Avoidance criteria for ethical sponsorship policy

We are carrying out a consultation and members vote on avoidance criteria areas for SocRSE’s draft ethical sponsorship policy. Our aim is to represent the wishes of our membership into account for sponsorship, partnerships and receiving gifts. Please join the slack discussion in #ethical-sponsorship-policy.

Consultation

Please see the Frequently Asked Questions below for more information.

Stages of consultation and votes

Dates (2025-2026)StageStatus
31st October – 25th NovemberCommunity survey for how to define a passing vote, and suggested areas for avoidance criteriaThe survey is now closed, thank you for your input
25th November – 8th DecemberTrustees summarise exclusion criteria and publish on this pageMoved to proposed areas for exclusion from community as originally posted to this page
8th December – 29th DecemberCommunity survey for arguments against avoidance criteriaThe survey is now closed, thank you for your input.
29th December – 19th January now 26th JanuaryTrustees summarise arguments against and publish on this pageHigh level summaries below, more detailed summaries of responses are available.
19th January – 9th February 28th January – 18th FebruaryMembership votes on exclusion criteriaVote is now open, you should have received an email with the subject “Voting Instructions for Ethical Sponsorship Policy”, please email [email protected] if you are a member and haven’t received an email

Proposed areas of exclusion and summary of arguments against

We’ve had a lot of responses from the proposed areas, so have attempted to summarise the arguments against at a high level. High level- and detailed-summaries are on a separate page.

Note: These are the thoughts and opinions of specific community members and not those of SocRSE. We have aimed to be as transparent in the reasoning that people have given and included them for transparency.

Table of Contents

General feedback collected

We’ve had general feedback from the arguments against that doesn’t fit into one particular area, so have added these here.

Top-level feedback summary

  • SocRSE should not be a political organization; core mission is to further RSE careers
  • Most RSE employers would violate these criteria
  • Exclusions risk making RSECon unprofitable
  • Should only exclude sponsors that violate UK law
  • Many exclusions are political and may violate charity law
  • Should be inclusive of all RSEs (academia, industry, freelance)
  • Criteria too broad; risk mission drift from RSE to social justice gatekeeping

“Political Consulting” firms

Detail of proposed area

Companies that leverage intrusive advertising strategies for political purposes (from either side of the spectrum). Including but not limited to unscrupulous data collection from social media and browsing habits. “Strategic communication” consultancies and companies that engage in these activities.

Trustee summary of arguments against

  • These firms often operate at the forefront of data science
  • Should focus on unconsented data collection and use, not political consulting per se
  • Some named companies are defunct (Cambridge Analytica, SCL Group shut down in 2018)
  • Unlikely to sponsor; serves as virtue signalling

Arms trade (excluding UK public bodies)

After feedback, we have created a separate arms trade area, and then a defence and arms trade area of exclusion.

Detail of proposed area

Sponsorship from weapons manufacturers or suppliers aimed at selling weapons (this does not include UK public bodies creating weapons for national defence).

Garnering sponsorship from arms trade risks alienating members, and associates the community with technologies designed for harm. Contractors whose primary revenue comes from nuclear warhead production, missile systems, or autonomous lethal weapon platforms. Subcontractors that primarily build software for military targeting, weapons guidance, or combat simulation systems.

Trustee summary of arguments against

  • Many RSEs work in this industry, risks alienating them and skewing our membership even more towards academia. 
  • Many universities collaborate with defence contractors
  • Difficult to objectively determine “primary revenue”
  • May be political, incompatible with charity status
  • Need to engage with the world as it is, not as we wish it to be

Defence (including UK public bodies and arms trade)

Detail of proposed area

Sponsorship from defence, weapons manufacturers or suppliers aimed at selling weapons (this does include UK public bodies creating weapons for national defence).

Garnering sponsorship from defence and arms trade risks alienating members, and associates the community with technologies designed for harm. Contractors whose primary revenue comes from nuclear warhead production, missile systems, or autonomous lethal weapon platforms. Subcontractors that primarily build software for military targeting, weapons guidance, or combat simulation systems. This includes indirect involvement, such as companies whose core business is supplying components or software specifically for weapon systems.

Trustee summary of arguments against

  • Many RSEs work in this industry, risks alienating them and skewing our membership even more towards academia. 
  • Many universities collaborate with defence contractors
  • Excludes AWE, a government organisation which funds computational research and sends many RSEs to RSECon
  • If Alan Turing Institute moves more towards defence, would exclude them
  • Defence includes cybersecurity, humanitarian logistics, disaster response
  • Difficult to objectively determine “primary revenue”
  • Defence research has led to beneficial technologies (internet, GPS, jet engines)
  • Defence is essential for national security
  • May be political, incompatible with charity status
  • Need to engage with the world as it is, not as we wish it to be

Fossil fuel

Detail of proposed area

While many RSEs work on sustainability and climate science, accepting funding from companies whose primary activities contribute significantly to climate change would contradict the community’s commitment to sustainability and evidence-based policy. This exclusion should focus on primary producers rather than all energy firms (e.g. renewable energy or transition-focused research partners would remain eligible).

Trustee summary of arguments against

  • Definition too broad (e.g., “heavy lobbying against renewable energy policy”)
  • Renewable energy policy is not settled
  • Unlikely to sponsor directly, virtue signalling
  • May be political, incompatible with charity status and not related to the SocRSE visions and aims. Would need to update the visions an aims?

Social media

Based on the feedback, we decided to change this area to include all social media platforms. This would avoid being sponsored directly by the social media company.

Detail of proposed area

Damage to mental health, allowing the spread of disinformation. Use of algorithms designed to keep users engaged and continue to consume content

Trustee summary of arguments against

  • Should apply broadly or not at all
  • Division between “bad” and “good” platforms seems arbitrary. LinkedIn, Reddit, Mastodon, Bluesky use similar algorithms
  • Cannot avoid working with Big Tech (e.g., Microsoft, AWS, Azure, Google Cloud)
  • Historically unlikely to sponsor
  • Social media isn’t inherently immoral

Companies Involved in Human Rights Violations or Unethical Labour Practices

Detail of proposed area

RSE values of inclusivity, equity, and fairness extend to how software and research infrastructure are built and maintained. Sponsorship from companies with poor human rights or labour records would conflict with these principles.

Companies with a less than median score in any of the following organisation’s benchmarks: world benchmarking alliance social benchmarking score (current median is 4.5), ranking digital rights (current median is 38.5) or know the chain (current median is 19).

Companies not listed will be searched along with human rights, if a reputable publication reports human rights abuses then they will also be excluded.

If a company has been benchmarked by more than one organisation in our list then only the most recent benchmark from each organisation from the last 2 years will be taken into account. This aims to avoid a stale benchmark affecting a company in perpetuity.

Companies excluded: Alphabet (social benchmarking score), Nvidia (know the chain), X (ranking digital rights), Amazon (ranking digital rights).

Current data would allow Dell, Meta, Intel, and Microsoft

Trustee summary of arguments against

  • Seems arbitrary selection of metrics and use of median
  • Unclear whether the chosen metrics relate to presumed source of harm for exclusion; practical difficulties in assessing specific cases
  • Disproportionate impact on SocRSE and events of exclusion of such large contributions.
  • Places large burden on Society to research and verify

Gambling

Detail of proposed area

Gambling contributes to societal harms and addiction.

Trustee summary of arguments against

  • Lack of relevance to RSE
  • Dangers of positioning SocRSE as campaigning against a small and diverse set of social harms. 

AI Hyperscalers

Detail of proposed area

AI’s business value built on theft, indifference to pollution and societal impact, threatening of world economy. Threatens impartiality of AI-related discussions within the community, which are absolutely essential at this time. If we accept funding there will be pressure for us to act such that it is not withdrawn

Trustee summary of arguments against

  • Premise of harm is highly subjective
  • Self-defeating in excluding voices in pursuit of impartial discussion
  • Definition is vague and subjective, making difficult to apply to individual cases. What’s bad about hyper-scaling?
  • Technology is ubiquitous in RSE-land and exclusion would harm the community’s awareness of offerings and engagement
  • Overstates Society being tied/silenced in opposition
  • Sponsors don’t pressure SocRSE to act in certain ways

For-profit surrogacy

We have updated the title and description of this area to make it more specific

Detail of proposed area

Conern that the wellbeing of child and surrogate causes unethical incentives. This can lead to vulnerable women being exploited, forgery and human trafficking. For example, BioTexCom has allegations of these activities.

Trustee summary of arguments against

  • Vague and subjective category leading to difficulty implementing/judging (may now be addressed)
  • Lack of relevance to community/society goals
  • Agreement on what is ethical in reproductive health is not universal (may now be addressed)
  • Unworkable for trustees to objectively determine (may now be addressed)

Ultra-processed food industry

Detail of proposed area

Industry that profits from addiction in the same way that tobacco, alcohol or gambling does. Bad for the fabric of our society and can cause harm to people

Trustee summary of arguments against

  • Unhelpfully broad category with no clear link between all UPF and “harm”
  • Stated justification cannot be tied to category as a whole
  • Excluding sponsorship but still serving UPF at events
  • Historically unlikely to sponsor
  • Pointing to one “big name” company out of so many suggests point scoring.

Tobacco ✅ – Added by default

The Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002 bans sponsorship which we believe includes UK charities. For this reason it will be added to the exclusion areas without a vote.

Detail of proposed area

Smoking kills. There is a clear, established relationship between tobacco advertising & sponsorship and consumption.

Trustee summary of arguments against

  • Unlikely to sponsor, virtue signalling
  • Could alienate members who smoke/vape
  • Should extend to vapes and alcohol for consistency
  • “Smoking kills” is not a reasoned argument (many things kill)

Political parties ✅ – Added by default

As a UK charity, SocRSE must remain politically neutral and cannot accept sponsorship from political parties so this will be added into the areas of exclusion. We can ask an MP to speak at our events, making sure that they do not promote their political party. See the political activity and campaigning guidance from the government.

Trustee summary of arguments against

  • Unnecessary inclusion given existing restrictions on political activity of SocRSE
  • Harmful to “pad” exclusion list
  • Harm statement saying we should avoid political bias is based on its own political point of view
  • Want to extend to government ministers as keynote speakers

Companies operating in the occupied Palestinian territories ❎ – Excluded as we believe we can’t legally act on this

Charities in the UK must be independent and politically neutral (except where political activity direct supports the charity’s aims and objectives). From what we understand excluding sponsors in this area would be interpreted as political act (which is not supported by our aims and objectives).

Detail of proposed area

The Society should not accept money from companies operating on land illegally seized by force. We should be upholding the concept of international law. Using wikipedia page as source of companies. Motorola is a potential sponsor listed here.

Trustee summary of arguments against

  • Against political neutrality of SocRSE
  • Stated harm is far broader than the explicit category target, suggesting bias
  • Harm to RSE community by taking this political posture, and conflict with EDIA considerations
  • Outside SocRSE’s competence to determine
  • Vague, what if a company helps Palestinians
  • Too specific; why single out Palestine but not Russia/Ukraine, China, Sudan?

Companies in the BDS boycott for Palestine ❎ – Excluded as we believe we can’t legally act on this

Charities in the UK must be independent and politically neutral (except where political activity direct supports the charity’s aims and objectives). From what we understand excluding sponsors in this area would be interpreted as political act (which is not supported by our aims and objectives).

Detail of proposed area

“The inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world” –  Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
There are many breaches of human rights ongoing in Palestine. The BDS boycott aims to put pressure on companies which are supporting those carrying out the breaches of human rights.

BDS boycott companies which includes basically every major tech firm (e.g. Microsoft, Intel, Cisco, Alphabet, HP, Amazon and Siemens)

Trustee summary of arguments against

  • Against political neutrality of SocRSE
  • Would make large-scale events unaffordable
  • Excessively broad and lacking in nuance
  • Includes most modern technology and many existing sources of employment and funding of RSEs
  • Potential to cause harm to members of RSE community.

Frequently asked questions

Where can I find out more information about the process 

We have created an interview with our trustees, Twin Karmakharm and Stef Piatek, that outlines the process, you can watch this on youtube. This covers many areas in this FAQ, we will update this page as more questions come in. 

Please email [email protected] and see the next question on where you can discuss this. 

Where can we discuss this?

Please join the discussion at #ethical-sponsorship-policy on our slack instance if you have any questions or feedback.

We are also encouraging regional RSE groups to host discussions after we have summarised the proposed avoidance criteria. The trustees will create talking points to help with this.

We expect everyone to follow our Code of Conduct as usual, and respect each other, even if you disagree. 

Why do we need to vote on how to define a passing vote?

With a yes/no/abstain vote, an outright majority for contentious areas may be un-achievable. 

We need to decide on whether “Yes” votes should have a lead over “No” votes to be counted as passing. We see “No” being actively against adding the item, whereas “Abstain” shows no preference. It would be useful to know what the community thinks is the lead required. These are some illustrative examples of times where we would need to know these thresholds assuming a 33% of Yes vote being the threshold:

  • 35% Yes, 20% Abstain, 40% No
  • 35% Yes, 30% Abstain, 35% No
  • 35% Yes, 40% Abstain, 25% No

Why can’t I fill out a survey without giving an email address?

We want to be able to contact respondents to make sure that when we summarise all of the responses, that we are not misrepresenting their wishes. For this to work we’ll need to follow up in the week after the survey closes before publishing them on this page. 

Why are the trustees summarising responses rather than reporting them as-is?

We expect people will respond with similar areas, and we will group and summarise them where we can. We need to know if this matches the intention of the proposer, or if they want their area to be voted on specifically.

Who can take part in each of the stages for this process?

For the two surveys, anyone in the RSE community can contribute. Only SocRSE members will be able to take part in the final vote.

Why is sponsorship so important?

Sponsorship at RSECon accounts for roughly half of the cost of the conference. We simply wouldn’t be able to run the conference without our sponsors. 

What happens if I miss the deadline for one of the surveys or membership vote?

So that the RSECon26 organising committee can be sure of sponsors, we’ll have to stick to the timelines above. You can send an email to [email protected] to see what options you have. 

After the policy has been voted in by the trustees of the Society, the ethical sponsorship avoidance criteria can be altered. More information is in the draft ethical sponsorship policy, members can bring requests for changes to an annual general meeting or extraordinary general meeting vote.