The university-industry axis of interaction is a natural and robust element of stakeholder engagement, particularly in an innovation context. As such, universities serve as sources of new people and ideas for corporations. University-industry collaborations can serve as lynchpins for businesses seeking to open up new avenues of engagement with the broader innovation ecosystem. For example, universities may anchor engagement with and support of the early stages of the innovation process through to start-up formation, thus allowing industries a mechanism of reaching out and into the broader ecosystem. A new innovation ecosystem approach to corporate innovation can place an even greater reliance on university relationships if they are to serve not only as a source of talented people and bright ideas, but also as a conduit to new start-ups, and to deeper holistic interactions.

Dr Gareth Williams
With this in mind, we begin our series of interviews with our FlowPhotoChem industry partners. Here, we speak with Dr Gareth Williams of Johnson Matthey (JM, https://matthey.com/en). Johnson Matthey is a global leader in sustainable technologies. Using their scientific expertise, they have a global impact in areas such as low emission transport including fuel cells and Li-ion battery materials, pharmaceuticals, chemical processing and making the most efficient use of the planet’s natural resources through catalysis, process development and recycling.
What primary business goals drive Johnson Matthey’s university partnerships?
Science and innovation are at the heart of what Johnson Matthey (JM) does and in a competitive marketplace for our products and licensed processes, continuous improvements are paramount in order to generate class-leading offerings for our business customers. As it takes time to drive a new product from its concept stage through to commercialisation, with some failing to meet the requirements, we need to have a dynamic pipeline of ideas that are filtering up through the technology readiness levels (TRLs). Universities are by definition centres of innovation and JM looks to tap into such knowledge bases to help spawn new ideas and concepts and thus these collaborations are viewed as an important strategy.
How is FlowPhotoChem aligned to JM’s goals?
The development of sustainable products and processes to make the world a cleaner and healthier place is what JM is all about. We are a leading process technology and catalyst provider to the fast-developing low carbon hydrogen industry, and we understand the importance of carbon abatement technologies. We see the use of CO2 and hydrogen as emerging feedstocks for sustainable fuels and chemicals and are always looking for ways we can do even more. We are happy to engage in partnerships that want to lead the energy transition to a low carbon economy. So our strategy is well aligned with FlowPhotoChem to produce sustainable fuels and chemicals from CO2 utilisation and renewable energy and assess the market potential for such technology. Furthermore, to understand how the FlowPhotoChem approach compares to other green routes to chemicals and at the same time developing a technology platform that JM can apply its expertise to in terms of advanced material development, can certainly help to identify and characterise a new business opportunity.
By what criteria does JM use to choose its university partnerships?
Primarily it depends on JM’s evolving research strategy and the themes and topics of interest now and in the future. Often there are ongoing relationships with university departments through, for example, sponsored PhDs, but initially, the collaboration might be established through networking events and understanding the research reputation and capabilities, resources and facilities of that university, which ultimately needs to align with JM’s R&D requirements.
How can collaboration formats, such as Horizon 2020/Horizon Europe be better designed to match JM’s topics and business goals?
From my experience, several of the EU funding calls often align with JM’s R&D themes including sustainable chemicals and processes and JM have actively participated in a variety of proposal submissions under various schemes. A way to tailor the funding themes is through industrial presence on a steering committee that helps shape future funding calls, a mechanism I believe is already in place. The key is to strike a balance of having focussed industrial representation on such a committee to influence the research needs in their specific area of interest, without being too narrow such as to discourage other potential industries and organisations to also apply for the funding and bring about innovation. In terms of partner types in the projects, which is something JM might look at when agreeing to participate in a proposal, then there’s an important balance to be created from a mixture of universities, research institutes and small and large industrial end-users, the latter become increasingly important as the TRL increases.
What organizational structures, types of people and partner organisations and processes support the business goals of JM’s partnerships?
As well as internal innovation driven primarily from our business sectors, JM looks to benefit from open innovation platforms and those include government-funded such as the EU project frameworks, Innovate UK schemes (UK Research and Innovation), as well as supporting university projects and academic research Centres of Excellence. Using these organisations helps to share the risk of research at all stages in the product development cycle and at the same time supports our R&D. Other supporting organisations that JM might use include those to help facilitate knowledge transfer and establish links between suitable partners for funded projects, such as the Knowledge Transfer Network (KTN) in the UK. Outside the UK, JM is also engaging with other sustainable technology innovation hubs such as the Environmental Sustainability Innovation Lab (ESIL) in Israel and Greentown Labs in the US.
What are the key performance indicators that most usefully evaluate a university partnership?
As mentioned, one of the approaches to help stay ahead of the competition in the innovation stakes is through university collaborations and the development of scientific foreground with potential IP, which can be reviewed at the end of the project. There might be a decision to pursue a follow-on or a completely different project with the same university, a choice that can be based on how fruitful the collaboration has been, with expected project targets having been delivered in a timely manner. Also, from experience of having a successful working relationship there’s the potential for the university researcher(s) to consider future employment with the industrial partner, which from our side is seen as a good thing as we are always seeking the best talent out there!
Thank you very much!