Search Climate Insights Directory

The document examines the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET), finding extensive financial ties to the arms industry through event sponsorship, corporate partnerships, and donations. While the IET lacks a specific ethical investment policy and an overarching environmental policy, it demonstrates some environmental efforts, such as a 'very good' BREEAM rating for its London office. The study notes a lack of transparency regarding the specific corporations in which the IET's £110 million listed investments are held, suggesting likely but unconfirmed links to fossil fuel companies.

The Institution of Environmental Sciences (IES) is a professional body with approximately 3,500 members that promotes environmental science and sustainable development. An assessment of its public documents and annual reports indicates that the IES has no financial involvement with the arms or fossil fuel industries and holds no investments. The organization maintains extensive environmental policies, including a professional code of conduct requiring members to have "full regard for the enhancement of environmental quality and sustainable development and the mitigation of environmental harm." Additionally, the IES was one of 24 UK-based societies that endorsed a joint Climate Communiqué prior to COP 21, urging governments to take immediate action against climate change risks.

The Institution of Structural Engineers maintains a core value of sustainability, supported by a Sustainability Panel that provides guidance on carbon impact and responsible sourcing. The organization has no direct financial links to the arms or fossil fuel industries and holds no investments. However, an indirect link to the fossil fuel industry exists through its partnership with Tomorrow’s Engineers.

The Royal Academy of Engineering maintains extensive financial ties with the arms and fossil fuel sectors, particularly in its school education programmes and high-prestige events, while lacking a specific internal environmental or ethical investment policy.

The Royal Meteorological Society (RMetS) demonstrates a commitment to climate science through its mission and the endorsement of the 2015 Climate Communiqué, but lacks a comprehensive environmental policy for its own operations. While no direct financial links to fossil fuel or arms industries were found in its corporate memberships, events, or education programmes, the society's lack of a specific ethical investment policy and transparency regarding its £670,000 investment portfolio suggests that such links are likely present in its financial holdings.

The Royal Society, the UK's national academy of science, maintains a significant investment portfolio of approximately 200m but provides limited transparency regarding the specific companies held. While it lacks a formal overarching environmental policy, it has endorsed climate action via the 2015 Climate Communiqu. The study finds that the Society's ethical investment policy is narrow, specifically excluding only tobacco, which makes investments in arms and fossil fuel corporations likely. Additionally, the Society has received 'outstanding' donations from Rolls-Royce (arms industry) and Tata Sons (fossil fuel sector), and manages an 'Industry Fellowships' grant scheme funded by Rolls-Royce.

The report finds that while the Royal Statistical Society (RSS) has no evidence of financial links to fossil fuel or arms corporations in its education programmes, events, or magazine, it has a 'Very high' level of involvement with the fossil fuel industry through its investments. Approximately 31% of the 'known' investments (which represent at most 21% of the total £1.7 million portfolio) were in the fossil fuel sector. The RSS lacks an overarching environmental policy and an ethical investment policy, although it recently approved a change to invest between 5% and 15% of assets in 'global sustainable equities'.

The case study finds that the BCS — The Chartered Institute for IT has no direct listed investments or prestige event sponsorships linked to the arms or fossil fuel industries. However, it notes a lack of transparency regarding corporate members and criticizes a previous environmental policy for questioning the scientific consensus on CO2 emissions as the primary driver of climate change. While the institute maintains some green IT initiatives, the current status of its formal environmental policy remains unclear following its removal from the website in 2018.

The Science Council provides quality assurance and professional registration for scientists and technicians. An assessment of its corporate links found no financial ties to the fossil fuel industry and no relevant investments. However, the Council maintains a relationship with the Atomic Weapons Establishment through its 'Employer Champion' programme, and it lacks a published environmental policy.

The British Psychological Society (BPS) has implemented an ethical investment policy that excludes fossil fuel extraction and armaments sold to oppressive regimes, following pressure from its members. However, the BPS lacks a public environmental policy and maintains limited transparency regarding its £12.9 million investment portfolio, meaning investments in nuclear weapons modernisation cannot be ruled out. No direct financial links to fossil fuel or arms corporations were found through event sponsorship or advertising.

The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) maintains a comprehensive environmental policy and minimal direct corporate links to fossil fuels, but lacks an ethical investment policy and transparency regarding its £8.4 million investment portfolio. Consequently, the study concludes that investments in fossil fuel and arms corporations are likely despite the organization's public commitment to sustainability.

The Energy Institute (EI) maintains extensive financial and corporate ties to the fossil fuel industry, particularly oil and gas, across its investments, event sponsorships, corporate memberships, and governing council. While the EI adopted a strategic theme of "supporting the transition to a lower carbon world" in 2016 and has some professional guidance on environmental issues, it lacks an overarching environmental or ethical investment policy. The study finds that fossil fuel corporations heavily sponsor its major events, such as International Petroleum Week, and make up approximately 40% of its corporate members. The EI's governing council also shows strong links to the oil and gas sector, with nearly half of its members having such backgrounds. Links to the arms industry were found to be low, though the lack of an ethical investment policy suggests some indirect exposure is likely.

The Engineering Council, the regulatory body for the UK engineering profession, maintains comprehensive environmental guidance for engineers but lacks a dedicated ethical investment policy. Analysis of its approximately 1.6 million investment portfolio, held within the Baring Targeted Return Fund, reveals that about 1% of known holdings are in the fossil fuel industry and less than 1% are in arms companies. However, the report notes that because only 24% of the portfolio's final holdings could be unambiguously identified, the actual extent of these links could be higher.

The document investigates EngineeringUK's corporate associations, finding significant financial ties to the arms and fossil fuel sectors. It highlights that while the organization promotes engineering to young people, its flagship events and programmes are heavily sponsored by companies like BAE Systems and Shell. The report notes a lack of environmental or ethical investment policies and criticizes the transparency regarding the scale of funding from these controversial sectors.

The Geological Society of London maintains extensive financial ties to the fossil fuel industry through corporate membership, event sponsorship, and investments, despite public statements supporting climate action. While the society is praised for its transparency in financial reporting, it lacks an overarching environmental policy to govern the activities of its members or the organization itself. The study finds that approximately 70% of its corporate patrons are from the fossil fuel sector, and a significant portion of its 'Science and Education' income is derived from Petroleum Group events. Links to the arms industry were not explicitly found, though gaps in investment data leave this possibility open.

The case study examines the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining (IOM3), finding that while it provides more investment detail than some peers, it lacks an environmental or ethical investment policy. Analysis of available data shows approximately 9% of identified investments are in the fossil fuel sector, including holdings in Royal Dutch Shell plc and Rio Tinto plc. The report notes a lack of transparency regarding corporate membership and suggests that gaps in investment data may hide further links to the arms and fossil fuel industries.

The report by Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) examines the American Chemical Society's (ACS) alignment between its public sustainability policies and its financial practices. While the ACS expresses concern for climate change and provides educational toolkits, SGR highlights a lack of transparency regarding $1.22bn in securities and continuing financial links to the fossil fuel industry, specifically through the Petroleum Research Fund and sponsorship from ExxonMobil. SGR argues that these ties and the absence of carbon emission targets undermine the ACS's role as a scientific leader in the energy transition.

The report by Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) examines the American Meteorological Society's (AMS) financial transparency and ethical alignment. While the AMS acknowledges the scientific consensus on climate change and has implemented some green office measures, SGR identifies indirect fossil fuel investments through mutual funds and significant sponsorship from arms manufacturers such as Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. SGR argues that these financial links contradict the AMS's stated position on the urgency of the climate crisis.

The report by Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) examines the American Physical Society's (APS) financial practices, noting a lack of transparency regarding $181.9 million in securities and the absence of a formal ethical investment or environmental policy. While the APS has no known fossil fuel sponsors and has committed to tackling the climate crisis, SGR expresses concern over donations from the arms trade and the inability to verify if APS investments contradict its public climate statements.

The report examines the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), finding that while the organization promotes sustainable engineering in its ethics code and conferences, it lacks transparency regarding its $2.55 million investment portfolio. Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) highlights that ASEE accepts significant funding from fossil fuel company Chevron as a "Champion Partner" and arms company Boeing as a "Contributing Partner." SGR argues that these ties contradict the goals of the Paris Agreement and pose financial and reputational risks, urging a transition toward renewable energy investments and the divestment of fossil fuel patrons.