UvA staff want stricter flight policies: “Flight shame doesn’t work“
Staff at the University of Amsterdam (UvA) want to fly less, but for that to happen, policy needs to change. Cameron Brick looked into the flights taken by UvA staff. “Awareness is not enough.”
“I’m trying to attend fewer and fewer conferences,” says UvA psychologist Cameron Brick. He has conducted research into the flying habits of UvA staff. For years, scientists, researchers and staff have been taking flights for work-related travelling: for fieldwork, conferences and guest lectures, for example. There is growing awareness of the climate impact of flying. But “flight shame” is not enough to bring about change, says Brick. “It’s not enough just to be more aware. There needs to be a shift in what we consider normal and acceptable. To achieve the UvA’s targets, better regulation is needed.”
In 2021, a new sustainable aviation policy was introduced, with the aim of reducing travel emissions by at least 25 per cent by 2026 (of which flying accounts for a large proportion) compared with 2019. This policy focused primarily on reducing short-haul flights, by emphasising that it is better to travel by train. For destinations that can be reached by train in less than six hours, flying would no longer be an option at all.
Long distance flights
However, Brick’s research shows that emissions from aviation are continuing to rise. The exact current level of emissions remains unclear. But according to Brick’s research, they are 30 per cent higher than expected. And so they continue to rise. In total, according to Brick’s research, approximately 31.3 million kilometres were flown in 2024. To put this into perspective: this equates to 5,350 trips from Amsterdam to New York. In 2023, the figure stood at roughly 27.7 million kilometres flown. This means 4,735 trips to New York. These figures are compiled from known reimbursements, data from the travel agency with which the UvA collaborates, and an estimate of the “less reliable” data.
The reason the exact figures are unknown is that not all expense claims are complete or reliable. This is due to the way in which expense claims are submitted, which does not always immediately make it clear whether a flight is involved and what the destination is. “We are looking into reorganising the booking and expense claim system to gain a better understanding of flight movements,” says Richard Goldstein, Vice-Chair of the Executive Board. This will hopefully provide a clearer picture of actual flight behaviour in the future.
What is particularly striking about Brick’s research is that emissions can be attributed almost entirely to long-haul flights. And this is where current policy goes wrong, as it primarily sets out rules and guidelines for limiting short-haul flights. Brick’s research also shows that just ten per cent of employees who fly for work are responsible for the lion’s share of emissions (44 per cent) and that most employees do not fly at all.
Support
The need for a reformed policy comes from the staff themselves. This “support” is also evident at Amsterdam UMC, as shown by a survey carried out there. 80 per cent of respondents are in favour of a stricter air travel policy. At Amsterdam UMC, too, there is still (too) much air travel. Of the 168 respondents, 72 per cent still take the plane for business travel. And there, too, a small number of employees are responsible for the majority of emissions.
The downside
There is also a downside, however, as “international science sometimes requires face-to-face meetings”, according to Goldstein. “A great deal of knowledge is gathered and shared during guest lectures, at symposia, conferences and other networking events.” In his view, it is important to strike a balance here and to provide greater clarity on when a trip is truly necessary.
Whether something is necessary remains a judgement call for the traveller and their line manager, Goldstein explains. To help with this, the new travel policy will set out guidelines, and Brick is working on a decision tree. Brick: “We could consider giving priority to early-career researchers. They still have their careers to build.”
Tighter travel policy
But what should the new policy look like? A maximum level of CO₂ emissions per employee should be set, time spent travelling by train should also count as working time, and a Sustainable Travel Fund should be established to cover the price difference between air and rail travel. These examples are included in the proposal, based on Brick’s findings, which was recently presented to Goldstein and Chief Financial Officer Peter Bosman.
The initiative comes from the grassroots, but the Executive Board is also “enthusiastic” about the research. “As far as I’m concerned, the policy could be less non-committal: not just choosing the most sustainable option, but making it the only option,” says Goldstein. They are set to work on a stricter travel policy.
Most UvA staff therefore agree with even stricter flying rules. However, according to Brick, whether they will actually comply with the new rules depends on whether the policy is considered “fair”, whether staff have had a say in the development of the new rules, and whether there are good alternatives, such as online participation or travelling by train.
