The catalytic activity of ruthenium(II) bis(diimine) complexes cis-[Ru(6,6′-Cl 2 bpy) 2 (OH 2 ) 2 ](Z) 2 (1, Z = CF 3 SO 3 ; 2, Z = (3,5-(CF 3 ) 2 C 6 H 3 ) 4 B, i.e. BArF) and cis-[Ru(4,4′-Cl 2 bpy) 2 (OH 2 ) 2 ](Z) 2 (3, Z = CF 3 SO 3 ; 4, Z = BArF) for the hydrogenation and/or the hydrogenolysis of furfural (FFR) and furfuryl alcohol (FFA) was investigated. The molecular structures of cis-[Ru(4,4′-Cl 2 bpy) 2 (CH 3 CN) 2 ](CF 3 SO 3 ) 2 (3′) and dimeric cis-[(Ru(4,4′-Cl 2 bpy) 2 Cl) 2 ](BArF) 2 (5) were characterized by X-ray crystallography. The structures are consistent with the anticipated reduction in steric hindrance about the ruthenium centers in comparison with corresponding complexes containing 6,6′-Cl 2 bpy ligands. While compounds 1-4 are all active and highly selective catalysts for the hydrogenation of FFR to FFA under modest reaction conditions, 3 and 4 showed decreased activity. This is best explained in terms of reduced Lewis acidity of the Ru 2+ centers and reduced steric hindrance about the metal centers of catalysts 3 and 4. cis-[Ru(6,6′-Cl 2 bpy) 2 (OH 2 ) 2 ](BArF) 2 (2) also displayed high catalytic efficiency for the hydrogenation of FFA to tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol. Presumably, this is because coordination of C=C bonds of FFA to the ruthenium center is poorly inhibited by non-coordinating BArF counterions. Interestingly, cis-[Ru(6,6′-Cl 2 bpy) 2 (OH 2 ) 2 ] (CF 3 SO 3 ) 2 (1) showed some catalytic activity in ethanol for the hydrogenolysis of FFA to 2-methylfuran, albeit with fairly modest selectivity. Nonetheless, these results indicate that ruthenium(II) bis(diimine) complexes need to be further explored as catalysts for the hydrogenolysis of C-O bonds of FFR, FFA, and related compounds.