When Oxford University made its grand declaration that it would divest from fossil fuels in 2020, it seemed like the academic world had just notched a major win in the fight against climate change. A world-renowned institution, famed for producing groundbreaking research and celebrated as a global intellectual beacon, was taking a bold stand – announcing that it would withdraw investments from the industries largely responsible for the climate crisis. Its massive endowment fund, managed by Oxford University Endowment Management (OUem), would, it seemed, put into practice the University’s high-minded goals of sustainability and environmental stewardship, with claims of ‘robust mechanisms’ in place to ensure responsible investment. Environmental groups praised it as a step toward setting a new precedent for universities, businesses, and institutions worldwide, urging the rest of the academic world to follow suit.
But as 2022 drew to a close, a startling revelation emerged: despite those lofty promises, Oxford’s fossil fuel investments had actually surged. The 2022 OUem report showed that between 2021 and 2022, the University’s indirect investments in oil and gas companies increased from 0.32% to 0.52%.
These figures may appear relatively modest, but less so when placed within the context of the University’s endowment, which totalled £5.7 billion in 2022. For some students and climate advocates, there is an apparent contradiction between the University’s vocal commitment to sustainability and its millions of pounds of indirectly invested in fossil fuels. For an institution that prides itself on its intellectual leadership, what explains this apparent gap between moral rhetoric and financial reality?
Progress or greenwashing?
Oxford’s Environmental Sustainability Strategy, targeting net-zero carbon emissions and a biodiversity net gain by 2035, sounds ambitious on paper. The University’s roadmap involves reducing carbon emissions in its academic buildings, investing in sustainable food sources for its vast college kitchens, and enhancing biodiversity across its grounds. But members of Oxford Climate Justice Campaign (OCJC) have claimed that these good intentions seem hollow when weighed against the backdrop of Oxford’s continuing investments in fossil fuels.
The head of sustainability for OUem told Cherwell: “The University has no direct holdings in fossil fuels ie it owns no fossil fuel companies; and indirect exposure (ie through funds) to fossil fuels is about 0.5% (when last reported).” This might seem like a minor concern on the surface, but still leads to ongoing scrutiny as institutions try to align their financial practices with evolving environmental commitments.
OUem also told Cherwell: “OUem has fully implemented the University’s 2020 divestment commitments. The Oxford Endowment Fund has no direct exposure to fossil fuels and indirect exposure is a fraction of a percentage. This will fluctuate for a variety of reasons on a year-by-year basis.” Indeed, from 2021 to 2022, investments in tobacco companies declined more than investments in fossil fuels increased.
Still, the financial decisions of Oxford’s endowment fund often seem out of step with its public climate commitments. This is precisely where the accusations of greenwashing stem from.
Environment and Ethics rep and climate activist Oliver Ray told Cherwell: “The University’s actions clearly show a blatant disrespect for its own researchers and students as well as contempt for global ecosystems.”
There’s also the fact that when institutions like Oxford make public promises to divest, they send a signal that reverberates beyond their own financial portfolios. Divestment campaigns have long been one of the most effective ways of pressuring institutions to act more responsibly. When Oxford promised to divest, it not only committed to curbing its own impact but also positioned itself as a model of responsible investment for other major educational and financial institutions. Now, its reluctance to fully divest undermines the very cause it once championed.
This leaves Oxford in a precarious position. It is caught between competing pressures: on the one hand, it wants to maintain its reputation, on the other, it is bound to the financial realities of managing an enormous endowment. These realities include the need to generate stable, long-term returns to fund scholarships, research, staff salaries, and infrastructure. It would present genuine difficulties to divest from all of the University’s shares in every fund that has any exposure to fossil fuels. It’s a tightrope walk that many universities and other financial entities face. How much sacrifice is too much when it comes to realigning investment strategies with the pressing need for climate action?
Now with around £6 billion in assets, Oxford’s wealth is staggering – and so is its responsibility. While divesting from fossil fuels is undoubtedly a noble goal, it becomes far more complex when that money is tied up in industries that generate vast sums of revenue. The question is not just one of principle; it’s also one of practicality. Can an institution like Oxford divest fully without risking the financial stability it has built over centuries?
The end of Just Stop Oil
Meanwhile, a significant moment in the climate justice movement has come and gone: the announcement that Just Stop Oil (JSO), the UK-based climate protest group known for its disruptive direct-action tactics, will disband at the end of April. Founded in 2022, the group became synonymous with high-profile stunts – from throwing soup on Van Gogh’s Sunflowers at the National Gallery to gluing themselves to roads and disrupting major sporting events. While many criticised their methods as overly aggressive and damaging, but JSO’s goal was clear: stop fossil fuel extraction and halt new oil and gas licenses.
Indeed, Oxford felt the full force of this activism on a very public stage when, in the autumn of 2023, Just Stop Oil activists made headlines for spraying the Rad Cam with orange paint. The move was blatantly disruptive and impossible to ignore. Two men have been charged and are due to stand trial in August.
After a little over two years of often controversial actions, Just Stop Oil has declared a victory of sorts. The UK government’s recent pledge to cease issuing new oil and gas licenses – a demand that the organisation had vocally championed – has been hailed by the group as a hard-won success.
So, has JSO’s campaign ended in triumph? Well, sort of. While the group can certainly claim a victory in forcing the UK government’s hand on oil and gas licenses, much of the climate movement has been left pondering the next steps. And as JSO disbands, one (non-fossil fuel) burning question emerges: what’s next for activism? What happens when the loudest voices in climate protest go quiet? And perhaps more importantly, will institutions like Oxford, which have felt the heat of such movements, finally feel compelled to act with urgency?
A growing call for change
Though it may be the end of Just Stop Oil, other student climate protests will surely go on. In February 2023, members of the Oxford Climate Justice Campaign organised a rally outside the Rad Cam demanding that the University follow through on its 2020 divestment promise.
The University’s failure to fully divest from indirect fossil fuel investments has become a rallying cry for students, with many now seeing their activism as a necessary counterpoint to institutional inertia. By holding protests, writing letters, and joining environmental campaigns, students are showing that they will not accept the hypocrisy of having a university invest in fossil fuels while promoting sustainability.
The internal conflict is becoming more pronounced as the student body grows increasingly aware of the power it has to pressure the administration. The Oxford Climate Justice Campaign is not alone in pushing for stronger action. The very prominence of the movement for fossil fuel divestment, and tactics such as divisive actions at the Rad Cam, likely contributed to similar demands and tactics since the outbreak of the war in Gaza.
A chance to lead?
The pressure on Oxford’s endowment managers could increase further. In June, the University is partnering with UN Human Rights to host the Right Here, Right Now summit on climate change. The summit, organised by the International Universities Climate Alliance and spearheaded by Vice Chancellor Irene Tracey, will convene global leaders, activists, and academics to collaborate on real solutions to the climate crisis. For Oxford, this will be a defining moment.
Timed to coincide with UN World Environment Day, the summit will serve as the perfect stage for Oxford to announce the kind of forward-thinking policies that match its public environmental commitments. However, if the University doesn’t act now – if it continues to drag its feet its credibility as a climate leader could be irreparably damaged. The University has the power to push the needle in the right direction. But it’s up to the institution to decide: exactly what example will its leadership set?
But how do we ensure with the current political climate and volatile global conditions that climate action remains a priority, not a casualty of distraction? In times of crisis, it’s all too easy for environmental concerns to slip down the agenda – but the climate emergency isn’t on hold. If Oxford wants to retain its position as a global intellectual leader – and not just another relic of ivory tower idealism – it’s time to stop talking about change and start making it. Only then can it prove that, as one of the world’s most esteemed universities, it still has the vision and willpower to shape a sustainable future, not just teach about it. The world is watching, and Oxford’s next move will define its legacy.
