How Academics Can Inform Public Debate and Policy: Four Case Studies

So much is happening in the world right now, including trade wars, regression of climate commitments, armed conflicts, and persistent inequity. The conditions in which we live and work are increasingly turbulent and academics around the world are considering how they can help shape the issues they care about.  

On May 27th, the Network for Business Sustainability convened a passionate group of academics to explore the question, “How should sustainability academics and research centres engage in public debate and policy?” As part of the event, a panel shared their own experiences with public and political engagement. Speakers included:

• Tom Lyon, University of Michigan, United States. Tom is part of an independent non-profit that helps companies make their political engagement more responsible, using evidence-based principles.

• Nadia Lambek, Western University, Canada. Nadia helps youth from around the world have their voices represented in global food policy at the United Nations.

• Charles Cho, Schulich School of Business, Canada. Charles is working with the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) to help create a global standard for corporate impact materiality reporting.

• Rezvan Sharifnia & Neda Afsham, Sharif Sustainable Development School, Iran. Rezvan and Neda help run a university-housed non-profit, which helps environmental stakeholders push for national policy change.

If you’re an academic or research centre leader wanting to shape policy, this article is for you. Here’s what you’ll find – feel free to skip to the parts that interest you most!

1. At-a-glance summary of each panelist’s work, to give you a sense of how many ways you can structure your own engagement work.

2. 8 tips for getting started with engagement work.

3. Detailed description of each panelist’s approach, so you can learn more about those that seem promising in your context. 

Four Academic Engagement Strategies: At-A-Glance

There’s no one ‘right way’ for academics to use their knowledge to shape the world. You can make a difference as a single person, or you can grow a team. You can work through your own, independent projects, or you can partner with well-established organizations already working on your target issue. 

The table below shows a brief summary of the engagement approaches that our speakers have taken. Their approaches are unique in structure, geographic focus, desired impact, and funding model. If you see an approach you’d like to learn more about, read the full case studies below (following the section on advice for doing engagement work.)

Advice for Academic Engagement in Public Debate and Policy 

If you are an academic wanting to create real-world change, including policy change, our speakers offered advice to guide your efforts.

1. Close the gap between theory and practice

Tom and Charles encouraged academics to engage with practitioners. Tom shared that: “There are conferences going on all the time, with people in the real world that are trying to accomplish something, and they are happy to have academics come. Go to those conferences. And while you’re there, don’t just approach them with a new theory. Figure out the things they need to know, that academia might be able to help solve, and gather potential research questions that might actually make a difference. Talking to people in the real world is the easiest way in.”

Charles echoed these thoughts: “Some academics don’t want to engage with practitioners. We tend to talk to ourselves, criticizing or patting each other on the back. That’s a problem. We need to organize events that involve practitioners, so we can create something powerful together.” 

2. Find the right people

To make change, you can’t just work with anybody. You need to know who has the power to make the changes you want to see. Then, go find them. “Think about who actually makes the decisions on the issue you are working on, and how you can gain access to those people,” advises Tom. He also points out that people usually want credible knowledge, grounded in science. They will likely be happy to hear from you, so be bold in reaching out.

3. Spend time building relationships and trust

Engagement work will lead you to work with new people, some whom have never worked with academics. Expect to spend time building trust and relationships. Rezvan and Neda reported that this was very much a part of their experience with Iran EIA Watch. Academic engagement work is not common in Iran, meaning their team had to first help people understand their work. They did this through active social media engagement, co-hosting events with environmental activists, publishing articles in major sustainability-focused newspapers, and meeting with key decision-makers and parliamentarians. Any new engagement initiative should expect to invest significant time in similar trust-building activities.

4. Honour your partners’ expertise

If your engagement activities support a marginalized group, as Nadia does, you should also plan to decentralize your own expertise. “Solidarity work requires a role reversal for academics, as they are no longer the leaders,” says Nadia. The people you are working with are experts in their challenges and lived experience, and have visions of the future they want. Expect to spend time and effort getting to know your partners, and figuring out how you can help them bring their own vision to life.

5. Collaborate, don’t duplicate

Nadia also encourages academics to join forces with the people already working on topics they care about. “There are probably already people working on the change you want to see in the world. Connect with the community that already exists, instead of reinventing the wheel.” That’s the approach Nadia took, when she began doing solidarity work through existing United Nations processes. 

Nadia also suggests taking time to get to know the institutions you are working with. “If you are working through an organization, like the UN, take time to self-educate and deeply understand how that institution works. Only by knowing how the organization is organized, sets priorities, and makes decisions, will you be able to influence its activities.”

6. Expect to face financial shortfalls

The team at Iran EIA Watch is working in a resource-scarce environment. Iran is under severe economic sanctions from the US, which Rezvan and Neda consider unjust and a major barrier to positive environmental impact. The economic pressure makes it difficult to persuade organizations to prioritize environmental issues over competing financial considerations. 

Rezvan and Neda are not alone. Many changemakers face financial challenges in their work. Rezvan and Neda encourage you not to let this stop you. “We overcome these financial arguments by intensifying our advocacy efforts and leveraging evidence-based arguments for change.” The Iran EIA Watch team has also been creative about scaling its own operations on limited funding, often finding creative ways to leverage volunteers.

7. Be mindful of the context

The nature of your engagement should reflect your socio-political and economic context. 

In Switzerland, for example, the climate is relatively hospitable for academic engagement. In fact, Switzerland’s University of Lausanne recently convened a working group to help it set guidelines for academic engagement. Dr. Guido Palazzo, a member of the working group says: “The whole commission never doubted the right of scientists to be politically active, up to the right to glue yourself to the street. We actually had a case of a climate scientist who did this and our Rector protected her against political pressure. We agreed that the only limit is the one defined by the law already; for example instigating violence would not be acceptable. During Covid we had a colleague, a philosopher, who wrote an ultra-right wing anti-covid book full of false claims. The university found this embarrassing but did not interfere.”

In other countries and universities, however, the environment is less hospitable. In many cases, universities are being run more like businesses, facing pressures to make money, attract students, and protect their brand. Universities are facing more incentive to mute the voices of engaged academics. In the United States, for example, universities are facing severe government backlash for allowing research or activism on certain topics. In these cases, Tom points out that it’s critical to be completely non-partisan, and to ensure all engagement work is grounded in evidence.

8. Lead with your heart

Rezvan and Neda encourage academics to work from the heart – advice seldom heard in academia, a sector driven by rigorous process and logic. “Scientists and academics should work not only with their head, but by their heart, in order to effectively engage with the public,” says Neda. “We must allow ourselves to move beyond reading and writing, to become emotionally involved.”

Full Case Studies: Academic Engagement in Public Debate and Policy

In the sections below, the four engagement approaches leveraged by our speakers are described in greater detail.

Tom Lyon: Helping firms be responsible in their lobbying 

Tom Lyon is the Dow Professor of Sustainable Science, Technology and Commerce at the University of Michigan in the United States. His research uses economic analysis to explore the connections between corporate sustainability strategy and public policy, NGO activity, and consumer demands. Tom also coined the term Corporate Political Responsibility, which occurs when companies manage their external engagements, including government lobbying, in a consistent and principled way.

Corporate Political Responsibility (CPR) is also the focus of Tom’s engagement work. Tom and his colleague, Elizabeth Doty, established the Erb Institute’s Corporate Political Responsibility Taskforce in 2021, to help firms ensure their political influence is legitimate, transparent, accountable and responsible. Tom says his work has a “second-order theory of change,” as they are not engaging directly with policy makers, but changing the behaviour of intermediaries who already influence public policy.

• Tom’s work, which moved to independent non-profit Third Side Strategies in 2025, takes an evidence-based and strictly non-partisan approach to shaping corporate political engagement. All activities are informed by the Erb Principles for Corporate Political Responsibility – four principles that were developed in consultation with academics and over 40 stakeholder groups from across the political spectrum. Those principles include legitimacy, accountability, responsibility, and transparency. 

Third Side Strategies uses many activities to help firms enact these principles in their political engagement. They offer an online database of CPR resources, called the CPR Hub, to provide real-time information firms can apply. They also offer live CPR education, presenting at conferences, running online dialogues, and teaching executive education. Finally, they continue generating new research on CPR.

The team leading this work at Third Side Strategies includes:

• • Elizabeth Doty: Executive Director

  • Lauren Caplan: Director of Governance and Risk Integration

  • Tom Lyon: Faculty Advisor and Director of Editorial Content 

  • A Board of Advisors, comprised of 27 business, academic, and civil society leaders.

At present, Third Side Strategies funds its work through grants from foundations.  

Nadia Lambek: Supporting Youth Engagement in Global Food Policy 

Nadia Lambek is an Assistant Professor at Western University’s Faculty of Law, in Canada. Her research explores the role of law in shaping food systems, and how social movements can shape law making in return. Nadia believes that rather than only looking for new laws and legal institutions, it is important to explore where existing laws and policies are in fact the problem. Her research explores law through the eyes of the people it affects, so that it can be reshaped in enabling ways. 

Through her engagement work, Nadia helps youth from around the world to shape food policy at the United Nations Committee on World Food Security. The Committee was reformed in 2007, during a global food crisis, and is now one of the most participatory global governance bodies in the world. Social movements, civil society, and Indigenous Peoples are treated as participants, not just observers. These groups organize their own participation through the Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples’ Mechanism, which is where Nadia does both research and what she calls “solidarity work”, most recently with youth. In other words, she has found synergy between research and engagement.

 “Solidarity work” means that Nadia works behind the scenes, supporting youth in having their voices heard. Youth, and all marginalized groups, have important knowledge and lived experiences that should inform policy. Nadia intentionally decentralizes her own knowledge, instead sharing her legal expertise only as it relates to helping youth share their message and create the policy outcomes they want. For example, in October 2019, the Committee on World Food Security commissioned a report to recommend policies that promote youth engagement and employment in food systems. Nadia worked with a group of global youth to ensure their views on food sovereignty, peasants’ rights, and better food systems were represented in the report, Promoting Youth Engagement and Employment in Agriculture and Food Systems. 

Nadia’s work is funded and supported in a variety of ways. In addition to her work with youth, Nadia also researches other aspects of the Committee on World Food Security, and the Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples’ Mechanism. This research is funded through a variety of academic grants and institutional supports, which has allowed Nadia to attend in-person events (virtual events require no travel budget). Nadia has also received support from NGOs and the Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples’ Mechanism to produce research and reports, and attend in-person gatherings.

Charles Cho: Informing Global Corporate Reporting Standards

Charles Cho is a Professor of Sustainability Accounting and the Erivan K. Haub Chair in Business at York University, in Canada. His research explores corporate social responsibility, and how companies measure and report on their social and environmental impacts.

Throughout his career, Charles has done many types of engagement work, but most recently he became one of two academic members of the Global Sustainability Standards Board (GSSB). The GSSB is part of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), an organization specialized in sustainability reporting standardization. On the GSSB, Charles is working closely with 14 other cross-sectoral experts to create a global standard for impact materiality reporting (that’s when firms report their impacts on people and the planet.) They aim to create a unified standard that enables consistent and effective corporate reporting, and informs government policies that require such reporting.

GSSB members oversee and are ultimately responsible for standard development, but are supported by GRI staff and a range of other experts. Expert working groups, which often include at least one GSSB member, are created to give detailed technical input on specific parts of the standard. GRI staff facilitate the work according to a formally defined process, and do most of the heavy lifting on writing draft standards. As this work proceeds, GSSB members meet monthly to review and give feedback on the emerging standard. 

In this model of engagement work, Charles participates on a volunteer basis. The only compensation he receives is reimbursement for travel expenses related to the GSSB’s in-person meetings. However, other aspects of the work are supported financially by the GRI, who pays a robust team of staff to facilitate and support the standard creation process.

Rezvan Sharifnia & Neda Afsham: Improving Iran’s Environmental Impact Assessment Policy  

Rezvan Sharifnia and Neda Afsham both work at the Sharif Sustainable Development School in Tehran, Iran, where Rezvan is an Environmental Impact Assessment Expert and Neda is an Associate Researcher. 

Rezvan and Neda both support the engagement efforts of the university’s in-house non-profit, called Iran Environmental Impact Assessment Watch (Iran EIA Watch). Their goal is to reform Iran’s system for assessing the potential impacts of new policy plans, to ensure that decision makers take environmental values into account. 

Iran EIA Watch’s work is rooted in a two-year study by the Sharif Sustainable Development School. The study did an in-depth analysis of Iran’s environmental impact assessment system, identifying structural flaws and mapping a comprehensive roadmap for reform. The study highlighted the need for coordinated action by diverse environmental stakeholders, so Iran EIA Watch was created to drive this coordination.

Rezvan summarizes their experience using the metaphor of the elephant in the dark. “If we don’t have enough light for a holistic view, then our ability to distinguish the elephant is limited. Our goal is to light up the issue of environmental impact assessment.” To light up the issue, and ultimately improve the government’s EIA practices, Iran EIA Watch coordinates networking opportunities for environmental stakeholders, disseminates knowledge, and organizes collective policy advocacy and public engagement. 

Iran EIA Watch is primarily funded by donations from the Sustainable Development School in which it is housed. It operates on a low budget, relying heavily on volunteers. The organization aims to expand its activities by seeking financial support from corporate social responsibility programs and charitable donations. Due to its advocacy-focused mission, it prioritizes maintaining independence, which limits the sources from which it can accept funding.

Even with their low budget, efforts are paying off. The non-profit has already:

• Influenced Iran’s 7th Development Plan.

• Fostered awareness of EIA challenges and reforms with senior officials at Iran’s Environmental Protection Organization.

• Partnered with the National Petrochemical Company of Iran to pioneer a strategic environmental assessment framework and roadmap. 

Many Ways to Impact Change

Often, the biggest roadblock to impacting change is simply getting started. We hope this article has helped you see that public and political engagement is not a ‘one-size-fits-all’ activity. Each of these academic change-makers are taking a unique, but impactful approach.  No matter what your research interests, skills, or passions, we hope these cases have made you feel compelled and equipped to start using your research and positioning to affect change, too.