How funding processes can support more sustainable research practices

Clinical research globally emits an estimated 100 megatonnes – although we don’t know the exact carbon footprint – and UK universities about 18.1 million megatonnes of CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent) annually. Amid growing awareness of how research activities contribute to the climate crisis, we set out to look at what the University of Bristol could do to move towards more sustainable research practices. 

Our previous project, Sustainability in Internal Research (SIR), highlighted issues such as lack of training and awareness, and a perceived lack of institutional commitment. Yet researchers showed clear enthusiasm for open, honest, meaningful conversations about how to improve the sustainability of their work. 

• How to build buy-in for green lab practices
• Spotlight guide: A greener future for higher education
• Campus Talks: How can universities nudge students and staff towards greener choices?

So, our current project, Sustainability in Internal Research Funding (SIRF), implemented one suggestion from SIR: to explore funding as a driver to change. SIRF included a new section in internal university funding applications, with associated guidance for applicants and reviewers. The aim was to embed and improve sustainability throughout the research cycle and associated activities. We wanted researchers to reflect on sustainability and be better prepared for external funding application requirements. 

Four lessons from the Sustainability in International Research Funding project

The SIRF study was funded by the Enhancing Research Culture fund (UKRI). Here are lessons from this work.

1. Get the right team in place

Crucial to this study’s success was having the right team of advisers to support the work at critical points, particularly in the final stages of planning for integration into university policy and implementation. The team comprised the study principal investigator and research associate, the university’s sustainability manager (who is also the co-founder of the UK Network for Sustainable Research (UKNSR)), several specialist and academic staff with a sustainability role, and representation from research and development. 

2. Make sense of the internal and external funding landscapes

Our first step was to thoroughly understand the funding systems. This informed decisions about which calls to focus on and whether sustainability was already included. 

We carried out two scoping exercises. One focused on the internal funding processes of the university’s research institutes (URIs). The other focused on external funders to review their requirements for sustainability in the research process. Both exercises highlighted the unanticipated complexity of funding streams, since each funding group, body or organisation has its own systems and priorities for funding (topic, type, conditions). 

Despite previous work at Bristol, it took two researchers many days of desktop research to find (or not) the information and collate it in a useful way. This also included sending short survey-type questions to each internal funder when information was not readily available online.  

3. Recruit participants from diverse fields

Participants were recruited from the URIs, researchers from diverse fields, finance and procurement services, as well as from specialist research teams. Our previous project highlighted the complex and interconnected nature of sustainability, and the wide variation in research processes among subject areas. Including this range of people was achieved by using:

• our knowledge of who to invite based on the previous project and connections from team and advisory group members 
• the scoping review of internal funders, which identified names from a wide range of departments within the university 
• the strong enthusiasm among the university community for the topic
• contact with diverse research areas and range of voices
• focus groups and workshops (these are easier to arrange online than in person). Based on experience from SIR, we found 30 participants, or roughly six people per 90-minute focus group/workshop, to be a manageable number.
• sending invitation emails across the university, including to existing mailing lists, targeting schools, research leads, finance, research groups, and research and innovation. The emails explained the project, the involvement of enrolment, details for potential participants and information about the focus groups.

4. Achieve consensus

The focus groups explored barriers and enablers to changing practice, the type of information and support needed to review or complete funding applications, and potential implications for policy and practice. The workshops then aimed to address the challenges highlighted in the focus groups and to draft the question to be included in internal funding applications and companion guidance. The latter would meet the needs of both applicants and reviewers while acknowledging the many types of research methodologies and specialities at Bristol. 

Drafting a new question about the sustainability of research practices for inclusion in funding applications was easy enough. Everyone agreed it should be short and simple; the draft used examples from external and internal funders as a starting point. The guidance documents needed to both encourage applicants to meaningfully consider sustainability issues relating to their research and support reviewers to assess answers to the new question in a supportive manner, particularly during the pilot phase. 

The challenges raised during the focus groups and workshops helped us to:

• understand the needs of the target audience
• ensure any new documentation is fairly broad and neutral while also robust enough to encourage applicants to reflect on sustainability in the research process and associated activities
• create the right tone and style 
• provide the right amount of background information and keep the question concise
• be mindful of the potential time and commitment burden to applicants and reviewers 
• consider how answers should be assessed, if at all
• emphasise the reputational benefits of this initiative for the university
• consider the need for training for all parties (although not part of this project). 

Draft documents were taken to a final meeting with internal funders to reach further consensus, check whether embedding the new process needed any formal sign-off and to discuss next steps, a pilot and its evaluation. It is likely the pilot will be implemented for the next round of funding during the 2026-27 academic year.

Ways to embed sustainability into university research practices

For anyone planning a project that aims to embed new sustainability practices into their university’s research ecosystem, here are our quick takeaways:

Find out about the context you’re working in

First, gather information about the environment or the topic you are working in or on. For us, the university’s funding processes being restructured and the University Climate Action Plan (UCAP) being written created a window of opportunity that made this project worth pursuing. 

Sustainability is multidimensional, so it may fit a variety of funding pots, local to your institution or external. Take time to explore these possibilities. This may require lateral thinking and searches.

Start making connections and networks as soon as you can

Second, connect early on with others working in the same area as this generates invaluable support, knowledge and resources. We liaised with the university’s highly connected UCAP project, and our strong advisory team supported the project work, future implementation and embedding into processes.

Consider how you can influence policy or processes within your institution. This study brought evidence-based research findings into the policy sphere of the university. They fed directly into the UCAP, and project outputs were integrated and managed within the UCAP.

Plan according to your time constraints. We had nine months, so tight management was essential for delivery, management, governance and research activities.

Clarify underlying concepts

Ensure the underlying concepts are understood by participants. Sustainable research can be thought of as research on sustainability (impact) rather than sustainability within research activities. We had to clarify this misunderstanding before we could advance our findings.

Finally, check if you need sign-off by your institution or legal department for public-facing documents. This was a surprising development that required checking. 

Ava Lorenc is a research fellow, Anne-Laure Donskoy is a doctoral researcher, and Matthew Fackrell is a sustainable research officer, all at the University of Bristol.