Marta Andhov [00:00:00]

Welcome to the Bestek, the Public Procurement Podcast. Today we are talking about the Clean Vehicle Directive and Publication Languages.

About Bestek  [00:00:15]

Welcome to Bestek, the public procurement podcast. In this podcast Dr. Willem Janssen and Dr. Marta Andhov discuss public procurement law issues, their love of food, and academic life. In each episode, Willem, Marta and their guests search for answers to intriguing public procurement questions. This is Bestek. Let’s dish up public procurement law.

Marta Andhov [00:00:40]

Here we go again.

Willem Janssen [00:00:42]

Take two.

Marta Andhov [00:00:43]

Take two. It took us a long time to admit defeat. Is that fair to say?

Willem Janssen [00:00:54]

That we resisted for a long time and then, you know, the first time it went… Well, we recorded, but then your words weren’t recorded. So it was like a monologue with lots of pauses from my end. The second time we tried and then we still couldn’t make it work. So fingers crossed, this works today.

Marta Andhov [00:01:11]

Third time’s a charm. Okay, so what’s the plan for today? Hopefully, this should be one of our best episodes because we, as you heard it, we re-recording this, so we should nail it. Let’s see if that’s possible. For the main dish for our meals today, we will be talking about the Clean Vehicles Directive and its connection to public procurement and when we will move to our desert, we will have a chance to discuss publication languages. And what we mean by that is in what language should one as an academic publish? Should that be English or your national language, if by any chance you are not a native English speaker? So let’s kick it off with the Clean Vehicle Directive. I would want us to start with a little bit broader context. The broader context, of course, is that we are right now in this transitional period in which more and more is happening on the legislative agenda on the European level. We see some new requirements being introduced, minimum green criteria being introduced, and that has been something that we both with Willem, have had a chance to work on already for some time and one of the fruits of that work will be coming soon. Willem would you like to give it a bit of a shout out to your editorial work.

Willem Janssen [00:02:45]

Yeah. So, thank you, Marta. That’s a very kind. We did not set this up from the start, or at least I think we didn’t know. So, Roberto Caranta and I are editing a book on mandatory requirements, mandatory sustainability requirements in the public procurement law context. And one of the best, all the authors are great, but your of course included the MARTA as well. If we keep passing out kind compliments.

Marta Andhov [00:03:12]

Kindness and we’re.

Willem Janssen [00:03:12]

Really trying to like understand this trend towards voluntary sustainable procurement to mandatory sustainable public procurement, which is mostly sparked by the Green Deal. We recorded an episode on that already, one of our very first episodes. So have a listen there as well, of course. But one of the… I would say only examples that we had so far of like a clear mandatory requirement in public procurement was the Clean Vehicles Directive. Right. So when it comes to transport, we have already had mandatory requirements resting on the shoulders of contracting authorities in Europe for a while already.

Marta Andhov [00:03:58]

Yeah, that was already before. Right. That one was was already before the green deal. So it’s not sort of a new thing.

Willem Janssen [00:04:05]

No, exactly. And so it’s currently Directive 2019/1161, and it focuses on the promotion of clean and energy-efficient road transport vehicles. And this directive has already been revamped once. So itfirst came into being in 2009 and now we’re talking 2019. But like I think what’s important and how I think you can look at this directive is also very much part of this new development. So, that’s why I thought it was very nice to discuss it again today because it’s part of this bigger trend.

Marta Andhov [00:04:45]

And we actually might actually look into some of the sectoral legislation in upcoming episodes because this is also a little bit connected with the fact that we are a little bit in this moment where we can see really change of the system. And what I mean by that is that it used to be that as a procurement specialist you knew your directives, your procurement directives to a certain extent for some people, if they worked within utilities, let’s say it would be just the utilities. We right now really go outside of those directives. It seems that in the years to come, if you really want to consider yourself a procurement expert or even if you don’t want to, but it will impact your work, you need to more and more actually start digging into various other legislations that refer directly or have impact also directly on how you will be conducting your procurements and also with other work that we’ve been doing with Willem. We looked through a variety of new legislative initiatives, and we kind of have at this point a little bit of an overview how many of of those legislations relevant for procurement there are. What’s happening, how much mandatory requirements are coming in? And having reminded that stands a little bit outside of comfort zone for for many…It might be that we are not going to stop just on clean vehicles, but we actually will look on some of the other sectoral legislative initiatives that have been introduced on the on the backbone of the of the Green Deal.

Willem Janssen [00:06:26]

So I think I think when you get uncomfortable, that’s where fun learning starts. Right? Because I think it was also new also for the recent research project that we’ve nearly, nearly completed, and we’ll let our listeners know about it in when we can publish it. I think it’s forcing us to look at eco-design, to look at sustainable building products. All of a sudden we’re seeing a lot of them pop up. But the Clean Vehicles directive was really, you know, the one example where we could say, you.

Marta Andhov [00:06:55]

Know, kind of feel comfortable is like, oh, I know that that’s already there.

Willem Janssen [00:06:59]

There’s something there. But, you know, so I’m happy to discuss that today. But maybe we can look a little bit because in a way, before we start looking at the specific rules that the Clean Vehicles Directive has, it also to a certain extent, it makes sense that we had we already had rules there because transport and mobility has such a strong effect on the environment. And we knew that already. So I think the European legislator and also the Commission has been very much at the forefront of having strategies for low emission mobility, an agenda for a socially fair transition towards connected, competitive and clean mobility. So all of that has been already in the making. And on top of that, the public sector is just is responsible simply for a very important share of new vehicles, registrations. So the public sector really for passenger cars, for light commercial vehicles, but also for buses and coaches, particularly the latter category. The public sector really is is a very big buyer on these markets. So the idea would then be is if we can procure these services, whether they’re services or products, depending on on how you look at it in a sustainable way that would actually, you know, have a big potential to to, say, reduce CO2 emissions.

Marta Andhov [00:08:19]

So it’s it’s kind of going really back to this notion that in particular sectors and in specific contexts, you really have opportunity to impact as a public buyer quite substantially. But as we mentioned, that directive was already there. And you also mentioned Willem that it has been sort of revamped, updated. So can you tell us a little bit more what we have before, what we have right now? Any reasons why that change?

Willem Janssen [00:08:55]

Yeah. So maybe actually the directive is very closely linked to the public procurement directive. So like we said, it’s a bit uncomfortable, but luckily it’s not super uncomfortable for those really procurement lawyers out there because it refers to the purchase, lease and rent of rent contracts of the vehicles that fall under the directive. There’s some more categories there, but we’ll leave that aside for now. And then I think to start off, there’s been a bit of discussion about clean vehicles. What is a clean vehicle, then? And mostly about the fact that the directive still also refers to all types of fuels. So still synthetic fuels but also LPG is there also referred to, whereas in a lot of the debates we’re having now, we’re moving away from those more traditional fuels towards more sustainable. Say hydrogen or batteries, battery transmitted vehicles. So there’s there’s that discussion. But to scope down on what you just mentioned. So when we talk about mandatory requirements before the directive really had minimum requirements when it came to procurement setting. So that’s the 2009 directive where it obligated contracting authorities to use either technical specifications or award criteria in line with the directive. So you were limited in what you could choose. But now we have targets. So the 2019 directive really has targets. But where the 2009 was very interesting or that approach in that directive is because it. It also made mandatory should you use award criteria and a focus on lowest lifecycle costing than there was a mandatory method that was made mandatory by the by the commission. And our listeners can’t see it, but I can actually see the book that you edited behind you right now. So it’s somewhere…

Marta Andhov [00:11:05]

Ohh yea, strategically placed.

Willem Janssen [00:11:06]

Oh, look at me. But anyways, that’s of course the link for you to say a bit more about that.

Marta Andhov [00:11:13]

Yeah, I think that from that perspective also when it came to the discussion of sustainable public procurement after the new directives were introduced, the Article 68 on lifecycle costing came in really strongly as the one that really emphasises the need to focus not only on the acquisition price, but really on a more holistic approach to price and also connected with the climate change crisis. Also creating an opportunity to quantify emissions and really account also and include the cost of the environmental externalities. And what is interesting here is that the cleaner vehicle and as Willem you mentioned, introduced the reference to actually applicable lifecycle costing methodology in that context. So that was a very clear link that also was coming from the directive itself because if you would look into the annexes of the directive, that’s where actually the reference to the cleaner vehicles was included or still is actually included. But as we all know, a bit of spoiler alert come to to know is a bit outdated already to having that reference. So from that in that regards those two were very very much connected and important. However, what the answer from the market very strongly came in was a quite a lot of criticism towards the established lifecycle costing methodology, something that in accordance  with the market was very difficult to apply, was not adequate adequately design and ultimately made it inoperable to certain extent that that methodology has not been really used, which ultimately leads to or amongst others leads to the reasons for the revamped going forward.

Willem Janssen [00:13:15]

Yeah. So what was interesting is what I always find is like it was made mandatory to, I suppose, ease the suffering and I’m being a bit dramatic right now but like to ease the suffering of contracting authorities that are struggling to use these methods like let’s just simplify it. But in that sense, when you read through which I find it still like it’s very, not very convincing about why it was cancelled in the end, it just basically was given a reason as well. And I’m paraphrasing now, but like the uptake wasn’t sufficient enough and it wasn’t used in practise. So, you know, we’re we’re abandoning that approach. Still, that doesn’t mean that the commission hasn’t been working towards more methods. Right. If you look on the website now, there’s a lot more that have been introduced since then.

Marta Andhov [00:14:07]

And I agree with you, because the notion of that, even if the method was not working for whatever reason, I would probably wish they would give it another go of trying to revamp the methodology because there is a reason why the so to speak, a systematise approach in methodology has its advantages because it also creates a certain level of standardisation across the member states and takes away potentially this challenge of contracting authority somehow needing to deal with potential Court proceedings, arguing the one methodology is not equivalent to another or that methodology is particularly discriminatory to another, etc. etc. If you introduce a one across Europe, European one standardised to certain extent harmonising the approach, I think that there is a big strength when we looking at open competition in internal markets to really do so. Yeah, it would be nice to know a little bit more exactly why it has just taking off the table.

Willem Janssen [00:15:17]

And I think so. An article written by Joris Gruyaerts en Lennart Michaux from from Lund University where they discuss all also this trend. It also seems a bit contrary to the current development towards increased mandatory requirements. Now, one could argue, well, there’s still mandatory requirements, but the targets. So in a way, it goes a bit contrary. This was swimming against the tide, like the tide seems to go towards more mandatory, whereas we’ll get to that when we talk about targets. I think the obligations were a bit more strict in the older directive. That being said, the directive was still very open to stating or in another, although I should phrase it differently, the directive left open how many technical specifications or how you would actually fulfil that requirement of award criteria. So there was still space and room to use that. So you could say, well, that was a, perhaps a, a way to leave room for the member states to tailor-make procurements in that sense. And that was one of the reasons also why they abandoned it. Right. It was also said, well, it was too stringent. It was too you know, we have to tailor make the standard thing that always comes in addition to administrative burdens. Right. They were too high.

Marta Andhov [00:16:42]

So, the need for discretion also.

Willem Janssen [00:16:43]

Right. Yeah. Exactly

Marta Andhov [00:16:44]  

Yeah. But that also then leads us to this revision that we already mentioned on several occasions and we indicated a couple of the reasons behind it. The main change is, of course, from these more stringent requirements of obligation to apply the lifecycle costing methodology that is being established to creating targets. And that also means that if you take the directives today and you look into the annexes, the reference that currently is out there to the LCC method is outdated. So that’s important to have in mind. So what right now is for me particularly interesting is because we really entering this discussion, the technical specification, award criteria method, something that is little bit more specific versus where we can see more broadly, any time that we entering the discussion about taking upon environmental considerations that are to fight climate change more and more, the tool that is being used in the legislative process and what is being really introduced to the law are targets. And this is the case here, right? But how we work with targets. Targets are not really a standard type of tool that we as lawyers are used to working within the law, isn’t it?

Willem Janssen [00:18:13]

Yeah. So I think it’s becoming more and more important and maybe to give our listeners and I did the way this directive does it, right. So the countries specific targets in the Clean Vehicles Directive clearly stipulating a certain percentage of a type of vehicle related also to a time period. So say the first time period already ends in 25. So in and then from then from 26 to 30, sometimes the percentage also increases. All right. So it’s a bit of a staggered, slow path in which like this, the the new procurements of these vehicles must meet the requirements of the of the directive. But yeah, you’re right. It’s a new it’s to a certain extent, a new era area. Look, we see we’ve seen very clear examples of where targets are included in international agreements Kyoto, Paris, etc.. That’s where we also see different types of litigation pop up. So public interest litigation where entities that aren’t normally part of or directed at the in or aren’t the the I should I say it they’re not the ones referred to in the legislative and.

Marta Andhov [00:19:38]

The addresses of the targets.

Willem Janssen [00:19:40]

Exactly. That’s the word I was looking for. But they are impacted.

Marta Andhov [00:19:45]

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Willem Janssen [00:19:47]

So it’s Citizens United in Urgenda stating that the Dutch state had not fulfilled its requirements under international treaties and that it did not do enough to meet those to meet them. And then the Dutch Supreme Court, through a reasoning also based on human rights, the right to life, etc., stated that they ordered the Dutch government to do more when it comes to climate change in meeting that requirement.

Marta Andhov [00:20:14]

And you see more and more of that with the newest German case. Right. And this intergenerational arguments and reasoning. So it’s very interesting, but it has been for a long time something that absolutely stood outside of the realm of our interest in public procurement. Right. Because there’s not really issue of standing when it comes to these debates. The you know, the broad understood society doesn’t really have standing in challenges in procurement and so on. And having in mind that those targets also within clean vehicles are addressed in member states, there is this presumption that there is obviously still a fair bit of way until this really hits individual contracting authority, because the next question, of course, here is the member states are being left with very a bit of discretion to decide how to distribute those targets. And it is indeed discretion to potentially decide that actually none of it should be in public procurement, but they somehow do it somewhere else. Now, in context of clean vehicles, that would be a bit difficult to argue due to the scope of the sector and how big buyer, the public buyer is really in that sector, as Willem mentioned at the beginning of today’s recording. So those targets are being distributed and we will see more and more those targets being distributed also in the National Action Plans and the various national action plans that come into place when it comes to fighting climate change, when it comes to energy efficiency, when it comes to all these various aspect for Willems book, actually, we had a chance with my Ph.D. student to look in some of those national action plans. And I would say that all of them referred to procurement too large. There was a quite big of a difference between them. Some of them will just mention them one or two. And some other countries actually already have quite elaborate of policies and strategies on how these targets are ultimately implemented. It will be implemented through procurement. So, so so we definitely have that which in our world originated in the clean air vehicles.

Willem Janssen [00:22:27]

So, so what I think is interesting about what you just said is because it’s a bit polar opposite to what I’m seeing in the Netherlands or in some other member states is where I think the government is just to a certain extent, hoping that these targets will be met in general. Right. So because it’s a member state target and the directive also clearly states in the preamble, I know, I mean, we should leave room to the member states to take into account the purchasing capacity and socio-economic aspects of regions to see. I think the underlying reason is who can carry the load, right? Who’s best equipped to, you know, to procure electric buses instead of diesel ones and who has capacity to do, budget, etc.? Right? But then when it trickles down to who should actually do what, right? So the directive doesn’t say the city of Amsterdam needs to procure this much because you know, you’ll need to at a point, unless you if you’ve got good faith and you hope that by the 25 or 30, 2030, it’ll all be okay. There needs to be some type of implementation happening or at least distribution.

Marta Andhov [00:23:36]

Yeah, but I think that in that sense we are on the same page because why all those national action plans refer to procurement? They refer to procurement in a very broad sense in this very you know, in this language that we saw, you know, the good five and ten years ago when it comes to sustainable is very much nudging, is very much policies like, well, it would be nice if you kind of do X, Y and Z. So it’s not that what I mean by those national action plans, did you find anything anyhow you could or derived some sort of obligations or see that some sort of obligations really clearly is to come. But I think that the notions of particularly climate change litigation that we see more and more also on the European continent suggests that the states will be nudged to ultimately really start to take it seriously, because why this litigation may not happen, the procurement, if they’re going to happen at all, that ultimately will consequently mean that the government needs to kind of, you know, put a metaphorically big girl pants and actually distribute those targets and figure out what they doing. Because if they don’t do anything, this is one on one. This newest German case, right, when it comes to the litigation. When the court ultimately said: Well, there is no way that you will come anywhere close to that target, because, you know, we’re clear there and there is this need of balancing. You cannot sort of say, oh, for the next ten years, we don’t do anything. And the next generation will need to carry the burden, sort of the double of the burden of the limitations, because you were kind of slow and lazy. So, I think that’s why all this discussion may not be happening in a procurement. It will trickle down ultimately to procurement design, because through administrative channels and governance channels, those targets will be distributed ultimately there. But one thing to sort of wrapped up the discussion regarding the clean vehicles. What would be the sort of one two main takeaways? One, the main sort of themes that you would want to leave our listeners with, because we kind of drifted away. We kind of had a very academic broader conversation.

Willem Janssen [00:25:50]

To make it concrete. I think it would be useful to think about including something. So the directive has a reporting aspect to it, right? But that’s focussed on, you know, it has the target been achieved.

Marta Andhov [00:26:01]

So you have an obligation of monitoring somehow here.

Willem Janssen [00:26:04]

Yeah, but why. I don’t. Perhaps to, to overcome this issue, you could leave it to the member states. But to at least have the member states, you know, report significant plans in which they’re saying this is how we distributing the load. Something that is an easy way to force the member states to make sure that they are taking this seriously. I think that’s that’s one way of going about it. I think we’ll come back to public interest litigation, maybe in another episode, I think it’s a really interesting topic. I think what would be difficult here, though, when we talk about substance is. Still, you could question is there a causality between, say, a human rights infringement and them not reaching this target? Right. Then the government could still say, well, you know, we didn’t meet that target. And that’s perhaps an issue when we have to talk to the Commission again. But we’re doing enough on other fronts. Right. So particularly with this, because I do think that to a certain extent, you would need the human rights angle to be able to get these cases to the courts. So that’s what you’re seeing in a lot of these international cases, whether it would be, you know, the Urgenda case or any type of other public interest litigation. So that’s so the causal link between the harm that’s done right and the, the the actual obligations that rest on the shoulders of the member states here. I think that’s still perhaps a bridge too far, but good for discussions. So still, I think what’s interesting here is that the Clean Vehicles Directive is just a great example of a mandatory requirement in public procurement. I think it enforces the need for public bias to and public procurement lawyers to learn more about other types of secondary legislation. What we talked about in the beginning, perhaps we need to become environmental lawyers or the other way around. Maybe will make the environmental lawyers, public procurement lawyers. Right.

Marta Andhov [00:28:01]

For sure. Need to get rid of somehow fluent in more of those things. The same way that I think everyone will need to become more fluent or needs to be more fluent in various aspects of digitalisation and technology development. But the same way about environment. And I think that one my last point to this that I would want to make is that the clean vehicle directive is mentioned every time when you look at the national action plans in how they planning to fight climate change in delivered, you know, mid-day targets. And when there is a reference to procurement, the clean vehicle is always mentioned as that. So it’s also creating this not only standardisation across the approaches, but kind of, you know, it shows that the mandatory requirements approach works. If you look at the goal that is wanting to be to be to be met in this regards.

Willem Janssen [00:28:56]

Yeah.

Marta Andhov [00:28:57]

Great. So that’s the main, the main vegetarian dish today. I guess maybe if we going plant based dish, if we’re thinking a little bit.

Willem Janssen [00:29:08]

I thought we were eating cars, but that’s not that’s.

Marta Andhov [00:29:11]

A little bit broader environmental agenda. Now on to a fun part.

Willem Janssen [00:29:19]

So you don’t ever say these things because like it was already fun, right?

Marta Andhov [00:29:26]

I mean, a fun part because I’m assuming that maybe once in a while we have some I’m promoting a lot our podcast too broadly our PhDs and our PhD school and they are, you know, doing they produce and all different things. And I always say look like you’re not into procurement skipped the first half an hour jump in then that’s where it’s like more cross disciplinary.

Willem Janssen [00:29:46]

You know, I’m more rigid. I always say like just hold off. Like at a point you will be doing procurement law, so you better off listening to the first part. Now jump on the boat and then we’ll see what happens.

Marta Andhov [00:29:56]

We just seem to see how successful our strategies are. But out onto the desert, we wanted to talk today about language and that is obviously connected with the fact that we both record this podcast in English and we both publish extensively in English, but none of us is Native Speaker, so I guess that’s also maybe contextual why this question comes to, to our mind, as hosts. And the question is being in which language to publish? Is there a different value in publishing, in English or publishing in Dutch, in Williams context or publishing in Polish in my context or Danish? When do you choose in which language to publish and how do you make that effective? What would be some of the reasons why you’re choosing that?

Willem Janssen [00:30:52]

Well well, sometimes it’s an unconscious choice, right? You get asked to write a chapter and the and it’s just in English, right? Then you can’t really choose. Well, I suppose you could say no. But like ultimately the way I look at it and it’s funny you should say that about the about the podcast as well is, is because I still also record Dutch episodes.

Marta Andhov [00:31:13]

True.

Willem Janssen [00:31:13]

And I think the choice to continue doing that is very similar to the point that you raise about publication language is I think the strategy behind it, or at least if you’re not doing that, I would suggest that you at least for a moment, just stop and think, okay, where at least these are questions that I ask myself, what target audience am I trying to reach? And we’re trying to engage with academics, practitioners, the general public. Right. What piece of my writing, I suppose. And I think that’s linked to impact. Right. If you want to have an impact on policymaking, or at least in my respect, if I want to have an impact on how ministries purchase and how they interpret the rules, for instance, I shouldn’t write in English, I should do it in Dutch, and perhaps I should record a podcast and not write a publication. But that’s a whole different, I think, dimension to it. But I think it’s about target audience and impact and where you would like to make that impact. Whereas I find that if I do it in English. From my perspective, discussions that I can have with academics is much broader, right? Because if I write in Dutch. If you cross the borders of the Netherlands or any of the small percentage of countries in the world where they speak Dutch, you know, you limit yourself. So that’s a very clear point. And a third point I think for me is also evaluations. So how is will that be evaluated in the academic context of the university? Right. So I don’t know what it’s like at Copenhagen University, but at Utrecht, say a double blind peer-reviewed international English language journal is to a certain extent higher ranked. It’s not the only measurement rate. We talked about recognition and rewards a while ago already. So it’s not of course not the only way you get evaluated. But if you compare the outlets of academic publications, I think that’s that’s a third, third aspect. But I don’t know how do you do that in the same way or is it different for you?

Marta Andhov [00:33:35]

I think that is kind of interesting for us to have that conversation because we have a little bit different, set up, right, because you are in your home country. So the second language that you operate with is your native language. And I’m and I’m also thinking about all the studies that we kind of more currently have exposure to that we work with. And I think there’s actually a fair bit of those that kind of have a similar similar experience to mine right now as a Ph.D., meaning that. You work in English? You from one place. But actually where you currently based is another country with another language. So you kind of ultimately operate within the space of three languages. Right. And then that’s kind of interesting conversation because the question is. You know, for me particularly, I’ve been 12 years right now in Denmark. So to a certain extent, I think it’s also to what point I can really comment on and have an impact on and consider really what is happening on Polish market. I’m not that in tune and it of course also and I think is connected with a topic which was another point that I wanted to say that is I don’t focus on national procurement systems. You know, I focus and I use them as an example of a different solution. But I mainly research within European procurement law and how the European procurement law then is transposed and has impact, so and so forth. And I think that this also will be different if you are researching and, you know, international trade agreements, if you research in procurement of multinational or multilateral banks and things like that, I think that it’s a little bit connected. What is more specifically your topic and then to your point also about, you know, like how many conversation what you have. I need to say that over the years and also since we started the podcast, the people that I have a lot of chats about our podcast probably more than, than, you know, the publications themselves, but they often are also the specialist, the practitioners but from countries that don’t have a very elaborative. Sort of procurement. Uh, I don’t know, academic, maybe environment. And they kind of find that what we talk about is interesting. Undoubtedly, when you public

Willem Janssen [00:36:08]

Oh, my God. Do people think it’s… interesting…  never mind. Sorry. Keep going. I was just shocked.

Marta Andhov [00:36:13]

Shocked, of course. No, I think that. Yeah, that some people find it somehow, you know, even just because we think differently a bit than regular practitioner. Right. It’s we getting a little bit more abstract or we we look at it which can have its advantage or disadvantage. But then to think about specific publication, to step away from a little bit from the podcast in itself. I agree with you. I think that for sure you have a closer distance, right? If you publish in the language of the place that you’re in. And that’s the reason that I would publish in Danish recently, just right now writing the first book chapter with one of my colleagues here. But I also had over the years publish a little bit in Polish to also have access there and kind of, you know, have some connection to the market. So I think that to practitioners there is a link. But I also found in many cases in Denmark when you kind of look on, on the things that are written in Danish, a reference to, you know, English publication, the same in Poland, probably to a little bit lesser extent. So, you know, I don’t know whether one is sort of kind of excluding to another one is really more impactful to other maybe potentially, but also this thing about academic accolade. Yeah, for sure. I think in the majority places, really the international publication, they count for points, rough points or whatever you have in your own system, usually as higher ones. So, um, yeah. And then also just wanted to kind of catch you by something that you said when you said that you wanted to impact, you know, policymakers and kind of legislative bodies and so on. Did you do that in a in Dutch? I think again, what level you working with? Right. We both right now had a chance to work a little bit on on really much more than EU level with some of the policymakers and decision makers on that level. And they very often they predominantly work in English. Right. So it’s also hopefully with the work in English, you also have a chance to impact that. And it’s also….one thing is when you have a reference to your work in a national court and so on. Another thing is when you get reference to your work in the Court of Justice judgement or but advocates general and so on, right? The recognition of those things is I think also there and also valued…

Willem Janssen [00:38:49]

No, I don’t. I actually I don’t have a preference. It’s just I think it’s really interesting to talk about to you about it. Also, given the choices that we have to make, and I find as academics, we’re generally really bad at saying no, at least let me keep it closer to myself. I’m really bad at saying no. And I see a lot of other people that are also very bad at saying no. Yeah. And I find that if you have these little checks that you do, you do is you think, okay, this you know, it’s also a good reason to kind of say no to certain projects because you think, well, no, I’ve published three bits about this already in Dutch. I’d like to broaden the discussion and go a bit beyond the Dutch borders. And I find that’s really and move more into the European discussions. I find that’s really a useful way of also like limiting your own work. I shouldn’t have said this now because now people know why I’m saying no. So it’s a bit of a….

Marta Andhov [00:39:42]

Bit tricky, I think. Is that, General, that we could have a whole one dessert about saying no? You know, it’s a whole.

Willem Janssen [00:39:48]

Let’s do that, it is a good idea.

Marta Andhov [00:39:49] Yeah I think being conscious and unfortunately you know it should be very fairly structured. I think that the approach that you mentioning is is obviously very reasonable and valid and sensible, but at the same time, sometimes you kind of feel, okay, I’m not doing, I don’t know, publication in English, for example, because I don’t know faculty or my goal right now is to have a little bit more local impact. So do all in Danish, Dutch and so on. And then sort of, you know, one like Willem calls and says, hey, we’re doing this project. You want to come in. And it’s not only the notion that you want to work with some people, that you always have super nice experiences, but also the maybe the project that the project substance becomes very interesting. And then that whole sort of structured idea goes out of the window, right? Because like, oh, but this is sort of cool. Let me do that I can fit it. And then you need to realise that you probably will need to deal with the consequences of not being able to fit it and so on, so forth. But that might good a little bit.

Willem Janssen [00:40:58]

Is this is this you talking to your. Sorry to interrupt, but is this talk you talking to your co-podcast hosts or to an editor.

Marta Andhov [00:41:06]

Of the recent book? Yeah. How long you waited? You waited a little bit longer for that chapter, but we managed. So then we go.

Willem Janssen [00:41:12]

Of course, yes. All right. So I think if I would make a little list in terms of strategy, I would say consider impact the evaluation internally, the target audience, the topic, who you’d like to talk to, those type of things, I think are very useful when you when you think about publication languages.

Marta Andhov [00:41:31]

Undoubtedly. And then also just sometimes you have in mind what you feel more comfortable with. And I know that might sound ever so slightly counterintuitive, but it again kind of depends on an individual’s person situation. But because sometimes it might be that writing in English will take you that much longer, or writing in any particular language will take you that much longer. So it also it takes a bit of effort, right? It might be easier to William, in your case, write to Dutch stuff than one English or maybe verse is sad.

Willem Janssen [00:42:04]

It’s a sad reality at the moment is that I find my Dutch sentences are very English structured. You have to have like English structures. Yeah.

Marta Andhov [00:42:13]

So it happens.

Willem Janssen [00:42:14]

There is, but.

Marta Andhov [00:42:15]

There’s some stuff like that. Yeah. Some main takeaways. I wouldn’t say that we nailed it. I think we bubbled again, but we’re hoping that our listeners get used to it and find it charming rather than annoying. What I can say.

Willem Janssen [00:42:29]

Oh, don’t be too critical. Just let us know in the comments.

Marta Andhov [00:42:32]

Thanks so much. It was the mistake. The public procurement podcast.

About Bestek [00:42:39]

This was Bestek, the public procurement podcast. Do you want to contribute to today’s discussion? Then share your thoughts on LinkedIn or Twitter. Do you have an idea for a future episode? Write to us at www.bestekpodcast.com

Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.