It is a serious challenge for humanity to find an appropriate response to stop the accelerating rise in global temperature caused by atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions. After a methodological review of the literature, online and in-person modelling of education, work, and conferences, and relying on the results of life-cycle studies, we sought the answer to what reasonable solutions are available for decarbonization and energy reduction. During the research, the organizational carbon footprint of a selected office, educational institution and conference, and then the carbon footprint created by a person in 1 h, were examined. The two-day online education significantly reduced the daily commute load in transport by 402 tons of CO2 equivalent per year. Still, the energy demand of home learning subtracts 136 tons from this, so the real benefit was 266 tons above in an institution educating nearly 3500 students. In a workplace of 180 people, where 52% of employees commute, 90% teleworking saved 222 tons of carbon dioxide emissions in one month, taking into account the carbon footprint of working from home. In the case of conferences, the online solution reduces the carbon footprint due to the absence of travel and catering. Comparing the three areas, for the in-person case, the conference’s carbon footprint per person per hour was the highest (11.91 kg CO2 eq.). This value for education was 1.15 kg CO2 eq.; for work, it was the lowest with a value of 0.90 kg CO2 eq. Moving to an online space resulted in the most significant savings for the conference (11.55 kg CO2 eq.), followed by working (0.54 kg CO2 eq.), and minor savings were achieved in hybrid education (0.13 kg CO2 eq.). The sensitivity analysis highlighted the impact of transport on carbon footprint in all three cases. However, the life cycle cost analysis showed that moving to a virtual space reduces the life cycle cost of de-carbonization by 42%.

This study investigates how differing national research governance models impact academic performance by comparing European Research Council (ERC) grant winners in the social sciences and humanities from France and the Netherlands. Situated within the broader context of centralized versus decentralized research systems, the analysis aims to understand how these structures shape publication trends, thematic diversity, and collaboration patterns. Drawing on Scopus and SciVal data covering 9996 publications by 305 ERC winners between 2019 and 2023, we employed a multi-method approach, including latent Dirichlet allocation for topic modeling, compound annual growth rate analysis, and co-authorship network analysis. The results show that neuroscience, climate change, and psychology are dominant domains, with language and linguistics particularly prevalent in France and law and political science in the Netherlands. French ERC winners are more likely to be affiliated with national or sectoral institutions, whereas in the Netherlands, elite universities dominate. Collaboration emerged as a key success factor, with an average of four co-authors per publication and network analyses revealing central figures who bridge topical clusters. International collaborations were consistently linked with higher visibility, while single-authored publications showed limited impact. These findings suggest that institutional context and collaborative practices significantly shape research performance in both countries.