How the “Anti-Boycott” Bill threatened climate action

What’s the Anti-Boycott Bill?

For decades, the environmental and human rights movements have relied on boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) as key campaigning tactics. For example, a student-led, global effort to convince universities, cities and countries to divest from companies doing business in South Africa was a key part of the struggle to end apartheid in the 1980s and 90s. 

The Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill, otherwise known as the “Anti-Boycott” Bill, was tabled in parliament earlier this year. It would have stopped public bodies from making decisions on investments or procurement that are “influenced by political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct”. That means it could have restricted public bodies like councils in their use of BDS and made campaigning for climate action even harder. Many organisations, including Friends of the Earth, opposed the bill, and ultimately it didn't get passed because the government called a snap general election, which ended the session in parliament before MPs could vote on it.

Why are boycott, divestment and sanctions campaigns important?

BDS campaigns are effective ways to secure crucial action from those in power. They can convince public bodies to take local decisions that have global impact. 

Divestment is a particularly important tactic for the environmental movement. Divestment directly defunds coal, oil and gas companies. Every time people convince well-respected institutions to divest, the reputation and power of the fossil fuel industry takes a massive hit, which in turn drives climate action at the local and national level. Find out more about why we need to divest from fossil fuels.

As a campaigning tactic, divestment has a long and successful history in bringing about change. For example, during the Irish parliament’s 2018 vote to divest from fossil fuel companies, the collective market value of the biggest US oil, gas and oil companies dropped by $14 billion (3.1%). 

Globally, more than 1,500 institutions, with a total value of over $40.5 trillion, have made a commitment to divest from fossil fuels. As a member of UK Divest, Friends of the Earth has played its own part in divestment efforts, securing commitments and action from numerous councils to divest their pension funds. The Northern Ireland Assembly and the Senedd have committed to their pension funds being divested from fossil fuels, as have over 100 universities.

While imposing sanctions largely falls within the remit of states, public bodies can also make effective use of boycotts. For example, over 100 US and UK universities boycotted Fruit of the Loom after it closed a Honduran factory when workers unionised, forcing the company to reopen the factory and pay workers $2.5 million in compensation.

How did Friends of the Earth campaign against the bill?

We provided MPs with a written briefing on the harmful implications of the bill, urging them to vote against it. We also briefed MPs on amendments to the bill tabled by former MP Caroline Lucas, calling for their support. Caroline Lucas quoted from our briefing during a House of Commons debate on the bill, as did former MP Chris Stephens at the bill's third reading. 

We also gave evidence at the relevant Public Bill Committee, established to scrutinise the bill on behalf of parliament. We put forward our concerns regarding the bill’s weak reference to “environmental misconduct,” which wouldn’t exclude a significant proportion of environmental destruction, as well as its implications for fossil fuel divestment. 

We worked with Baroness Jenny Jones on 2 amendments addressing our concerns around "environmental misconduct" for the House of Lords to consider. These were supported by Lord Ray Collins, then Labour Chief Whip, who also highlighted the environmental destruction caused by legal deforestation for soy in Brazil or palm oil in Indonesia in a House of Lords debate.

How would the bill have impacted environmental campaigning?

While the bill wouldn't have made it illegal for individuals or groups to campaign on BDS issues, it likely would have been a significant blocker to their success, as the bill aimed to prevent decisions being made that amount to “moral or political disapproval” of foreign states, including where public bodies are persuaded by campaigners. 

Fossil fuel divestment could have been especially impacted by the bill. Some of the world’s largest oil and gas companies (such as Saudi Aramco, Petrobras and Equinor) are majority owned or controlled by foreign states (such as Saudi Arabia, Brazil and Norway). Divesting from these could be interpreted as disapproval of the conduct of the relevant state. Oil and gas firms could also have been protected from boycotts because their activities overseas are approved by the countries they’re operating in.

This bill would have likely caused a “chilling effect” among risk-averse public bodies such as councillors and university management teams. Institutions deemed in breach of the legislation could have been fined, and there was a proposed gagging clause that would have banned them from even stating that they intended to make decisions conflicting with the legislation, or that they would if they were allowed.

This would have made it even harder to convince public bodies to boycott and divest, whether from fossil fuels or from any country, sector or company causing environmental harm or abusing human rights. It also threatened freedom of speech and freedom to campaign, as public bodies may have become wary of being seen to be influenced by campaigners.

The bill did contain an exemption where decisions concern environmental misconduct, but this was weakly defined as conduct that’s illegal in the UK or any other country and causes significant harm to the environment. However, much environmental destruction, for example fossil fuel extraction or deforestation for soy or palm oil, either takes place completely legally, or in ways that make it impossible to distinguish legal and illegal activity.

Why did Friends of the Earth oppose the bill?

We were one of nearly 70 organisations, including Liberty, War on Want, UNISON and the Quakers, opposed to this legislation. It should be the responsibility of our public bodies to consider the environmental, moral and ethical implications of how they spend money, particularly where they’re elected or funded by the public. But this new bill would have made it significantly harder for them to use BDS. Instead of protecting these rights, the UK government was defending the fossil fuel industry and other polluters from effective campaigning tactics.

Alongside environmental destruction, the bill would have harmed efforts to address human rights abuses around the world such as in China, Russia and Saudi Arabia. People across the Global South are some of the worst impacted by exploitative fossil fuel, agriculture, mining and logging companies, as well as unethical government and business activities. 

While the bill would have allowed the secretary of state to exempt countries, meaning they could then be subject to BDS, this would have been based on the minister’s own personal discretion rather than the views of public bodies or the general public. This would have set a worrying precedent given Britain’s historical role in supporting atrocities such as apartheid in South Africa or General Pinochet’s regime in Chile. The rights of public institutions to invest or divest on ethical grounds must be protected.

Friends of the Earth opposes antisemitism

The government stated that the aim of the bill was to stop local governments from having their own “foreign policy”. It sought to link the movement supporting BDS against Israel to antisemitism.

Friends of the Earth is opposed to antisemitism and racism of any kind. The bill was opposed by a number of Jewish organisations, including the Union of Jewish Students, Yachad and human rights charity René Cassin, and was supported by others. 

14 Israeli civil society and human rights organisations wrote to Rishi Sunak and ministers stating their opposition to the bill. Many of these organisations don’t support the campaign of BDS against Israel but do oppose legislation to ban it, citing concerns regarding restrictions on protest, the threat to internationally recognised rights and freedoms, and the ability of public bodies to make their own investment decisions on human rights. A number of groups also raised concerns that the bill would undermine community cohesion rather than advance it.

For a greener, fairer future

To conclude, the Anti-Boycott Bill posed a serious threat, not only to BDS campaigning tactics, but also to the power and autonomy of our public bodies. Friends of the Earth was able to bring an environmental perspective to the campaign against the bill. We argued that we must have the means to oppose environmental harm, human rights abuses and the breaking of international law if we’re to ensure a greener, fairer future.