̽»¨Ö±²¥

Under the process, the ̽»¨Ö±²¥ will not accept research or philanthropic funding from fossil fuel companies whose business models do not align with net zero 2050 (NZ2050), unless there are exceptional circumstances.

̽»¨Ö±²¥ ̽»¨Ö±²¥ will adopt external benchmarks to determine whether a company is classified as a fossil fuel company, and whether its business model is aligned with NZ2050 targets. ̽»¨Ö±²¥exceptional circumstances under which the ̽»¨Ö±²¥ might consider funding from a fossil fuel company are described in transparent criteria, deliberately designed to set a high bar (see below).

No fossil fuel company is currently understood to have a business model that aligns with NZ2050 targets.

Decision-making on such funding would remain with the ̽»¨Ö±²¥â€™s Committee on Benefactions and Legal and External Affairs (CBELA).

Why has the Council taken this decision?

̽»¨Ö±²¥new process is a response to a key recommendation in a report commissioned to consider the impact on the ̽»¨Ö±²¥ if it were to end sponsorship and collaboration with fossil fuel companies. ̽»¨Ö±²¥Topping Study, led by Nigel Topping, UN Climate Change High Level Champion for COP26, said that the ̽»¨Ö±²¥ should:

• Clarify the current CBELA process, maintaining discretion but largely relying on simpler tests and third-party analysis, and
• Adopt the definition of ‘fossil fuel company’ to cover companies substantially involved in fossil fuel extraction (but not wholly or partially owned subsidiaries focused on clean technology solutions) and use clearer external benchmarks to guide its decision-making.

For the Committee on Benefactions and Legal Affairs to consider whether accepting funding from a fossil fuel company on an exceptional basis is in the best interests of the ̽»¨Ö±²¥, the proposal will need to meet both the following two criteria:

• It is for a large gift, or equivalent value for a research collaboration (usually several million pounds) which could not be obtained elsewhere, and
• ̽»¨Ö±²¥proposal advances the ̽»¨Ö±²¥â€™s overall academic and institutional aims (for instance the visions of its Schools).

In assessing whether the proposal advances the ̽»¨Ö±²¥â€™s overall academic and institutional aims, CBELA will (where appropriate) continue to be supported by the on issues such as whether the proposed purpose of a project is to aid the energy transition and whether the proposal has no material risk of dual use in relation to fossil fuel extraction.

Other considerations

̽»¨Ö±²¥ ̽»¨Ö±²¥ Council is aware that some staff and students wish the ̽»¨Ö±²¥ to place a blanket ban on funding from all fossil fuel companies. However, a blanket ban may cause tension in relation to academic freedom and freedom of speech. It may also give rise to questions concerning the ̽»¨Ö±²¥â€™s obligations under charity law. Charity law governs the circumstances under which universities and other charities can reject funding and, as the Topping Study makes clear, charity trustees may only refuse a donation exceptionally.

Under the new process, the ̽»¨Ö±²¥ would not restrict academics’ non-funded collaborations with fossil fuel companies.