The University of Oxford’s new science and innovation district, set to open next calendar year, is a joint venture between the University and Legal & General. The company is focused on financial services, and aims to invest in projects that improve people’s lives. The building and design approach of the district – human-environment co-creation hubs – seems promising, offering researchers opportunities to develop practical solutions for social and environmental sustainability. However, it’s not clear whether the University has ensured that its investors, such as Legal & General, are genuinely sustainable.
The University states that it proactively ensures investors contribute to addressing pressing issues like climate change and biodiversity loss through its Environmental Sustainability Strategy and Investment Policy Statement. Legal & General argues that the district, which will house the Departments of Experimental Psychology and Biology, serves as a leading example of how pension funds can drive UK innovation in tackling climate challenges. The park website makes repeated references to “sustainability”.
Despite these claims, sources such as Make My Money Matter and Money Week suggest that Legal & General may not be as “sustainable” as it appears. Their pension funds, critics argue, could still invest in fossil fuels.
Legal & General has been heavily focused on launching new funds that exclude fossil fuels and industries violating the United Nations Global Compact. By partnering with organisations such as AP1 to launch the ESG fossil-fuel-free Emerging Market Equity (index) fund, collaborating with the National Trust on fossil fuel diversification, and supporting other sustainability initiatives, they have made significant strides. However, it remains unclear whether 100% of the funds are genuinely sustainable and ethical.
The University would do well to make the selection process for its investors more transparent, ensuring that its sustainability strategy and investment criteria are clearly outlined. This would help answer the critical question: are the investors genuinely sustainable, or is this just another case of greenwashing?
