws/vu-amsterdam-breaks-fossil-fuel-industry-
mostly
xxx 230111 Memo to the CvB – Subject: Cutting Ties with Shell
xxxi
https://www.uva.nl/binaries/content/assets/uva/nl/nieuws-en-agenda/brief-aan-
university-rebellion-23-12-2022-en.pdf
xxxii https://www.folia.nl/actueel/140633/uvas-ethische-commissie-heeft-geen-voorzitter-

en-komt-al-anderhalf-jaar-niet-meer-bijeen
xxxiii
Strategic plan, page 5.
xxxiv
Beleidskader Samenwerking met Derden, page 2.
xxxv
See page 2 of this Unsolicited advice.
xxxvi Beleidskader Samenwerking met Derden, page 4.
xxxvii 221019 PV Meeting Piece – Subject: Cutting Ties with Shell
xxxviii White Paper on Sustainability, page 15.
xxxix https://www.uva.nl/en/content/news/news/2023/07/climate-emergency-requires-

new-policy-on-fossil-fuel-industry.html
xl Beleidskader Samenwerking met Derden, page 6.
xli Tussenevaluatie TKI-toeslagregeling, page 56.

Pagina 10 ~ 10