How funding processes can support more sustainable research practices
Research funding is no longer just about scientific merit and cost. Universities across the UK now use internal grant processes to shape how researchers think about environmental impact, resource efficiency and long-term viability. The shift starts before money changes hands, at the point where project design happens and choices become fixed.
Funding applications now routinely include sustainability questions. Researchers must explain their approach to travel, equipment, materials, energy and waste. The questions are supported by guidance, built into review criteria and increasingly aligned with what major external funders expect. This isn't window dressing. It changes how projects are designed.
The approach matters because it intervenes early. Once a proposal is written and submitted, the decisions are made. Equipment has been specified. Travel is planned. Methods are set. Adding sustainability as an afterthought achieves little. Embedding it in the funding process makes it part of research planning, not an optional extra.
This model is spreading. Internal funding systems are being redesigned to reflect expectations from bodies like Wellcome, UKRI and the Leverhulme Trust. At the same time, universities are addressing financial sustainability by improving how research is costed and reducing reliance on institutional cross-subsidies. Together, these changes are making sustainability a standard part of how research is governed.
Universities test sustainability questions through internal grants
The Sustainability in Internal Research Funding project introduced a sustainability section into university funding applications. The initiative included guidance for applicants and reviewers, making environmental considerations a formal part of the assessment process. It followed earlier sustainability work and focused on translating institutional ambition into practical funding requirements.
Organisers conducted two scoping exercises. One examined internal funding processes across university research institutes. The other reviewed what external funders were already asking for. Workshops and focus groups then identified barriers and drafted an application question with supporting materials.
The stated objectives were threefold. First, to encourage researchers to reflect on sustainability during project design. Second, to prepare them for external funding requirements. Third, to embed sustainability throughout the research cycle, from initial concept through to delivery and reporting.
This model treats sustainability as a matter of research governance and project quality. It shifts the conversation from estates management and carbon offsetting to the choices researchers make about methods, equipment, collaboration and resource use. Consequently, it affects decisions before budgets are finalised and proposals are submitted.
Internal funding serves as a testing ground. Universities can refine questions, improve guidance and train reviewers before applying the same standards to larger external bids. Researchers gain familiarity with sustainability expectations in a lower-stakes environment. This reduces friction when they encounter similar requirements from major funders.
External funders now expect environmental considerations in proposals
Major research funders have raised expectations. Wellcome's environmental sustainability policy requires researchers to design projects as sustainably as reasonably possible. Applicants must explain their approach in grant applications and include associated costs. The guidance highlights environmental effects of project-related purchases.
The Leverhulme Trust requires explicit justification for equipment costs. It encourages applicants to consider environmental impacts of travel and identify alternatives. Similarly, the University of Cambridge advises researchers to assess environmental effects of research activities, identify more sustainable approaches and respond to sustainability questions in applications.
Cambridge's guidance links to the Concordat for the Environmental Sustainability of Research and Innovation Practice. This sector-wide framework promotes common expectations among research organisations and funders. The University of Exeter signed the concordat in 2025 and identifies UKRI, Wellcome and Cancer Research UK among organisations associated with its development.
Exeter's guidance highlights sustainable research design, environmental and ethical impacts, and laboratory accreditation. Queen Mary University of London notes that environmental sustainability is increasingly becoming a requirement for funding applications and provides examples of funder expectations.
These policies are not uniform. Different funders emphasise different aspects. However, the direction is clear. Researchers can no longer treat sustainability as optional or assume it will be dealt with by estates teams. It must be addressed in the proposal itself, with costs identified and justifications provided.
Funding questions change research design and budgeting
Embedding sustainability in applications affects multiple aspects of projects. Research design can be reconsidered. Applicants might ask whether a smaller sample, a different methodology or digital alternatives would achieve the same scientific objective with fewer resources. This is not about compromising quality. It is about testing assumptions.
Travel and collaboration decisions become visible. Researchers must justify essential travel, use remote participation where appropriate and consider whether collaboration can be organised more efficiently. Equipment and facilities come under scrutiny. Proposals can prioritise shared infrastructure, existing equipment or refurbishment rather than unnecessary duplication.
Laboratory operations are examined. Applicants address energy consumption, consumables, waste and procurement. They identify opportunities to reuse materials or select suppliers with better environmental performance. Data and computing requirements are assessed, particularly where large-scale or repeated analyses are involved. Storage and processing have environmental costs that can be reduced through careful design.
Budgeting changes as well. Sustainability measures can be costed explicitly instead of treated as unfunded aspirations. The University of Bath recommends that researchers check whether their funder has signed the research sustainability concordat. It advises using shared equipment and core facilities, reducing consumable requirements and considering existing institutional resources before seeking additional funding.
Outputs and impact are also considered. Researchers assess the environmental consequences of deploying findings, producing materials or scaling an intervention. A project might produce useful knowledge but require resource-intensive implementation. These trade-offs can be identified and discussed in the proposal rather than discovered later.
Financial sustainability shapes what universities can support
Environmental sustainability is only one dimension. Financial sustainability determines whether universities can maintain laboratories, facilities, technical expertise and research careers over time. UKRI has identified a sector-wide sustainability gap. Research income does not always cover the full economic cost of conducting research.
Universities may therefore use other income streams to subsidise research activity. Tuition fees or commercial income fill the gap. This is not sustainable in the long term. It creates pressure on other activities and limits institutional capacity to invest in infrastructure or support early-career researchers.
UKRI's financial sustainability work focuses on more accurate costing, clearer guidance and reducing incentives for under-costing proposals. The organisation has highlighted the importance of better coordination between teams preparing grant bids and those responsible for financial assurance. Accurate costing requires institutional knowledge that research teams may not possess.
A notable policy development concerns institutional matched funding. From autumn 2025, UKRI funding opportunities generally have no requirement for institutional matched funding beyond the standard funding model. Reviewers should not use the level of institutional matched funding as a basis for recommendations. UKRI updated its guidance in 2025 to clarify that there is no default expectation of matched funding on UKRI calls.
These reforms matter because sustainability cannot be achieved if institutions are encouraged to promise resources that are not realistically available. Transparent full economic costing helps universities understand the true cost of projects. It enables more informed decisions about which activities they can support and which they cannot.
What researchers and institutions need to know
- The SIRF project introduced sustainability sections in internal university funding applications alongside guidance for applicants and reviewers.
- Wellcome expects applicants to address environmental sustainability in project design and identify associated costs in grant applications.
- Some funders require stronger justification for equipment purchases and encourage lower-impact alternatives to travel.
- Universities including Cambridge, Bath and Exeter have developed guidance to help researchers respond to sustainability expectations in applications.
- The research sustainability concordat provides a shared framework for embedding environmental sustainability across research and innovation.
- UKRI has identified under-costing, unclear expectations around matched funding and incomplete cost recovery as threats to financial sustainability.
- UKRI's updated approach removes default expectations of institutional matched funding from most opportunities and instructs assessors not to treat matched funding as a quality indicator.
Implementation determines whether the model works
The funding-based approach connects institutional policy with individual decisions. Sustainability strategies often remain abstract unless they influence choices researchers make when designing projects. A short application question, supported by practical guidance and proportionate review, makes those choices visible.
It also improves preparedness. Researchers who consider environmental impacts in internal applications are better positioned to meet external funder requirements. Internal funding functions as a testing ground for new expectations. Institutions can refine questions and guidance before applying them more broadly.
However, effectiveness depends on implementation. Sustainability questions should not become generic box-ticking exercises. Applicants need clear definitions, examples and access to relevant expertise. Without these, the question becomes a barrier rather than a useful prompt. Reviewers also need guidance so that projects are assessed fairly.
Scientific quality must not be reduced to apparent environmental efficiency. Some research activities have unavoidable environmental costs. Fieldwork, clinical studies, specialist computing and international collaboration fall into this category. The objective should be informed decision-making, not unrealistic reduction targets.
A proportionate system recognises these realities. It asks researchers to reduce avoidable impacts, explain necessary impacts and identify credible mitigation measures. For example, essential international fieldwork might be combined with remote collaboration to reduce repeat travel. High-energy computing might be scheduled to use off-peak renewable electricity. These are practical adjustments, not fundamental compromises.
Institutional support is essential. Researchers cannot answer sustainability questions without access to data on equipment energy use, supplier environmental performance or facilities capacity. Universities must provide this information and ensure that sustainability expertise is available to applicants. Otherwise, the burden falls disproportionately on individuals who lack the resources to respond effectively.
Sustainability becomes part of research governance
Funding processes are now an important part of how universities pursue environmental and financial sustainability. The emerging model combines three elements. First, expectations from funders, which increasingly require applicants to address environmental impacts. Second, institutional systems, which incorporate sustainability into internal grants, guidance, review and reporting. Third, more realistic financial practices, which ensure projects are costed and funded in ways universities can sustain.
Taken together, these developments shift sustainability from a specialist concern into a normal criterion of responsible research planning. The greatest impact comes when sustainability is considered throughout the project lifecycle. That means at design, budgeting, procurement, delivery, reporting and evaluation, not only at grant submission.
For universities, the task is not simply to add another question to an application form. It is to align funding rules, professional support, researcher training, financial systems and institutional incentives. The goal is to make environmentally responsible and financially realistic research the default, not the exception.
This requires coordination across multiple departments. Research offices, finance teams, estates departments, procurement services and research support units must work together. Guidance must be consistent. Data must be accessible. Training must be available. Without this infrastructure, sustainability questions become performative rather than substantive.
The model also creates opportunities for UK businesses working with universities. Suppliers who can demonstrate environmental performance gain an advantage. Companies offering shared equipment, refurbishment services or sustainable laboratory consumables benefit from procurement decisions shaped by funding requirements. Sustainable procurement support helps organisations meet these expectations and compete effectively for university contracts.
Similarly, businesses collaborating with universities on research projects must understand funder expectations. Joint applications now require sustainability considerations to be addressed by all partners. Commercial organisations may need support to assess environmental impacts, identify reduction opportunities and present credible mitigation plans. ESG compliance services provide this capability, ensuring that business partners can meet university and funder standards.
Where to find further guidance and resources
The UKRI environmental sustainability hub provides policy information, resources and case studies for researchers and institutions. It includes links to the research sustainability concordat and signatory organisations.
Wellcome's environmental sustainability policy sets out expectations for applicants, including how to address sustainability in proposals and identify associated costs. The guidance is updated regularly and includes sector-wide context.
The Times Higher Education Campus resource covers university practice and includes articles on sustainability initiatives, funding developments and institutional case studies. It provides practical examples of how universities are implementing sustainability requirements.
Individual universities publish guidance for their own researchers. Institutions including Cambridge, Bath and Exeter make these resources publicly available. They offer practical examples, template language and discipline-specific considerations that can inform approaches elsewhere. Checking whether your funder has signed the concordat is a useful starting point when preparing any application.