The University of Bath’s SU People and Planet, UCU and Unison organised staff and student consultation events around the Investment Policy (herein referred to as “the policy”) to provide feedback from these two key stakeholders. The main priorities raised, and the expectations of staff and students, are summarised across the following six points:
- Divest fully from fossil fuels (direct and indirect)
While the updated policy excludes fossil fuels from direct investments, this does not currently apply in full to indirect investments. We welcome the introduction of a 5% threshold for indirect exposure. However, we believe a more complete divestment is achievable. We suggest adopting a standard that avoids investment in any company deriving more than 5% of its revenue from fossil fuel extraction, exploration, or production, alongside a 5% breach tolerance for the full applied only to temporary market fluctuations
Expectation: The University should commit to not investing, directly or indirectly, in any company that derives more than 5% of its revenue from fossil fuel extraction, exploration, or production. This should be accompanied by a 5% breach tolerance for indirect investments, applied only to temporary market fluctuations.
- Divest fully from arms
We welcome the updated terminology (‘Controversial arms’ replacing ‘Contentious arms’). However, the policy does not commit to full divestment from arms companies, and the use of wording such as “use all reasonable endeavours” weakens the strength of the commitment.
Expectation: We, as a University, should commit to not investing, directly or indirectly, in any company deriving revenue from the manufacture, sale, or distribution of weapons or weapon systems, including both conventional and controversial arms and that this exclusion shall apply without exception.
- Ensure divestment includes direct and indirect investments
While a measurable threshold for pooled funds has been introduced, indirect exposure below 5% remains permitted. Additionally, where the threshold is exceeded, the policy requires review but does not mandate remedial action or divestment within a defined timeframe.
Expectation: We, as a University, commit to apply exclusions equally to direct and indirect investments. Where pooled funds exceed a defined threshold of 5%, remedial action or divestment should be required within a specified timeframe (6 months) set out in the policy.
- Make the policy more accessible
We appreciate the addition of clearer roles, responsibilities, and a glossary. While Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles are references and linked to the University’s Sustainability Policy, referenced and linked to the University’s Sustainability Policy, it remains unclear how the carbon emissions associated with investments will be reduced in line with our net-zero commitments.
The policy also lacks explicit consideration of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI). There is existing University guidance on embedding EDI principles into policies and decision-making processes, and the Finance Department should work alongside the relevant EDI teams to ensure the investment policy is inclusive, accessible, and responsive to people with diverse learning difficulties and other challenges. This includes considering both the substance of the policy (who may be disproportionately affected by investment decisions) and its accessibility (how information is communicated and understood).
The policy also remains difficult for non-specialist readers to interpret. There is guidance within the University on producing accessible, plain-language documents, and this should be followed.
Expectation: We, as a University, should commit to publishing a concise, plain-language (approximately one-page) summary of the investment policy, in accessible formats, outlining key exclusions, ESG commitments, and governance arrangements, and EDI considerations for staff, students, and the wider public.
- More open feed-in process for staff and students
We welcome clarification around the review period. However, the current wording regarding consultation is broad and does not specify the format, stage, or mechanism for engagement. A five-year review cycle may also mean that entire student cohorts do not have the opportunity to engage. It is further unclear how urgent changes in response to global events would be managed and communicated.
Expectation: We, as a University, will commit in the policy to a proactive, formal consultation process with staff and students (including Trade unions) at least every three years, and provide a clear public mechanism for submitting feedback and proposed amendments. See examples: University of Edinburgh; The Open University; Cardiff University
- Do positive impact investments in Local community projects.
We welcome the recognition that investments can make a positive contribution to sustainability. However, the policy permits rather than commits to positive impact investments and does not prioritise local or community-focused initiatives. There is also an opportunity to prioritise asset managers with expertise in low-carbon and positive impact portfolios.
Expectation: We, as a University, will commit to allocating a defined proportion of long-term investments to positive impact opportunities, including local, national and international community projects that deliver social, environmental, or economic benefit.
Overall feedback
We recognise and appreciate the progress reflected in the revised draft policy. However, the above areas remain important to staff and students, and we believe further strengthening of the wording would ensure the policy fully aligns with the University’s sustainability commitments and community expectations. The University would gain stronger recognition for committing to 0% investment in fossil fuels, rather than maintaining a 5% threshold. This higher level of commitment is reflected positively in sustainability ranking systems such as the People & Planet University League, which explicitly rewards institutions that have a completely fossil-free investment portfolio.
Consultation events
(1) 13 Oct 2025
(2) 26 Feb 2026
Organisers
- Sarah Hafner, Chair, SU People and Planet
- Sandhya Moise, UCU Vice-President and Green Rep
- Alison Borgelin, Unison Green Rep
Petition asking the University of Bath to have an Ethical Divestment Policy
The University of Bath has a responsibility to ensure that its financial practices align with its stated values of sustainability, social responsibility, and global citizenship. Yet through both direct and indirect investments, the university continues to provide financial support to industries that drive climate breakdown, fuel conflict, and cause severe environmental and social harm. These include fossil fuel extraction, arms manufacturing, and large-scale destructive mining—three sectors fundamentally incompatible with a just and sustainable future. The continued support of fossil fuel, arms, and destructive mining industries contributes directly to climate breakdown, environmental devastation, human rights abuses, and global injustice — outcomes fundamentally at odds with the values of academic institutions committed to sustainability, equity, and public good. Students and staff increasingly recognise the profound contradictions between the university’s public commitments to sustainability and the environmental and humanitarian impacts of these industries. Full divestment—both direct and indirect—is essential. Excluding only direct investments is insufficient in an era where most university funds are held through large investment portfolios, mixed-asset funds, or external fund managers. 1/3 of UK Universities have already fully divested from fossil fuel and arms giving a clear precedent that is it possible for us at Bath. Ethical responsibility cannot stop at the point of visibility; it must extend to all financial ties, whether transparent or obscured.
We call on the University of Bath to:
1. Divest fully from fossil fuels and arms.
2. Make the policy more accessible
3. More open feed-in process for editing the policy for staff and students
4. Make sure divestment includes direct and indirect investments.
5. Do positive impact investments through investments in Local community projects. Example: (re)invest divested money into community-owned renewable energy and/or renewable energy projects and/or in environmental and social justice solutions that have measurable, real-world impact on-campus or in the local community.
By signing this petition, you agree that your name can be shown publicly as a supporter.
This petition is open until 5th March 2026 and will be delivered to the University Executive on the 6th March alongside the consultation feedback document.
Get in touch:
UCU contact: Sandhya Moise (s.moise@bath.ac.uk)
SU People and Planet contact: Sarah Hafner (smh204@bath.ac.uk)
Unison Contact: Alison Borgelin (sssasw@bath.ac.uk)
Signed by 149 students and staff of the University of Bath