'UU's travel policy should be stricter and properly enforced'

Climate scientists, including those at Utrecht University, have long been warning of the dangers of global warming. They anticipate a dystopian future marked by mass migration, wars and famines, caused by floods, heatwaves, wildfires and storms of unprecedented intensity and frequency.

Utrecht University aims to educate students to become “responsible citizens”, including in terms of environmental sustainability. In the meantime, however, its scientists fly considerably more than the average global citizen (as do other scientists in wealthy countries), even though research shows that flying more often does not necessarily lead to better science.

Flying is extremely damaging to the environment. It is the most harmful contribution an individual can make to climate change. For example, to offset the CO2 emissions of a return trip to San Francisco, one would need to be vegetarian for five years or cycle to work for three years (if living 20 kilometres away).

A vision is not enough
How can we align our behaviour with our knowledge of the ecological crisis? Specifically, how can we align our travel behaviour with our research and teaching? How can we act on this ourselves?

If UU is committed to sustainability, it stands to reason that we should limit flying through the university's travel policy.UU’s Strategic Plan promises to promote "green mobility" and "help staff choose the most sustainable travel option". The university has a travel policy stipulating that staff should take the train for journeys under 700 km or 8 hours, and fly as little as possible.

The ambition for 2026 – which is not set too high – is to reduce travel by 10 per cent for all employees, and by 20 per cent for the University Corporate Offices. Furthermore, Dutch universities will soon be subjected to a European obligation to record their CO2 emissions. A moral question remains: what kind of flying policy is morally justifiable?

A vision is not enough to achieve results, which has become particularly clear in this case. The current travel policy is hardly enforced anywhere: UU employees wishing to fly to London, Zurich, or Marseille can usually do so without a care and have their travel expenses reimbursed. Those who wish to travel by train, on the other hand, receive no assistance and must find their way through various booking systems, rules and exceptions.

There is no brake on transcontinental flights, apart from a possible financial one. The university's expense claim systems do not provide a complete and accurate picture of CO₂ emissions from business travel, travel movements, or the type of transport used. Therefore, the targets set by UU regarding CO₂ emissions and reduced (air) travel appear to be little more than paper tigers for the time being.

A major step forward
We can bridge this gap between vision and implementation. By mid-May, the Executive Board will present a proposal to enforce UU’s travel policy — something the University Council had already requested back in October 2024.

As the Executive Board indicated to the University Council in February, it is important that this proposal provides for:

1. approval of expense claims and the registration of travel prior to the journey, in line with the travel policy;
2. user-friendly procedures;
3. assistance for staff when booking train journeys, and
4. centralised administration of CO2 emissions.

If the Executive Board follows through with this, it will be a major step forward on the path to green mobility. So, how can we ensure this proposal is actually implemented rather than bogged down as a vision that relies on voluntary compliance?

Tragedy of the Commons
If we want to make significant progress with green mobility, individual objections must not block the collective interest. It is understandable that some staff members feel they need to attend conferences abroad, including those held on other continents. It is also understandable that they want to get there as quickly as possible and prefer not going through the extra trouble of planning a train journey. These are logical choices for them. It is equally understandable that managers and directors would prefer to avoid difficult conversations and decisions on this matter.

This is precisely where the tragedy of the commons lies: what is good and feels reasonable for the individual leads to an ecological disaster for everyone. Moreover, this emphasis on employee autonomy encourages others to behave similarly (“if my colleague flies all over the world, then my own flight doesn’t matter”).

The Executive Board is the one that, based on its vision of working towards a better world, should continue to keep ecological sustainability and the collective good in mind. Individual staff circumstances must play a role, but must not undermine the vision. That is why input from management levels on the implementation of the travel policy would be welcome, but seeking approval paralyses everything.

A widely supported vision, such as the plans for sustainable travel in the Strategic Plan, does not necessarily lead to its implementation being widely supported. This expectation would block every step. Implementation requires changes in habits and procedures, as well as a period of adjustment. Staff members will need to be more mindful of business travel, particularly of highly-polluting transcontinental flights. Sometimes a journey takes longer, sometimes it becomes more expensive, and sometimes someone simply cannot go.

Bearing in mind
Many staff members find these policies make sense and are happy to travel as little as possible, taking the train when they do. But other staff members resist when a policy affects them. It is precisely at this stage of implementation that the Executive Board's leadership is essential: once the vision is widely supported and established, choices, coordination and boundaries are a normal and necessary form of good governance.

Utrecht University has successful examples of policy implementation based on a moral vision, such as its diversity policy and Recognition & Rewards. The way these two programmes have been implemented was by no means supported by everyone, but the Executive Board stood firm. All obstacles were removed because the moral vision was more important than staff opposition.

How could this happen in these areas, but not yet regarding our travel behaviour? We hope to see the same moral steadfastness reflected in the Executive Board’s proposal. After all, a sustainable university will not be achieved through voluntary compliance. The implementation of a clear and ambitious UU flight policy is a step toward sustainability.

Floris van den Berg is a lecturer in Environmental Philosophy at the Faculty of Geosciences

Eleni Braat is an associate professor of Political History at the Faculty of Humanities and a member of the University Council

Op-eds are submitted to DUB by their authors. The opinions expressed above belong to the authors alone and do not necessarily represent those of DUB.