How does the format work?
The ENGAGEgreen project aims, among other things, to strengthen universities’ capacity to engage in meaningful dialogue with policymakers, fostering equitable collaborations that generate concrete and socially relevant outcomes. Central to the project are the themes addressed in its seminar series: namely, the ecological and digital “twin transition” that constitutes the core focus of ENGAGEgreen.
This document, produced by the team from Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, offers a synthesis and critical re-elaboration of two seminars held with academic experts on topics of particular relevance to the ENGAGEgreen initiative.
The seminars were titled:
A diverse group of scholars, researchers, entrepreneurs, and policymakers contributed to these seminars. The discussions were rich and multifaceted, generating a wide range of insights. At the end of each meeting, several participants were invited to provide written reflections. A number of colleagues agreed to contribute to this collective effort to identify and articulate key factors that can strengthen the connection between scientific research and policymaking processes.
The reflections presented here were guided by a set of questions that grounded the discussion in the concrete experience of the contributors – senior academics with extensive expertise in leading international research projects. The guiding questions were as follows:
- Based on your professional knowledge and experience, what kind of cooperation between policymakers on the one hand and academics and researchers on the other is necessary to design and implement effective policies to address the consequences of climate change?
- Based on your professional knowledge and experience, what role can financial markets play in supporting the green transition?
- Based on your professional knowledge and experience, how can we distinguish between companies that are genuinely committed to the sustainability transition and those that engage in greenwashing practices?
- Based on your professional knowledge and experience, do you think the European Commission should review any of the initiatives undertaken so far? If so, in which direction should such revisions be gone?
The main themes and insights distilled from the exchange among the experts are found below.
2. Based on your professional knowledge and experience, what kind of cooperation between policymakers on the one hand and academics and researchers on the other is necessary to design and implement effective policies to address the consequences of climate change?
A close, structured, and ongoing cooperation between policymakers and the academic/research community is essential for effective climate change policy. Political decisions should be “informed and supported” by scientific research. Moreover, rigorous scenario analysis – combining climate science, socioeconomic projections, and long-term modelling – must be a core component of any policy dialogue.
More specifically:
- Interdisciplinary research and scenario analysis as foundation
Researchers must develop robust, evidence-based climate, environmental, and socioeconomic scenarios that policymakers can use to anticipate the impact of different policy paths, assess trade-offs and make informed decisions. Scenario analysis has proven a valuable tool for navigating uncertainty and design resilient climate and adaptation policies.
- Institutionalized, two-way dialogue mechanisms
Instead of ad hoc consultations, institutional channels (e.g., advisory boards, policy-research consortia, regular working groups) should be established to ensure continuous exchange. This helps new scientific evidence to be integrated and policies to be adapted as knowledge evolves. Reports on bridging science and policy highlight the importance of concise, relevant summaries of scientific findings (policy briefs), to make research usable for decision makers.
- A holistic assessment of environmental, economic, and social impacts
Effective climate policies require not only the mitigation of emissions but also consideration of economic viability, social equity, resilience, and adaptation. Interdisciplinary research combining environmental science, economics, and the social sciences is crucial.
- Transparency and stakeholder engagement
Policies designed with input from researchers, civil society, business, and other stakeholders gain legitimacy, reflect a broad perspective, and are more likely to succeed. A collaborative approach increases public trust and enables more equitable, inclusive climate action.
In conclusion, cooperation between policymakers and researchers should be institutional and continuous, combining rigorous scientific analysis (scenarios, modeling, data) with inclusive, interdisciplinary dialogue. Only through such a partnership can climate policies be scientifically sound, socially equitable, economically viable, and adaptive over time.
2. Based on your professional knowledge and experience, what role can financial markets play in supporting the green transition?
Financial markets can – and should – play a central role in enabling the green transition. The points about the necessity of mobilizing funds and diversifying risk, together with the emphasis on financing voluntary mechanisms (carbon credits, biodiversity, restoration), underline two complementary roles: providing resources and incentivizing sustainable investment.
Concretely, financial markets can contribute by
- Mobilizing capital toward green investments
Instruments such as green bonds, sustainable bonds, and ESG-linked funds channel resources to renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean technologies, circular economy, restoration and other environmentally beneficial projects.
- Diversifying risk and attracting private investors
By pooling resources and spreading risk across investors, financial markets make green projects more viable. This is particularly important for large-scale or long-term investments, which often require upfront capital and have long payback horizons.
- Driving innovation and scale-up of sustainable technologies
Through financing mechanisms, markets can support startups and companies developing green technologies – facilitating diffusion of innovations and structural transformation of the economy.
Supporting mechanisms beyond direct investments – e.g., carbon credits, biodiversity credits, restoration finance
Financial support for voluntary environmental measures (carbon offsetting, biodiversity projects, nature-based solutions) can complement regulatory interventions, especially where public resources or regulatory coverage are limited.
- Embedding environmental risks into financial evaluation and risk management.
Through tools like climate scenario stress-tests and risk assessment frameworks, financial institutions and markets can internalize climate risk, making sustainability part of standard financial decision making.
The effectiveness of finance depends, however, on enabling conditions:
- Clear regulatory frameworks and definitions (e.g., sustainable activities taxonomy)
Investors need clarity about what counts as “green” or “sustainable” to channel funds credibly.
- Transparency, disclosure standards, and independent verification
To avoid “greenwashing,” firms and financial products must provide reliable, comparable ESG and impact data. Sustainability reporting and ESG disclosure regime are key.
- Coordination between public and private capital
Given the scale of investment required for transition – especially in infrastructure, energy, and large-scale environmental projects – public incentives (subsidies, guarantees, regulation) are often necessary to reduce risk and attract private capital.
In conclusion, financial markets are not just passive funders – they can act as enablers and accelerators of the green transition, provided they operate under robust regulatory frameworks, transparency requirements, and a long-term vision of sustainability.
3. Based on your professional knowledge and experience, how can we distinguish between companies that are genuinely committed to the sustainability transition and those that engage in greenwashing practices?
The reasonable view that companies must be properly understood and that clear metrics, standards, and credible certification are essential highlights the core challenge: distinguishing genuine commitment from superficial claims requires sound governance, transparency, and accountability.
Key criteria and mechanisms
- Mandatory, standardized ESG reporting and disclosure
Companies should publish regular, comparable, and independently verified sustainability reports (environmental, social, governance data), covering emissions, resource use, social impact. This allows stakeholders (investors, regulators, civil society) to judge performance over time.
- Use of recognized, independent certification schemes and sustainable-finance standards
Instruments like green bonds or sustainability-linked bonds should follow accepted frameworks and be verified by independent third parties, to ensure credibility of the environmental claims.
- Assessment of “additionality” and genuine impact, not just intentions
It is crucial to evaluate what companies would have done in the absence of “green” labeling; only net improvements compared to a realistic baseline should count.
- Ongoing monitoring, transparency, and stakeholder scrutiny
Sustainability should not be a one-off advertisement but a continuous commitment: audits, public reporting, stakeholder engagement, and accountability mechanisms must be in place.
- Alignment with objective, science-based frameworks and regulations
For instance, compliance with the EU Taxonomy for Sustainable Activities can help ascertain whether a company’s activities truly contribute to environmental objectives.
In conclusion, distinguishing genuine sustainability from greenwashing requires a governance infrastructure: standardized reporting, independent verification, impact assessment, accountability, and regulatory alignment. Without these factors, “green” claims risk being nothing more than marketing.
4. Based on your professional knowledge and experience, do you think the European Commission should review any of the initiatives undertaken so far? If so, in which direction should such revisions go?
A review of existing initiatives is justified and, if done properly, could strengthen the effectiveness, inclusiveness and credibility of the European green policy framework. Based on the responses received and informed by recent developments and challenges, the following directions are suggested:
- Stronger support for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) and smaller actors
Large firms often have resources to meet ESG standards and access green finance; SMEs risk being left out. The Commission should create dedicated support mechanisms (technical assistance, preferential financing, simplified procedures) for SMEs to enable widespread, inclusive participation in the green transition.
- Reinforcing regulatory frameworks for sustainable finance and transparency
To prevent greenwashing and increase trust, the Commission should promote or mandate standardized ESG disclosure, encourage use of recognized sustainability standards and certification, and ensure that financial instruments labeled as “green” meet strict, science-based criteria (for example, complying with the EU Taxonomy).
- Promoting a holistic, interdisciplinary, and participatory governance model
Climate policies should integrate environmental, economic, and social dimensions: mitigation, adaptation, social equity, resilience, biodiversity, and long-term sustainability. Collaboration among science, civil society, the private sector, and public institutions should be fostered.
- Encouraging long-term investments and support for innovation
The Commission should incentivize sustainable investments that have long payback periods – for example, renewable energy infrastructure, circular economy, nature-based solutions, biodiversity restoration – through green bonds, subsidies, public-private partnerships, and guarantee schemes.
- Establishing robust monitoring and evaluation of policy impact
Policies should be regularly assessed using scientific evidence, data, and transparent metrics; adjustments should be made when necessary. This helps ensure that declared objectives translate into real environmental, social, and economic outcomes.
In conclusion, a revision of current initiatives should aim at making the green transition more inclusive, transparent, science-based, and resilient – with a special focus on SMEs, long-term financing, robust governance, and equity. Such a revision would strengthen the credibility and effectiveness of European climate policy, making it more likely to achieve its goals in a fair and sustainable manner.
Authors: the ENGAGEgreen Project, Venice Unit – Marco Corazza, Michele Marzulli, Giulia Ballarin, and Stefano Campostrini.
They express their heartfelt gratitude to all the seminar contributors, namely:
D. Barro, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice
H. Bersini, FARI Institute of Brussels
M. Bidoia, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice
M. Billio, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice
A. Calvi, Modefinance
M. Costola, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice
G. Figà-Talamanca, University of Perugia
G. Filograsso, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice
A. Fronzetti Colladon, University of Perugia
S. Gentner, DG European Commission
R. Giacometti, University of Bergamo
C. Giupponi, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice
B. Guardabascio, University of Perugia
A. Mistretta, Bank of Italy
M. Patacca, University of Perugia
M.A. Pigato, World Bank’s Consultant
J.M. Ricci, University of Bergamo
L. Segneri, University of Perugia
G. Torri, University of Bergamo
K. Vozian, Hanken School of Economics
Do you want to share your experience in policy engagement? Do you think about contributing to the policy engagement toolkit? Feel free to contact Tome Sandevski via science-policy@pvw.uni-frankfurt.de
