Cambridge university should halt funding from fossil fuel groups, report finds

Receive free University of Cambridge updates

We’ll send you a myFT Daily Digest email rounding up the latest University of Cambridge news every morning.

Cambridge university should halt all funding from BP, Shell and other fossil fuel companies, according to an independent report that comes amid mounting scrutiny of higher education institutions’ ethical vetting of their patronage.

The study — led by Nigel Topping, former UN climate action champion and published on Monday — called on the elite university to re-rate energy groups from “amber” to “red” in its climate change classification system. That would bar it from receiving money for research or philanthropic purposes.

However, the report, which was commissioned by Cambridge last year after some academics voted to halt all engagement with companies that extract fossil fuels, stopped short of recommending the termination of non-funded technical collaboration.

Its recommendations, which are expected to be accepted by Cambridge, will be examined by an informal working group. Responding to the report, the university said it would aim to reach a conclusion by the end of this year.

British universities have come under severe criticism from environmental campaigners in recent years for taking millions in funding from energy groups while touting their ambitious actions to address climate change. 

Critics argue that universities’ acceptance of money from fossil fuel groups can enable high-emitting companies to influence research into their impact on the climate and curry favour with influential institutions.

Last year, Princeton University in the US said it would stop accepting money from 90 oil and gas companies, with VU Amsterdam in the Netherlands joining it this year. 

Topping’s report noted that Cambridge received an average of £3.3mn a year in funding from fossil fuel companies between 2017 and 2022, equivalent to about 0.4 per cent of its overall research and philanthropic funding and 0.1 per cent of its total income.

In June 2021, Cambridge instigated a red, amber and green rating scale for energy companies, according to the extent to which they meet its climate change guidelines. Under those rules, the university cannot accept funds from companies that are rated red, which indicates that a partnership would generate “high reputational risk [and] major concerns overall”. 

The study found that it was “difficult to find the logic” behind Cambridge’s decision to continue rating FTSE 100-listed BP and Shell, along with many other fossil fuel groups, as “amber”. That classification allowed the university to continue accepting their money, but Topping said it had been placing undue emphasis on the small amount of benefits of the funding and underestimating the reputational risks.

The report also called for Cambridge to undertake a “major fundraising push” of up to £1bn to help it invest in solutions to the climate crisis.

The report was commissioned after some academics submitted a “Grace”, a formal proposal to Senate, Cambridge’s democratic governing body, calling on it to “cease collaboration of all forms with companies carrying out or facilitating exploration for new fossil fuel reserves, building new fossil fuel infrastructure or retaining membership with trade bodies lobbying against climate policy”.

That proposal was blocked by the University Council, Cambridge’s executive policymaking body, which said time was needed to “explore, and give proper consideration to, the full implications of these changes”. The UC then commissioned Topping to analyse the impact of the academics’ submission.

In 2020, Cambridge announced that it would divest its £3.5bn endowment from all direct and indirect investments in fossil fuels by 2030 as part of a plan to slash greenhouse gas emissions.

BP said it had provided support and funding to Cambridge over many years, including on battery-charging technologies and carbon capture and storage. It added that it had not entered into contracts for research at Cambridge into oil and gas areas for at least five years.

“We would welcome discussion with the university . . . to explain the benefit we see in our work together,” BP said.

Shell did not immediately respond to a request for comment.