Dear Professor Brady,

Imperial College UCU branch are writing to you on behalf of UCU members to request greater transparency regarding the University’s investment and research partnerships. Specifically, we seek a full disclosure of any investments in, and links with, companies that engage in trade with Israel, and a review of the University’s position regarding these relationships.

It has been noted that Imperial College has both direct and indirect holdings in companies involved in supplying the Israeli military. Evidence suggest that direct holdings account for approximately 26% of the total value of all direct investments, spanning 17 companies. This has raised concerns among some stakeholders regarding the ethical implications of these investments, particularly considering rulings and statements made by international bodies such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Furthermore, information obtained through a Freedom of Information request indicates that Imperial College has received research funding totalling over £7 million over the past five years from companies such as BAE Systems, Caterpillar, and Rolls Royce—organisations which have been reported to supply arms and military equipment to Israel. This raises questions regarding the alignment of such partnerships with the UN Principles of Responsible Research and the University’s broader ethical commitments.

We understand that University representatives have participated in meetings with concerned students to discuss these issues. At a recent ‘Investment Forum’ facilitated by the Student Union,  Provost Ian Walmsley stated that the University “does not comment on geopolitical events”, despite emailing all Imperial College students in March 2022 to explicitly condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In response to questioning, neither the Provost nor the other senior management representative, Robert Kerse, were able to explain how the above investments and funding arrangements align with international human rights frameworks and responsible research principles, so clarity is still sought on these matters.

In a recent statement dated 20 June 2024, United Nations experts called for an immediate cessation of arms transfers to Israel, citing potential violations of international human rights and humanitarian laws. The statement also urged arms manufacturers, including BAE Systems, Caterpillar, and Rolls Royce, to review and halt such transfers, even under existing licenses, to mitigate any risk of complicity in international crimes.

Given the significance and urgency of these concerns, we kindly request that the University provides a comprehensive response addressing the following points:

We trust that you will treat this matter with the seriousness it warrants and look forward to receiving your response at your earliest convenience.

Regards,

                   Imperial UCU

—–

Dear Imperial UCU 

Many thanks for your email to Professor Brady, below.

Our ‘engage for change’ strategy is central to our overall approach to investment, seeking to drive societal benefit in a positive direction by aligning our strengths in research, teaching and innovation with our investment practices in a coherent way in order to maximise impact. Through this, we actively contribute to tackling critical environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) challenges. By engaging with companies, we are aiming to influence change that will have a positive impact on companies and on the planet.

All investments via the Endowment are made in accordance with our domestic and international legal obligations, as well as the policies and procedures that govern the activities of the university, such as our Council’s Investment Strategy and our Socially Responsible Investment Policy. Additionally, our Relationships Policy establishes the governance framework that is applied to all of Imperial’s third-party relationships. The Relationships Policy includes an established process for consideration of relationships and an escalation procedure to the Relationships Review Committee for proposed (or existing) relationships including decisions about relationships concerning Specially Designated Fields of research, sensitive counterparties and countries.

We review and publish our full fund holdings on a quarterly basis. Where a specific investment is identified to be non-compliant with current policy, we engage with our investment managers and investment consultants to address the concern.

Imperial is also a signatory of the UN Principles of Responsible Investment (PRI), which were developed by an international group of institutional investors reflecting the increasing relevance of ESG issues to investment practices. The majority of the Endowment is managed by external investment managers, who are also PRI signatories and are instructed to apply screening and monitoring processes in line with the university’s regulations.  As a founding member of the Responsible Investment Network for Universities via ShareAction, we work with like-minded investors to amplify our efforts.

We value hearing the views of our community and continue to welcome opportunities and channels for engagement. For example, ICU recently organised a forum for the student community at which our students were able to raise issues concerning our investment policy directly with the Provost and Chief Operating Officer. We intend to work with ICU officers on future fora, while the regular In Conversation and Professional Services fora provide opportunities for staff to raise their questions with the President and other members of UMB.

On 4/4/24 we were able to inform Imperial UCU members that the members of all three Imperial College affiliated trade unions voted to ACCEPT the College pay award for 2024-25.

The Joint Trade Union (JTU) pay negotiation team informed College management that the pay award has been accepted by the unions, and that this has formally ended the trade dispute over pay that has been running for approximately 3 years.

While this is good news, it is not without several caveats. We include below the full acceptance email sent to the College Negotiating Team (CNT) on the matter, where we also provide them with the principal features of the membership free text survey responses that outline membership sentiment and recognised shortcomings in the offer.

Regarding UCU members free text survey responses we have read and appreciated all of them, and will address every aspect in good time. For now we would just like to thank everyone who provided a response, and add that we especially appreciate the numerous expressions of gratitude and support that came in.

—–

Dear College Negotiating Team,

The JTU pay negotiation team are happy to report that members of all three trade unions have voted to ACCEPT the College’s “full & final pay offer” for 2024-25. We therefore:

(a) Accept the 2024-25 Imperial College pay offer, as detailed in emails exchanged on 14/3/24 and outlined on the College webpage and

(b) Formally end the long-running trade disputes over pay between all three trade unions and Imperial College.

We also feel it important to provide you with insights into the full range of views expressed. Each union provided members with the option of adding a comment alongside their vote on whether to accept or reject the pay offer. Each union received several constructive and useful comments; we provide a summary of the principal features of the comments that we think it is useful for the CNT to bear in mind:

The primary feature was that many members of all three unions took the time to express gratitude to the JTU side of the pay negotiations specifically, citing the difficulty of the role in the face of negotiating with the CNT in pay negotiations previously.

There were also a significant number of comments expressing dissatisfaction with the magnitude of the pay offer, noting that while it goes some way to restoring the spending power of College salaries after the pay cuts caused by high inflation over the last few years, it does not go far enough, and that the College could easily afford more, should it wish to. There were pointed remarks about the fact that only a small proportion of the USS savings were going to staff.

Two features of the pay offer were subject to extensive negative criticism:

(i) The “top up” for those above the £120K threshold was noticed by several members who expressed strong resentment that there should be what is perceived to be an enhanced financial protection for super-earners.

(ii) The CNT tactic from the 2023-24 pay negotiations of providing an offer of a £500 one-off payment which would be (and was) subsequently removed when the pay offer wasn’t accepted has clearly caused deep resentment. Members have variously and severally brought this up, referring to it as a “bribe”, a “threat”, and “act of blackmail”. Although not exactly the same, the explicit threat to withdraw the £1,000 consolidated payment was seen by many members as similar. Some stated they have rejected the offer on principle on this basis. You will recall our lengthy dialogues over this very point; the JTU would like to avoid this condition featuring in the future.

We were pleased to welcome Henrike Donner from Goldsmiths UCU to our quorate all members’ meeting earlier this month, where she spoke to us about the terrible threats of redundancies at their branch, where 25% of jobs are at risk as part of a major restructure.

They are currently balloting on strike action, and we voted to donate £500 from our branch to their strike fund.

See here and the Goldsmiths UCU Twitter account for further details and updates, including information on how to make an individual donation should you wish.

Several UCU members contacted the union with some concerns and constructive criticisms regarding the current proposals on change to Academic job titles (see here – Consultation_Background_ Academic_Staff), and asked if the union might be able to provide a response to the consultation. Following this we asked for input across the whole membership (i.e. across all job families, and also including several members of the working group and related workstreams) on whether the UCU should provide a response, and, if so, what the response should say.

Following several written responses, and following a well-attended and constructive lunchtime meeting on Thursday 15th February 2024, open to the whole membership, we produced this response, which we sent to the Provost and working group members for consideration on Monday 19th February 2024.

Academic titles consultation UCU response