How Does Academia Speak Policy?
This was a UCRF project, organised as part of our third Action Season. On May 12, UCRF hosted a focused session exploring how academics can meaningfully engage with policymakers. Despite a small group, the conversation was rich—ranging from the urgency of influencing EU textile policy to strategies for making research resonate in political spaces. This post brings together key takeaways from that discussion, the Degrowth Conference in Oslo, and follow-up reflections during UCRF’s AGM, offering insights into what works, what doesn’t, and why persistence matters.
Tone and Cello went through with the How Does Academia Speak policy? on May 12th, even if we only had two who had emailed for participation, and one member asking for a summary. So small group, but very engaged, we even went over allotted time. The discussion first circled around the ‘why’ researchers feel the need to reach out to policy makers.
This is mainly related to relevance for policy in the making, a feeling of urgency, which is met with some initial well-meaning understanding, but generally leads nowhere, as there is a gap in understanding the underpinning research and also the unintended effects of policy measures that make assumptions that are not based on empirical evidence or research.
We discussed how tying the issue to who/what will ‘get hurt’ by policy instruments – vulnerable groups or other policy instruments that come in conflict, can be an effective approach. F ex EU’s DG AGRI suddenly realizing that the revision of the bioeconomy strategy is on collision course with PEFCR (which is under DG ENVI and DG GROW).
How to approach policy makers was another point of discussion, and also finding the person handling the given ‘file’, but contributing to open public consultations which are often followed or preceded by webinars, the right people make themselves visible. We ended with a discussion on eco-design (ESPR) and the limits of durability, discussing Irene Maldini’s groundbreaking work, showing how assumptions, not empirical data, is currently underpinning EU’s textile strategy.
We brought these insights to the session: How to speak so policymakers listen? Sharing experiences of trying and failing to transform EU legislation in setting an upper production/import limit in rich countries - drawing on the case of clothing and textiles, at the Degrowth conference in Oslo, where UCRF had quite a presence, with Board members Kate (chair of said session), Karishma and Tone in place, and members such as Irene (who together with Kate co-chaired Degrowth dialogues in fashion: cultivating the seeds of change), Kirsten Scott, Katia Dayan Vladimirova, Ingun Grimstad Klepp and more.
Our frustration: The head-banging of not getting the message across that the Textile Strategy and the policies coming out of this are – in sum – an on-coming train wreck. It seems policy is based on the assumption that more durable, more repairable and more recyclable apparel is going to reduce volumes produced; when it is more probable that it’s the opposite approach that is the way forward: reduction in volumes. We don’t need more of anything, we need less!
This can be achieved through hiking the prices substantially, which surfaced in the ensuing discussion. Katia Dayan Vladimirova talked about that local city level may be an easier place to start (her experience from Geneva) but also perseverance (just getting volume reduction into policy has been a major break-through as green growth is the mantra). Irene shared how the Netherlands are setting import limits, citing her research (!). France’s new anti-fast fashion policy tools were also mentioned, though the question remains if they are effective, and of course tariffs (Trump’s intervention in the global economy – a blessing in disguise?).
Irene: “It was impressive to see many young people trying to affect policy in this direction from several countries, also outside the EU. Our shared experience is that unfortunately, formal democratic participation channels do not work. Informal channels and key contacts with political actors including consultants are more efficient channels to affect policy change. Sadly, these channels are not equally available to all citizens or scientists, questioning the democratic nature of policy influence.”
Kate: “Individuals get this, institutions less so.” Once policy is set in ‘stone’, it is – literally – set in stone.
Surprisingly, an EU politician from Hungary, attended the session, and bluntly said that “politicians want to be re-elected – use our self-interest in this regard, showing us that there is a large number of people’s votes to be won if we support this issue”. She specifically mentioned petitions. Coming into the discussion early, before they are “set in stone”, is another takeaway. Which is, of course, tricky.
There were other insights: How language is key, how degrowth or post-growth are words that stop the conversations in their tracks, while a well-being economy resonates. How change is deemed scary, as opposed to status quo, the belief policy makers place in “rocket science” and innovation vs good old fashioned common sense and use of those old boring resources. Surprisingly, SoMe entered late into the room.
And then the tricky one: How much to dumb down without losing integrity. Sticking to one message, and repeating it over and over, beyond one’s own boredom with being stuck in a groove: vital. Also, to have ready alternative solutions, not just criticizing what is on the table. So, when a crisis or massive realization hits home, one has a working alternative ready in place.
Making it personal, is also an effective approach. And the obvious: How much money can be saved and how many jobs safeguarded.
It still remains a paradox, as Ingun reiterated: “We’re asked for evidence, but when we deliver it is ignored or misconstrued.”
23 attended, in conflict with similar themed sessions, and hold your hats: 4 men. And we really had trouble getting people to leave, the discussion blossomed.
During UCRF’s AGM the discussion continued with the Board and members.
Member Engagement part 2: How might we, as concerned researchers, collectively engage with policymakers in ways that amplify our activist ecologies and ensure they truly listen to the diverse voices within our community?
Nandita: hyper-targeted campaigns over a long period of time. Often linked to horrifying incidents that change is initiated. Gender-based violence, given more attention by #MeToo movement, use the media strategically. Really specific, broad suggestions don’t work.
Vinit: textile waste management in Indonesia, four years of work, but still no firm regulation is needed. How did they get a seat at the table? - an industry coalition, making the most of the circularity movement, and this moved the needle a little
Gitika: next to impossible to get changes made in policy, because governments do not have political will to act in this space, instead they align themselves to industry which they perceive as providers of jobs and economic prosperity
Vinit: Make a lot of noise to create change – the policy makers will respond to the noise.
Hakan: change is a subjective construct, try to challenge the underlying conditions. Making policy shifts takes years. Practice moves faster than the policy change. So engage with workers to enable diverse perspectives to be accounted for.
Vinit: Put aside biases, instead focus on what is needed for the stakeholders.
Tone: Remember, politicians want to be re-elected – use their self-interest in this regard, showing them that there is a large number of people’s votes to be won if they support this issue
Jennifer: Politicians are busy, give them the info they need to make informed decisions.
Guided by our Manifesto, UCRF is committed to amplifying diverse voices and perspectives. Our goal is to foster an activist knowledge ecology and lead critical debates on fashion's systemic challenges. While we do not endorse a single viewpoint, we seek to offer a platform for varied ideas that inspire further dialogue and inquiry.
