Climate activism and charity law: can environmental charities support direct action?

The debate in brief

Climate change is an existential threat, and environmental charities are among the most credible voices urging action. But the rise of direct action movements -- Just Stop Oil blocking motorways, Extinction Rebellion occupying government buildings -- has forced a question: how close can a registered charity get to these movements without putting its charitable status at risk?

The legal framework is more permissive than many assume. CC9 guidance permits charities to campaign, advocate, and engage in lawful protest. But the line between lawful advocacy and association with unlawful activity is narrower than it looks, and the Public Order Act 2023 has expanded the scope of criminal liability for protest. Greenpeace UK is structured as a company limited by guarantee, not a charity, precisely because its methods are incompatible with charitable status. That structural choice tells you where the law draws the line.

Quick takeaways

The arguments

The case for proximity: shared goals, different methods

Environmental charities and direct action movements often want the same things -- stronger climate policy, reduced fossil fuel extraction, biodiversity protection. They simply pursue them through different means.

The argument for proximity is pragmatic. Research on the "radical flank effect" (building on Chenoweth and Stephan, 2011) suggests that confrontational movements make moderate demands seem more reasonable. When Just Stop Oil blocks a road, Friends of the Earth's call for an end to new oil and gas licensing looks measured rather than radical. There is also a moral argument: if climate change is the defining crisis of the century, maintaining deliberate distance from movements drawing attention to the same problems can look less like regulatory caution and more like institutional cowardice.

ClientEarth offers a model for aggressive advocacy within the law -- it has brought landmark cases against governments and corporations, including a widely reported derivative claim against Shell's board of directors over climate risk management, which was ultimately refused by the courts but set important precedents for corporate climate accountability.

The case for distance: protecting charitable status and public trust

Charitable status comes with tax relief, public trust, and regulatory privilege -- and with obligations. CC9 is clear that charities must not engage in unlawful activity. A charity that funds, organises, or endorses law-breaking risks regulatory sanction and prosecution of its trustees.

Greenpeace's choice to operate outside the charitable framework is the clearest evidence that direct action and charitable status do not mix. It operates as a company limited by guarantee, forgoing Gift Aid because its methods cannot be reconciled with charity law. The reputational risk compounds the legal one: a 2023 YouGov poll found 68% of Britons held an unfavourable opinion of Just Stop Oil, even though a majority supported stronger climate action.

The legal grey zone: association without endorsement

Most environmental charities occupy a grey zone. A charity might share a platform with Extinction Rebellion speakers, or publish research that direct action groups cite. None of these activities necessarily breach charity law -- but all require governance.

Trustees must demonstrate that any activity furthers charitable purposes and does not bring the charity into disrepute. The risk is not that a charity agrees with Just Stop Oil's objectives, but that reasonable observers might conclude it endorses their methods.

The evidence

CC9 guidance, updated November 2022, permits campaigning and political activity where it furthers charitable purposes, including lawful protest. The critical word is "lawful."

The Public Order Act 2023 shifted what counts as unlawful. New offences include "locking on," tunnelling, and interference with key national infrastructure, with sentences up to six months (summary-only offences tried in Magistrates Court). Serious Disruption Prevention Orders can restrict individuals -- including charity employees -- even without a prior conviction.

Greenpeace UK Limited was incorporated in 1990 as a company limited by guarantee rather than a charity, because its campaigning methods -- including direct action -- are incompatible with charitable status requirements. A separate entity, the Greenpeace Environmental Trust, holds charitable status but is restricted to education and research.

Three charities illustrate what robust lawful campaigning looks like. Friends of the Earth (charity no. 281681) campaigns on climate, biodiversity, and air quality, and in 2023 intervened in proceedings challenging the net-zero strategy. ClientEarth (charity no. 1053988) pioneered legal environmental activism, including its 2023 derivative claim against Shell's board over climate risk management (ultimately refused by the courts). The RSPB (charity no. 207076) campaigns forcefully on biodiversity and climate policy while maintaining clear distance from direct action.

Current context

The Public Order Act's new offences have been used to charge climate activists, with Just Stop Oil organisers receiving prison sentences in 2024 -- among the longest for protest-related offences in recent British history. The Charity Commission's 2024-25 annual report flagged "political activity and campaigning" as a continuing regulatory focus.

The Labour government elected in 2024 has maintained the Public Order Act largely intact despite pre-election criticism. Extinction Rebellion's shift in early 2023 toward mass participation has somewhat reduced pressure on charities, but Just Stop Oil continues disruptive tactics and remains a lightning rod for debate.

Last updated: April 2026

What this means for charities

Environmental charities need to be precise about three things: what they say, what they fund, and who they associate with.

On speech, a charity can state that it agrees with Just Stop Oil's policy objectives -- ending new fossil fuel licences, for example -- without endorsing their methods. The distinction should be made explicitly and publicly.

On funding, the line is clear. Charitable funds cannot support, organise, or facilitate unlawful activity -- including funding bail for arrested protesters or providing logistical support for disruptive actions. Trustees who authorise such expenditure risk personal liability.

On association, boards should have a documented policy on engagement with protest movements, covering staff attendance at demonstrations, shared platforms, and public statements. The policy should distinguish between the charity's institutional position and the personal activities of its staff.

The charities that manage this best -- Friends of the Earth, ClientEarth, the RSPB -- share a common approach: campaign aggressively within the law, use evidence and litigation rather than disruption, and maintain enough institutional distance from direct action to protect charitable status while pushing the boundaries of lawful advocacy.

Common questions

Can a charity say it supports the goals of Just Stop Oil?

Yes. A charity can publicly agree with policy positions held by direct action movements -- such as ending new oil and gas licensing -- provided those positions align with its charitable purposes. What it cannot do is endorse the unlawful methods used to pursue those goals. The distinction between supporting objectives and supporting methods is legally critical.

Would attending a protest jeopardise a charity's status?

Attending a lawful protest does not breach charity law. CC9 acknowledges lawful demonstration as a legitimate campaigning method. However, if a protest involves or is likely to involve unlawful activity -- including offences under the Public Order Act 2023 -- staff attending in an official capacity could create regulatory risk. Charities should have clear policies distinguishing personal and organisational attendance.

Why isn't Greenpeace a charity?

Greenpeace UK was incorporated in 1990 as a company limited by guarantee rather than a registered charity, because its objects are partly political and its methods include direct action that may involve breaking the law. This structural choice prioritises campaigning freedom over the tax and reputational benefits of charitable status. The Greenpeace Environmental Trust, a separate entity focused on education and research, does hold charitable status.

Could the Charity Commission deregister an environmental charity for campaigning?

In theory, yes -- if campaigning activities were found to be outside charitable purposes, unlawful, or constituting misconduct. In practice, deregistration for campaigning is extremely rare. The Commission is far more likely to issue informal advice or impose conditions. The greater risk is the chilling effect of potential scrutiny on charities' willingness to campaign at all.

How has the Public Order Act 2023 changed things?

The Act created new criminal offences targeting protest tactics used by climate activists: locking on, tunnelling, and interfering with key national infrastructure. It also introduced Serious Disruption Prevention Orders, which can restrict individuals' movements even without a prior conviction. The practical effect is that the boundary of lawful protest has moved -- actions that might previously have resulted in minor charges now carry more serious penalties.

Can a charity fund legal defence for arrested protesters?

This depends on the charity's objects. A charity established to promote human rights or access to justice could potentially fund legal representation as part of its purposes. An environmental charity doing the same would need to demonstrate a clear connection to its own objects -- which is harder to establish. Trustees should take legal advice before committing funds to legal defence work connected to direct action.

Key sources and further reading

• Speaking Out: Guidance on Campaigning and Political Activity by Charities (CC9) -- Charity Commission, updated November 2022. The regulatory framework for charity campaigning, including lawful protest.

• Public Order Act 2023 -- UK Parliament. The legislation creating new criminal offences relating to protest, including locking on and interference with national infrastructure.

• Why We Are Not a Charity -- Greenpeace UK. Greenpeace's explanation of its decision to operate outside the charitable framework.

• ClientEarth: Using the Law to Protect the Planet -- ClientEarth. The legal charity's account of its strategy for environmental litigation.

• Friends of the Earth Charitable Trust Annual Report -- Friends of the Earth (charity no. 281681). Documents robust climate campaigning within charity law.

• RSPB Annual Report and Accounts -- RSPB (charity no. 207076). Large-scale conservation campaigning within a charitable framework.

• The Radical Flank Effect -- Various academic sources, building on Chenoweth and Stephan (2011). Research on how confrontational movements affect moderate advocacy organisations.

• Political Campaigning as a Charity -- NCVO. Practical guidance on political activity and engagement with protest movements.