Investments not the only financial link between fossil fuels and elite university

Cambridge University had been offered two new multimillion pound donations from global fossil fuel corporations as it considered calls made last year to divest its endowment fund from oil and gas companies.

Documents seen by the Guardian show the university management was aware of a proposed £20m donation offered by BHP – subsequently withdrawn – and £2m from BP, as it considered whether to fully divest its fortune from fossil fuels.

This information was not made public or divulged to key people in the decision-making process. Critics claim the offers skewed the process and are demanding the decision is overturned.

Clive Lewis, Labour’s shadow Treasury minister for sustainability and MP for Norwich South, said: “That one of the country’s most elite educational institutions is taking oil money rather than acting on climate change demands urgent inquiry. They must be held to account and listen to their students and staff in divesting from fossil fuels immediately.”

The bitter row over whether Cambridge should divest the estimated £377m campaigners say it has invested in fossil fuels has been rumbling for years, as part of a global movement that has led to institutions and individuals globally committing to divest trillions of pounds in fossil fuels to stop catastrophic climate breakdown.

Cambridge set up a divestment working group in 2017 to investigate the issue and provide key recommendations towards its final decision.

The documents seen by the Guardian show that although two members of the 10-person divestment working group – Prof Simon Redfern and John Shakeshaft – were directly involved in considering the donations from BP and BHP, neither declared it.

It is understood there is no formal requirement for them to have declared these interests, although another member of the group, Alice Guillaume – a representative of the Cambridge Zero Carbon campaign group – had raised questions regarding the integrity of the process.

In June, following recommendations from the working group, the university rejected full divestment of its direct and indirect investments in fossil fuels in favour of “considered divestment”. This reasserted a commitment to have no “direct holdings in the most polluting industries” – defined as “thermal coal and tar sands” – but did not fully ban indirect equity investments in these areas or investments in other fossil fuels such as oil and gas.

BP chief urges Cambridge University to keep fossil fuel investments Read more

Redfern and Shakeshaft did not respond to requests for comment but a spokesperson for Cambridge University strongly rejected claims the process had been skewed or in any way influenced by the donations. It pointed out that the university received tens of millions of pounds in donations every year. It said the process in every case was rigorous and that the decision around divestment had been debated and backed by the university’s full council.

The university said it had received no money from BHP and that the donation from BP was “part of a longstanding agreement with a partner who has funded its well-known BP Institute for 25 years”.

“The allegation made is wrong,” a spokesperson said. “The £20m donation offer from BHP was part of a project proposal from the University of Cambridge and other potential partners to the government’s UK Research Partnership Investment Fund to provide laboratory, interaction, new teaching and learning spaces for Earth Sciences to help it tackle climate change.

“There was no other BHP money proposed. The project application to government was unsuccessful and BHP withdrew their funding offer. The suggestion this influenced the divestment working group (DWG) is untrue.”

He added the working group was set up “to hear from all sides of the debate”.

“The DWG recommended in April 2018 that the university should implement a policy of considered divestment. This policy was accepted by council, whose members are the trustees of the university. The policy is being implemented. The DWG was an open and democratic process involving a wide range of members from the university who declared their interests.

Bill McKibben, the leader of the global environmental campaign group 350.org, said even the appearance of “dirty money” influencing Cambridge’s decision to reject full divestment was “profoundly shocking.”

“Collusion between the fossil fuel industry and the world’s top universities must end if we are to have a hope of tackling climate crisis. It is time for Cambridge to cut ties with the industry most responsible for climate breakdown and divest from fossil fuels.”

There is growing alarm about the scale and pace of climate breakdown. Last year, a major UN report warned that the next 12 years would be crucial to avoid the most devastating consequences from flooding to food shortages, mass movement of people and political upheaval. Since then a flurry of reports have underlined the escalating crisis and in the last few weeks scientists have discovered record amounts of ice melting in both the Arctic and Antarctic at the same time as Australia has been hit by a devastating heatwave.

BP has given more than £50m to Cambridge University, including a donation of more than £21.6m to set up the BP Institute in the Department of Earth Sciences in 1998.

The student campaign group Cambridge Zero Carbon Society, which has actively campaigned for Cambridge to divest all its investments, said the proposed donations and appearance of influence suggested the university is “drenched in oil money”.

“University management subverted a democratic decision from their own staff instead engaging in a process drenched in oil money. They must now revoke the working group report and begin an immediate, transparent and democratic process to investigate how the university can fully divest from fossil fuels.”

It called for “intense scrutiny” of fossil fuel companies’ “successful and systematic actions to influence the decisions of major research institutions like Cambridge”.

“These companies have invested millions in Cambridge over decades to help portray themselves as solutions to climate breakdown when in reality they are at the heart of the issue.”

A spokesperson for BHP confirmed it had withdrawn the proposed donation in November last year but declined to comment further. BP did not respond to requests for comment.