By Abbas Nazil
At least a dozen lead authors involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) forthcoming assessment have links to Saudi Aramco, Saudi institutions or other oil and gas interests, raising questions about the organisation’s conflict of interest rules.
A Guardian investigation found 20 cases involving strong potential conflict of interest concerns among 223 lead authors examined in the IPCC’s Working Group III, which focuses on ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Eleven of the cases identified were linked to Saudi institutions, including Saudi Aramco, government-funded research organisations and universities with close connections to the country’s energy sector.
The findings have prompted experts in research ethics and climate governance to question whether the IPCC’s existing conflict of interest policy is sufficiently robust and transparent.
Among those identified is Dr Mustafa Babiker, who has worked for Saudi Aramco for two decades and was appointed as a coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s Seventh Assessment Report.
Another Aramco employee, Dr Diego Armando Moya Pinta, is among the lead authors assessing energy systems, a field directly connected to the company’s business interests.
The investigation also identified five Working Group III authors from the King Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Center (KAPSARC), a Saudi government-funded institution whose stated mission includes advancing the country’s energy sector.
The presence of Saudi-linked experts is particularly significant because Working Group III examines emissions reduction policies and technologies, including options that could affect the future of fossil fuel industries.
Prof Kevin Elliott, an academic specialising in research ethics at Michigan State University, said cases involving employees of a major petroleum company working on climate mitigation assessments raised questions under conflict of interest principles.
The IPCC’s conflict of interest committee, however, reported in March 2026 that it had found no conflicts of interest among the authors selected for the Seventh Assessment Report.
Rachel Kennerley, a senior campaigner at the Center for International Environmental Law, said the findings raised questions about whether the IPCC’s conflict of interest policy was fit for purpose or being properly applied.
The investigation also found an overlap between the IPCC’s scientific leadership and the Saudi government.
Dr Malak Al-Nory, one of seven vice-chairs of Working Group III, serves as a senior adviser to Saudi Arabia’s energy ministry and continued to represent the country at United Nations climate negotiations while serving in the IPCC role.
The IPCC allows government-employed scientists to participate in its assessment work, but the dual responsibilities have raised concerns among some experts about the separation between scientific assessment and national interests.
Dr Kari De Pryck, a political scientist at the University of Geneva who studies IPCC governance, said the number of Saudi-linked authors represented a notable development in the organisation.
She linked the increased Saudi presence to the kingdom’s broader approach to climate diplomacy, which has increasingly included advocacy for technologies such as carbon capture alongside its continued support for its fossil fuel-based economy.
The investigation also identified Prof Hussein Hoteit of the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, who was involved in research connected to an underground carbon storage demonstration project conceived and substantially funded by Saudi Aramco.
Hoteit rejected the suggestion of a conflict of interest, saying his research and contributions to the IPCC were funded and supported by his employer and that the relevant financial support was acknowledged in the research publication.
The IPCC said no authors had been referred to its conflict of interest committee because potential conflicts reported by authors could be resolved by Working Group vice-chairs.
The organisation said its assessments rely on diverse international teams, multiple expert and government reviews and several safeguards designed to protect the objectivity and credibility of its reports.
The IPCC also said details of individual conflict of interest reviews remained confidential because of data protection requirements.
Experts critical of the current system have argued that greater transparency is needed because authors’ declarations are not publicly available and the conflict of interest committee does not disclose details of its deliberations.
Tzeporah Berman, chair of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, said conflict of interest rules were intended to protect institutional credibility by ensuring that professional, financial or governmental interests capable of influencing work were properly disclosed and managed.
The IPCC said there was currently no process underway to amend its conflict of interest policy.
