Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on ‘what the papers don’t say’ – without fear or favour.
To support its work, subscribe to the monthly Byline Times print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, news, and analysis.
The University of Cambridge has been accused of hypocrisy and making itself more hospitable to donations from fossil fuel companies after scrapping a temporary ban on taking their money only to announce it will now accept sums if they are a “large gift” of several million pounds.
The decision on 15 July was slammed by both student groups, who vowed to launch further protest action, and an English professor, who voted against it.
“Cambridge University has made its true balance of interests clear: it agrees fossil fuel donations are immoral, but will still sell out if the price is right,” Cambridge Climate Justice (CCJ), a student group, told Byline Times.
In March, the university stopped taking donations from big oil following years of pressure from students, staff and climate activists, and after a report by former UN climate change envoy Nigel Topping that recommended it, and warned of the “high reputational risk” the university’s relationship with big oil presented. The report stated that the funding amounted to £3.3 million per annum over the last six years and made up 0.4 per cent of the university’s research and philanthropy funding.
Cambridge’s University Council, earlier this month, agreed to ban cash gifts from fossil fuel companies which aren’t aligned with net zero 2050 goals, except if the donations are valued at “several million pounds,” and “advances” the university’s academic and institutional aims.
The university said it would welcome donations under “exceptional circumstances”, if they are “for a large gift, or equivalent value for a research collaboration (usually several million pounds) which could not be obtained elsewhere”.
All other sums must be from companies committed to the UK’s net zero target, the university’s website states.
Donation proposals stalled while the temporary ban was in place, could now be considered under the new rules, Byline Times understands.
Topping supported the “red, amber, green” system which saw donors ranked according to their compliance with the Paris Agreement, though he recommended that companies such as BP and Shell should have been upgraded to “red”. This system has been replaced entirely by the new rules.
While student campaigners welcomed parts of the new policy, they have warned against potential “loopholes” and vowed to launch further protests.
CCJ hailed the university’s decision as a “huge milestone” in their efforts to pressure it to stop taking money from the fossil fuel industry and said the new strategy “represents a permanent presumption against taking Big Oil’s dirty cash”.
However, “faced with urgent catastrophic climate risk and social injustice,” the student group said, “the University has bottled it”.
UK-based oil and gas companies BP and Shell have jointly donated more than £19.7 million to the University since 2019, according to the Financial Times. In February, the university was accused of “sidelining ethical considerations” after accepting £20 million in funding from Majid Jafar, the owner of the Middle East’s largest oil company.
“Cambridge Climate Justice will continue working in support of robust policies that ensure the University ends its toxic relationship with the fossil fuel and arms industries. That means more conversations, more engagement, and more protests – bigger, better, and more inclusive than ever before,” CCJ told Byline Times.
The group’s previous iteration, Cambridge Zero, claims responsibility for the University’s decision to pull its investments from the fossil fuel industry in 2020.
Organisation of Radical Cambridge Activists (ORCA), made up of students and local campaigners, echoed CCJ’s pledges of ongoing action. The group told Byline Times that they will “keep up the pressure – to prevent fossil fuel money coming through loopholes, and to end existing fossil fuel ties like the SLB research centre”.
SLB, formerly known as Schlumberger, is the world’s largest offshore drilling company and owns a research centre at the university, which is often the subject of blockages and protests by activist groups such as ORCA.
ORCA’s ultimate mission, they said, is “to build solidarity and campaign with others for an end to corrupt capitalist influence in our communities”.
Jason Scott-Warren, an English professor and University Council member who voted against the new policy, said it “leaves the door open for multi-million-pound donations and collaborations from fossil fuel majors”.
Scott-Warren believes the new rules make the university more hospitable to cash from the industry than before the temporary ban was established.
This absurd decision reflects the fundamentally unethical nature of the University, which doesn’t begin to get the climate emergency and which remains densely intertwined with the fossil fuel industry
Jason Scott-Warren, Cambridge’s University Council member
The academic told Byline Times that Cambridge could, under the new policy, consider donations which had been held up by the temporary ban.
The “moratorium” advised the University’s committee on benefactions and external and legal affairs (CBELA) to “defer making decisions” on donations from the industry, but not to reject proposals outright.
Scott-Warren told Byline Times: “It would be hugely divisive for Cambridge were the University to accept a large donation from a fossil fuel company, or from a green subsidiary. The reputational risk is immense, but so too is the risk to academic and student morale and to the standing of the University.”
ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE
Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.
We’re not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.
The next steps for the university’s relationship with the fossil fuel industry are unclear, with the new policy not set to be reviewed by the University Council for three years.
In January, academics voted down proposals, which had been backed by the vice-chancellor, for a new pro-vice-chancellor to lead the university’s sustainability strategy.
A member of the University Council said at the time: “This was plan A, and I don’t think there’s a plan B.”
Months later, an internal audit found that Cambridge had “no detailed plan” to achieve its goal of achieving net zero by 2038.
Cambridge University did not respond to requests for comment.