Academic Institutions Under Fire for Fossil Fuel Funding

By Felicity Bradstock - Dec 07, 202

Many UK universities have divested from fossil fuels, while others, particularly in the US, continue to receive significant funding from the fossil fuel industry.

A recent report raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the influence of fossil fuel companies on academic research.

The report claims to focus on protecting scientific integrity, saying universities need to be transparent about their funding sources and take steps to mitigate outside influence on their research and policies.



After years of pressure from students and environmental groups, a multitude of higher education institutions in the U.K. have committed to excluding fossil fuel companies from their investment portfolios. However, a September report showed that funding from such companies continues to slow the switch to green energy. Meanwhile, several Elite U.S. universities continue to accept millions in funding from Big Oil every year.

The student campaign group People & Planet announced in November that 115 out of 149 U.K. universities had publicly committed to divest from fossil fuels, which is equivalent to around $22.4 billion in funding. This marks a huge turnaround from just a decade ago, showing U.K. academia’s increased commitment to a green transition. People & Planet established its Fossil Free Universities campaign in 2013, one of several student-led efforts to get universities across the country to divest from oil, gas, and coal.

People & Planet’s Laura Clayson stated, “That we can celebrate this today is down to the generations of students and staff that have fought for justice in solidarity with impacted communities. The days of UK universities profiteering from investments in this neo-colonial industry are over.”

Some of the recent universities to have joined the pledge include Birmingham City University, Glasgow School of Art, Royal Northern College of Music and the University of Bradford. The group plans to use the majority shift to encourage the remaining 34 U.K. universities to do the same.

In September, a study published in the journal WIREs Climate Change showed that universities across the U.S., U.K., Canada, and Australia had not been transparent enough in their sharing of the source of funding for academic research.

In the study, researchers discovered that out of around 14,000 peer-reviewed articles about conflicts of interest, bias, and research funding across all industries between 2003 to 2023, just seven referenced fossil fuels. When looking at book chapters, the authors found a further seven references. However, when looking through the small body of existing scholarship, the authors found hundreds of instances in these countries where oil and gas interests had funded climate and energy research while on advisory or governing boards, endowing academic posts, sponsoring scholarships, advising curricula, or influencing universities in other ways.

The study shows that between 2012 and 2017, BP pumped between $2.1 million and $2.6 million into Princeton University’s Carbon Mitigation Initiative, an initiative that produced research on ways to decarbonize the economy.

The authors state, “We find that universities are an established yet under-researched vehicle of climate obstruction by the fossil fuel industry.” Geoffrey Supran, a co-author of the study explained, “Our intention is to protect scientific integrity… We want to warn scholars and university leaders that they can be pawns in a propaganda scheme.”

This suggests that while U.K. institutions have begun to move away from fossil fuel funding, the lack of transparency over financing in previous years could have tainted past research papers. In addition, many higher education institutions in other countries have yet to sign up to the divestment pledge.

In the U.S., six analyses published in September, with a focus on American University, Columbia University, Cornell University, Princeton University, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill and the University of California, San Diego, showed that many elite U.S. universities continue to accept millions of dollars in funding each year from fossil fuel interests. The reports were written by campus organizers at each institution and published by the Campus Climate Network.

The researchers found that since 2003, the six universities have together received over $100 million in fossil fuel industry-derived funding. They also received millions more in funding from firms that “enable” the fossil fuel industry, including banks that fund oil expansion or groups that have spread climate disinformation.

The researchers believe that the analyses vastly underestimate the true extent of the funding, as many university research centers do not publicly disclose their donors. The research found that the six institutions together published at least 1,507 academic articles that were funded by oil and gas interests. The report stated, “[T]he fossil fuel industry can brand itself onto the reputation of every university it donates to, no matter how upstanding or progressive.”

Princeton University is reported to own, or have owned, a fossil fuel company named Petrotiger, which may have earned nearly $140 million over the last decade, according to research by one co-author, Alex Norbrook. Tax forms demonstrate that the school owned most of the shares in three entities, Petrotiger I, Petrotiger III and Petrotiger IV. Princeton also received at least $43 million from fossil fuel companies and their charities between 2013 to 2023. This led Norbrook to say, “Princeton’s claim that it is a climate leader is false… The university cannot make this claim while continuing to promote the fossil fuel industry behind the scenes.”

While several U.K. universities have publicly committed to divest from fossil fuels, many higher education institutions in other parts of the world have yet to make such a pledge. Universities have received millions of dollars in funding from fossil fuel and related companies in previous decades, and many continue to do so without transparently reporting their funding sources and the potential influence that may have on academic research.

By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com