A Guardian investigation has raised fresh questions about potential conflicts of interest within the United Nations’ leading climate science body, after identifying a significant number of experts involved in producing its next major climate assessment who have links to Saudi Arabia’s oil industry and state-backed energy institutions.
The investigation found that at least a dozen lead authors involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are employed by, or have links to, Saudi Aramco, Saudi institutions or other interests connected to the oil and gas sector. One of the IPCC’s vice-chairs, who plays a role in overseeing the organisation’s scientific assessment process, also serves as an adviser to Saudi Arabia’s energy ministry and has represented the kingdom in international climate negotiations.
The issue has attracted particular attention because the IPCC’s reports form a major foundation for international climate negotiations and influence climate policy in countries around the world. The organisation’s assessments are prepared by hundreds of scientists and experts and are approved by its 195 member countries.
The Guardian investigation examined the 223 lead authors of Working Group III, which focuses on ways of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions and removing carbon from the atmosphere. Its work covers technologies and policies that have direct implications for the future of the energy industry.
The investigation identified 20 cases involving what it described as strong potential conflicts of interest. Eleven of those cases were linked to Saudi institutions or interests, prompting questions from researchers and ethics specialists about whether the IPCC’s existing system is sufficiently equipped to identify and manage potential conflicts.
One of the most prominent cases involves Dr Mustafa Babiker, who has worked for Saudi Aramco for two decades and was appointed as a coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s forthcoming Seventh Assessment Report.
Babiker’s appointment had already generated controversy within the climate science community. Another Aramco employee, Dr Diego Armando Moya Pinta, has also been selected as a lead author. He has worked as an energy and sustainability scientist at Aramco since 2022 while being listed by the IPCC under his affiliation with Imperial College London.
Moya Pinta is one of the lead authors responsible for assessing energy systems, including options for reducing emissions across the energy sector—a field with obvious relevance to the business interests of a major oil company.
Research ethics specialist Professor Kevin Elliott of Michigan State University told the Guardian that such a relationship could fall within the IPCC’s conflict-of-interest framework.
However, the IPCC’s conflict-of-interest committee reported in March 2026 that it had found no conflicts of interest among the authors selected for the Seventh Assessment Report.
The investigation also identified five authors from the King Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Center, known as KAPSARC, among Working Group III’s experts. The Saudi government-funded institution is chaired by the country’s energy minister and describes its mission as advancing Saudi Arabia’s energy sector.
The number of Saudi-linked experts has prompted concern among researchers who study the governance of the IPCC.
Dr Kari De Pryck of the University of Geneva said it was the first time the IPCC had such a large number of Saudi-linked authors, particularly within the working group dealing with emissions reduction.
She connected the development with changes in Saudi Arabia’s approach to climate diplomacy. While Saudi Arabia has historically opposed policies aimed at rapidly reducing fossil-fuel consumption, the kingdom has increasingly promoted technological solutions such as carbon capture and storage as part of its approach to the energy transition.
Other potential overlaps identified by the investigation involve researchers working with Saudi Aramco on energy and carbon-storage projects while simultaneously holding positions connected to the IPCC’s upcoming assessment.
One example involves Professor Hussein Hoteit of King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, who was involved in research connected to an underground carbon-storage demonstration project conceived and substantially supported by Saudi Aramco.
Hoteit rejected the suggestion that this constituted a conflict of interest. He said his research and IPCC contributions were fully funded and supported by his employer and that the relevant financial support was acknowledged in the research paper.
The investigation also identified a particularly notable overlap involving the IPCC’s leadership.
Dr Malak Al-Nory, one of seven vice-chairs of Working Group III, is a senior adviser to Saudi Arabia’s energy ministry. Vice-chairs have important responsibilities within the IPCC assessment process, including overseeing scientific work and dealing with authors’ conflict-of-interest declarations.
Al-Nory has also continued to represent Saudi Arabia at international climate negotiations while serving as an IPCC vice-chair. She was part of the Saudi delegation at the Bonn Climate Change Conference in June 2026.
Critics argue that the combination of these roles raises questions about whether the IPCC’s safeguards are strong enough to protect the organisation’s perceived independence.
Tzeporah Berman, chair of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, stressed that conflict-of-interest rules are not an accusation that an individual has acted improperly. Instead, she said, such rules exist to protect an institution’s integrity by ensuring that financial, professional or governmental interests that could reasonably be seen as influential are disclosed and appropriately managed.
The IPCC’s conflict-of-interest system dates back to reforms introduced after a credibility crisis in 2010. Until 2011, the organisation did not have an institution-wide policy specifically dealing with conflicts of interest.
Its current policy states that the objective is to protect the legitimacy, integrity, trust and credibility of the organisation and to ensure that its work is not compromised by conflicts involving those responsible for producing its assessments.
Critics, however, argue that there is a gap between the written rules and how the system operates in practice. They point to the limited public information available about individual declarations and the confidential nature of the conflict-of-interest committee’s deliberations.
Rachel Kennerley of the Center for International Environmental Law said the concentration of Saudi-linked experts raised questions about whether the policy was being applied effectively.
The IPCC has rejected the suggestion that the presence of experts connected to particular governments or industries compromises the conclusions of its reports.
An IPCC spokesperson said no authors had been referred to the conflict-of-interest committee because potential conflicts that had been identified could be managed by the working-group vice-chairs. The organisation also stressed that no individual scientist, institution, industry sector or country determines the conclusions of an IPCC report.
According to the IPCC, its assessments are produced collectively by large and internationally diverse teams of scientists and experts and undergo multiple stages of review involving scientists and governments.
The organisation also said the details of individual conflict-of-interest reviews remain confidential because of data-protection requirements. It argued that the credibility of its assessments ultimately rests on the extensive review process through which the reports are produced.
Saudi Aramco declined to comment on the investigation, while several other individuals and institutions contacted by the Guardian did not respond.
Researchers studying climate governance nevertheless warn that even the perception of compromised independence can damage public confidence in an institution whose authority depends heavily on its scientific neutrality.
Dr Jeroen Oomen of Utrecht University said the IPCC’s role as an authority on climate science has always depended on its independence and neutrality. Other researchers have noted that the organisation occupies an unusual position between science and international politics, making questions over institutional independence particularly sensitive.
The debate comes at a crucial moment in global climate policy, as governments face pressure to reduce dependence on fossil fuels while oil-producing countries increasingly promote technologies such as carbon capture as part of their proposed pathways toward lower emissions.
The controversy therefore extends beyond individual scientists. It raises a broader question about how an international body tasked with assessing pathways away from climate-changing emissions should manage relationships involving governments, universities and companies whose economic interests are closely tied to the fossil-fuel industry.
The IPCC said there is currently no process underway to amend its conflict-of-interest policy.
A news by Alisha Pradhan, General Secretary, HerNet Foundation.