Community feedback on proposed areas of exclusion for ethical sponsorship

This page summarises the feedback received from community members on potential areas for exclusion proposed by members as part of the Society’s consultation on potential Avoidance criteria for ethical sponsorship.

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 summarised at two levels of detail them for transparency.

Table of Contents

General feedback and comments

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

Detailed summary of feedback

  • SocRSE’s remit is furthering RSE careers, not political activism. Most RSE employers violate these criteria—excluding Microsoft, Intel, Amazon etc. would end RSECon’s profitability.
  • Only exclude sponsors violating UK law; anything else is political opinion inappropriate for a professional body.
  • Oppose minority activists pushing agendas against research. Any exclusions should require clear majority of all members, not just voters.
  • Many exclusions are political, not ethical, and may violate charity law. Trustees must ensure exclusions don’t compromise charitable status.
  • We claim to be inclusive of academia, industry, and freelance RSEs—these exclusions contradict that.
  • How is this relevant to a non-political/lobbying organisation?
  • Criteria are overly broad and risk shifting SocRSE from RSE community to social-justice gatekeeper. Categories like “Big Tech” or “AI hyperscalers” could exclude AWS, Azure, Google Cloud. Recommend narrower focus on well-documented, directly relevant harms.
  • All exclusions are too general and may catch tangentially associated organisations. Prefer general guidelines allowing committee judgment based on feedback and current affairs.

“Political Consulting” firms

Top-level feedback summary

  • 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 signaling

Detailed summary of feedback

  • These companies are data science leaders; excluding them denies funding/collaboration to data scientists. Public social media data is public. Two named companies are defunct. Unlikely to sponsor—pure virtue signalling.
  • Focus should be on unconsented data collection/use, not “political consulting” per se. Suggest rewording to “Companies using unlawfully collected data.”
  • Unless SocRSE wants political neutrality, don’t blanket-ban political consulting—some firms support ethical causes.
  • Not historically sponsored by these, unlikely in future. If demonstrating commitment to democratic values, do so proactively, not reactively.
  • Unclear relevance to SocRSE.
  • Trust trustees to assess sponsorship case-by-case rather than explicit bans that imply approval of unlisted areas by omission.

Defence and arms trade

Top-level feedback summary

  • 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

Detailed summary of feedback

  • Many industry RSEs fall under this umbrella. Ethics on defence are nuanced. Anyone supporting this exclusion should examine their own employer’s investments.
  • Would exclude AWE, which funds computational research at many universities and sends many RSEs to RSECon.
  • Split defence/deterrence from arms trade. Defence is essential; if Alan Turing Insitute (ATI) goes defence-focused, we’d lose them. Many defence companies have university ties.
  • Defence covers cybersecurity, humanitarian logistics, secure communications, disaster-response. Do we not want to be associated with these areas?
  • Defence is one of UK’s 8 growth-driving sectors in Industrial Strategy. Is SocRSE working against UK strategic interests?
  • ATI has been instructed to contribute to defence. With changing geopolitics, blanket bans are unreasonable. Support excluding firms doing business with oppressive regimes, not blanket defence exclusion.
  • Difficult to objectively confirm “primary revenue.”
  • Difficult to draw concrete boundaries—RSEs work in Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSLT) and with defence companies. Defence isn’t necessarily bad; unilateral disarmament would be harmful.
  • Clearly political, incompatible with charitable status.
  • Until all countries are at peace, arguing against defence is naïve.
  • Where would Palantir or drone manufacturers sit?
  • Defence/weapons manufacture isn’t inherently unethical given Russian threats. Selling to certain states is unethical—need nuanced policy.
  • SocRSE already too focused on university RSEs. AWE, Rolls Royce, BAE do considerable RSE work. Professional bodies shouldn’t engage in political debates; should seek broad, representative membership.
  • RSE community is a force for good but must engage with the world as it is. Nuclear weapons are an ugly necessity for protection. Defence companies employing RSEs should be allowed to sponsor.
  • Society has worked hard to develop RSE as a profession outside universities. This would undo that goodwill. AWE RSEs have as much right to call themselves RSEs as anyone.
  • Concern about policy scope, minimum voting requirements, and financial implications. What would RSECon25 finances look like excluding these sponsors? Unclear distinction between sponsorship, attendance, and in-kind contributions.
  • Many universities support defence contracts (Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial, UCL, Southampton, Manchester, Edinburgh, Cranfield).

Fossil fuel

Top-level feedback summary

  • 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?

Detailed summary of feedback

  • Definition too broad. Renewable policy isn’t settled and can be blamed for high UK energy prices. Should favour responsible western fossil fuels over offshoring pollution. Shell/BP unlikely to sponsor directly—virtue signalling.
  • Climate change arguments are political, not core to SocRSE, therefore incompatible with charitable status.
  • If Society commits to sustainability, vision/aims need updating. Good RSE work may still happen in these companies—are we deciding who counts as “good” RSEs?
  • Unworkable to capture stated nuance; requires discretion no better than trustees’ existing judgment.

Tobacco

Top-level feedback summary

  • 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)

Detailed summary of feedback

  • Virtue signalling—why would British American Tobacco sponsor SocRSE? Could alienate smokers/vapers. For consistency, extend to vapes and alcohol.
  • Unlikely to sponsor, so redundant. Better to demonstrate public health commitment proactively.
  • Agree tobacco should be excluded, but principle is about profiting from harming people—cigarettes are just one example.
  • “Smoking kills” isn’t reasoned argument—skiing, driving, sex, and peanuts also kill. Trust trustees to assess case-by-case rather than signal “smoking kills.”

“Big Tech” social media

Top-level feedback summary

  • 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

Detailed summary of feedback

  • Included/excluded examples are politically biased—LinkedIn, Reddit, Mastodon, Bluesky all use engagement algorithms. Apply broadly or not at all. Unlikely to sponsor—pointless rule.
  • Generally in favour but needs better line-drawing. LinkedIn also uses engagement algorithms.
  • How is the line drawn? Arguments focus on disinformation and algorithms, yet LinkedIn/BlueSky/Reddit excluded despite similar issues.
  • Biased company selection. Either total exclusion or none.
  • Too big an area of society not to engage with purely for its existence.
  • Excluding certain companies while staying politically independent is unclear. Prefer excluding all organisations.
  • Legitimate policy debate, but exclusion isn’t the solution.
  • Social media isn’t inherently immoral; “Big Tech” qualifier acknowledges this. Need more specific criterion targeting specific behaviours.
  • LinkedIn isn’t much different from Meta—can’t make exceptions for services we personally use.
  • Too vague. Are YouTube and TikTok equally bad? Ignores good causes social media promotes.
  • Division between ‘bad’ and ‘good’ platforms seems arbitrary. Don’t include this category.
  • Can’t draw firm line—both categories use engagement algorithms.
  • Can’t avoid working with Big Tech, particularly IaaS providers like Microsoft.
  • Not historically sponsored, unlikely in future. No point adding businesses for their own sake.
  • LinkedIn owned by Microsoft, criticised for poor practices including recent EDI policy deletion—suggest that they should be included in exclusion.
  • Unclear relevance. LinkedIn owned by Microsoft, which is suggested for exclusion elsewhere. What about researchers using data from these platforms?
  • No stated argument in support. Poorly defined, requires significant discretion. Included/excluded lists are arbitrary with no justification.

Companies operating in the occupied Palestinian territories

Top-level feedback summary

  • 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?

Detailed summary of feedback

  • Complex political issues can undermine diversity and inclusion aims—may undermine Society’s core aims.
  • Not legal for charities to adopt blanket policies on political aims unrelated to their cause. Student unions have had to walk back BDS policies after legal advice.
  • Arguments in favour based on propaganda not agreed facts. Alienating to Israeli members. Israel has successful tech companies.
  • Exclusion criteria should be generalizable and conflict-agnostic. Use broadly defined standards applying equally to all entities, avoiding political positioning.
  • As an Israeli, don’t believe Israel OR Palestine should be boycotted—more likely to affect individuals with little political say.
  • Why single out Palestine but not Russia, China, Sudan, etc.?
  • RSE conference shouldn’t engage in political activism. Exclude for violating universal norms, not moral agenda setting.
  • This is antisemitism unless expanded to include all situations (Russia/Ukraine, UK imperialism).
  • Too vague: what if company helps Palestinians? What if Palestinians own it? This is redundant with “Human Rights Violations” category.
  • Against political neutrality of SocRSE.
  • Need principled reason for choosing this issue that wouldn’t apply to Russia/Ukraine, Sudan, Yemen, China.
  • Overly specific—need more general language covering genocide or human rights violations.
  • Unlikely to sponsor historically or in future, so redundant. Don’t want ‘stamp collecting’ for world’s problems.
  • People in occupied areas need to buy things. Current description too broad. Policy shouldn’t be geography-specific but principle-based about companies profiting from acts against international law.
  • Clearly political cause. Could leave SocRSE open to antisemitism claims.
  • Is the Society willing to take stance on ethicality of such companies?

Companies in the BDS boycott for Palestine

Top-level feedback summary

  • 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.

Detailed summary of feedback

  • Not legal for charities to adopt blanket policies on political aims unrelated to their cause. Student unions have had to walk back BDS policies after legal advice.
  • People suggesting this don’t understand conference costs. Arguments in favour based on propaganda. Alienating to Israeli members.
  • Requirements understandably strong but too strong for this context.
  • List includes Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Intel, Dell, HP—impractical to boycott while working in tech. Most RSEs interact with these daily.
  • Society shouldn’t take stance on particular current issues. Ethics policy shouldn’t need revision for current events. Defer judgment to higher authority like ICC or UN.
  • Exclusion list includes major tech firms making conference unviable. Double standard to ban sponsorship while using their products. Support excluding companies directly contributing to genocide, but BDS is too broad.
  • RSE conference shouldn’t engage in political activism. Exclude for violating universal norms, not moral agenda setting.
  • Too partisan and political. BDS criticised as stifling discussion by labelling organisations and anyone working for them as complicit.
  • Not practical without rendering conference non-viable. “No ethical sponsorship under capitalism” situation. Better to demonstrate solidarity proactively.
  • Political discourse can be divisive. Focusing on one region seems inconsistent with fostering inclusive environment.
  • Are Society willing to take stance on ethicality of such companies?
  • Would make conference unviable. BDS is about consumer buying power, not sponsorship.
  • Category redundant with “Human Rights Violations” category. BDS doesn’t provide conclusive evidence of explicit involvement. Prefer referring to UN reports or court findings.
  • Against political neutrality of SocRSE.
  • Clearly political cause. Could leave SocRSE open to antisemitism claims.
  • Overly specific—need more general language covering genocide or human rights violations.
  • Using highly biased campaign group’s website as source is problematic. Society harmed if seen as campaigning outside domain of expertise.
  • This is all major sponsors—would destroy RSECon.

Political parties

Top-level feedback summary

  • 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

Detailed summary of feedback

  • Should be banned, but extend to government ministers as keynote speakers. Invite civil servants instead.
  • Don’t disagree with category but would want to clarify it wouldn’t prevent inviting keynotes with political affiliations (e.g., Minister for Science & Technology).
  • Don’t disagree with category, but object to particular parties being targeted in description—that itself is a political statement.
  • Doesn’t need adding as legally barred from receiving such sponsorship. More padding makes any specific inclusion less important.
  • Clearly political. Already excluded due to charitable status—therefore completely unnecessary.
  • Unclear relevance to SocRSE.
  • Accepting sponsorship isn’t affiliation with or endorsement of political views. RSEs hold various political views; telling them their views are unacceptable doesn’t further Society’s aims.

Companies Involved in Human Rights Violations or Unethical Labour Practices

Top-level feedback summary

  • 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

Detailed summary of feedback

  • Agree with reasoning but wording places large effort burden on Society. “Companies not listed will be searched along with human rights, if a reputable publication reports human rights abuses then they will also be excluded.”: Suggest amending to be more effort-bounded and clarify “reputable publication.”
  • For some benchmarks, unclear why certain scores given. Choice of median seems arbitrary.
  • Not clear why these benchmarks chosen. Benchmarks don’t measure what expected—weight on publishing policies rather than actual impact. Comparing to median of unrelated companies inappropriate.
  • Basically anyone making computer chips would fall into this category if you dig hard enough.
  • To what extent is Society taking stand against unethical labour? Would this include companies/projects holding contracts with those on the list?

Gambling

Top-level feedback summary

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

Detailed summary of feedback

  • Unlikely to sponsor historically or in future, so redundant. Criteria should have practical effects, not be included for campaigning purposes.
  • Unclear relevance to SocRSE.
  • Assess sponsorship individually on suitability rather than support social campaigning movements with no RSE community relevance.

AI Hyperscalers

Top-level feedback summary

  • 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

Detailed summary of feedback

  • For true discussion, everybody must be involved. Excluding them prevents impact. Blacklisting Microsoft and Nvidia seems bold given product usage.
  • Working with AI is unavoidable. Argument about funding dependency could apply to anything.
  • Important to include these companies in conversation. Consider placing limitations like caps on proportion of sponsorship from them.
  • Exclusion details biased and subjective. Such sponsorship wouldn’t threaten discussion impartiality.
  • Why is AI research acceptable but AI for business not? Can SocRSE dictate that sponsorship doesn’t allow sway over proceedings?
  • What’s bad about hyper scaling? Definition vague. Apply case-by-case based on proven evidence of environmental damage or anti-competitive behaviour.
  • Very fuzzy criterion and speculative argumentation—sponsors don’t pressure SocRSE to act certain ways.
  • Should engage with these companies and promote ethical AI development, not avoid entirely. RSEs should lead such discussions.
  • Environmental impact of massive AI usage (water, energy consumption, groundwater removal) is a valid concern.
  • Many RSEs have direct working relationships with Microsoft etc. as technology partners. Blanket exclusion too restrictive given we all use their tech anyway.
  • Would be fighting losing battle. Excluding Turing is huge conflict of interest. Like being pro-computer but anti-HPC.
  • Dislike GenAI hyperscaling but doesn’t rise to point of refusing money. OpenAI unlikely to sponsor anyway; Microsoft & Nvidia have relevant business.
  • Not good for membership to exclude companies making tools/software we use because some part is deemed “not nice.” SocRSE is IT-based—excluding companies making most-used OS isn’t great. ACM and IEEE conferences would happily accept them.
  • Controversial suggestion. Expansion of AI use raises implications. Would this include platform users? How distinguish “good” vs “bad”? Aren’t there benefits to engaging these companies?
  • So imprecise as to be unworkable. Defining AI work as “theft” is grotesque generalisation. Rejecting these contributions harms discussion impartiality more than including them.

Unethical reproductive practices

Top-level feedback summary

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

Detailed summary of feedback

  • Support the intended exclusion but concerned about wording. “Respect life” language could be used against women’s reproductive health services. Suggest rewording or adding NHS to NOT-included list.
  • Classification of “unethical” very subjective. Not relevant to SocRSE.
  • Vagueness could allow application to companies upholding reproductive rights. Without clear title/description, could be abused or misinterpreted.
  • Far too vague, uses circular reasoning by including “unethical” in name.
  • Doesn’t seem relevant to SocRSE. Unclear if about human trafficking allegations against named company or all fertility clinics.
  • Not clear what this area refers to, rather vague, not specific enough for policy.
  • Not historically sponsored, unlikely in future. No point padding avoidance list—future committees would likely turn down such sponsorship anyway.
  • Unclear relevance to SocRSE.
  • Unworkable for trustees to objectively determine. Significant proportion of world considers condom use unethical—trustees shouldn’t make such ethical assessments outside their professional experience.

Ultra-processed food industry

Top-level feedback summary

  • 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.

Detailed summary of feedback

  • Not relevant to RSE society role. The Society shouldn’t spend time deciding what UPFs are or debating whether crisps should be banned from conference lunch.
  • Basically irrelevant to SocRSE. UPFs unfairly demonised in some circles—quite subjective.
  • Still poorly understood area, especially with newer meat-free manufacturers. Definition unclear. Only including Nestlé feels like point scoring.
  • Topical and contentious issue—many foods not unhealthy technically fall under UPF. Would all conference food need to be UPF-free? Diet is personal preference and sometimes necessity.
  • Needs more precision—controversy among researchers over whether UPFs universally harmful. UPFs provide large part of lower-income peoples’ nutrition. Suggest separate area like ‘Deliberately addictive products or services.’
  • Making this well-defined would catch extremely wide set of companies when which practices cause greatest harm is still active research. Ban every food producer adding sugar?
  • Some dispute on whether UPF is itself a public health issue. Not settled issue.
  • Don’t pick fights against unrelated industries. Would correctly limit food served at RSECon—most conference food likely falls into UPF categories.
  • Not historically sponsored, unlikely in future. No point padding avoidance list.
  • Surprised only Nestlé listed. Would lab-grown foods be included or excluded?
  • Unclear relevance to SocRSE.
  • Nestlé has been on “evil company” lists for 50 years. SocRSE doesn’t need to pander to this. Assess sponsorship individually rather than support social campaigning movements with no RSE relevance.