Dear Professor Larner,

I am writing to urge Cardiff University to undertake a due-diligence review of its relationship with the Association of Translation Companies (ATC), in accordance with the University’s published Due Diligence Policy.

I am a doctoral researcher investigating inequality in the UK translation and interpreting industry and the founder of the Due Diligence Club, a grassroots movement advocating for fairer working conditions. Over the past year, I have conducted an independent journalistic investigation into relationships publicly presented by the ATC as partnerships with eleven UK universities, including Cardiff.

The ATC is an interest group representing corporate actors in the translation and interpreting industry and lobbies the UK government on matters relating to public-sector outsourcing contracts worth hundreds of millions of pounds. It operates within an industry characterised by a highly feminised and racialised workforce, in which low pay, precarious working conditions and potentially exploitative labour practices have been documented in numerous academic studies.

Following unsuccessful attempts to obtain clarification through correspondence with Cardiff academics, I submitted Freedom of Information requests concerning the University’s relationship with the ATC.

Cardiff confirmed that academic staff consider its relationship with the ATC, which has involving teaching and research over several years, to constitute a partnership. The University also considers the ATC’s public designation of Cardiff as a University Partner to be accurate.

Cardiff’s FOI responses confirmed that the University holds:

• No formal partnership or structured collaboration agreement with the ATC.
• No recorded due-diligence, risk, conflict-of-interest or academic-independence assessment specific to the ATC.
• No records establishing the authorisation or governance of the teaching and research activities involved.
• No records documenting authorisation for the ATC’s use of Cardiff University’s name or logo.

Furthermore, Cardiff confirmed that it holds internal correspondence concerning the discrepancy between the ATC’s public partnership designation and the absence of a formal agreement, but withheld this information under Section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, stating that “Information has been withheld under this exemption where there are confidential communications with University lawyers for the purpose of providing or obtaining legal advice about proposed or contemplated litigation.”

These disclosures raise important questions about institutional oversight and accountability. In its responses, Cardiff repeatedly referred me to its Due Diligence Policy, but did not establish whether that policy had been applied to its relationship with the ATC.

I believe a review is warranted for three principal reasons.

First, potential conflicts of interest. The ATC represents commercial intermediaries whose economic interests may differ from those of translators and interpreters. Its involvement in university teaching and research therefore warrants scrutiny to ensure that academic independence and students’ interests are protected.

Second, intellectual plurality. Students should encounter independent and diverse perspectives on the political economy of translation and interpreting, including research examining remuneration, bargaining power, outsourcing and the distribution of economic value. Commercial perspectives have a legitimate place in education, but should not be privileged at the expense of critical scholarship.

Third, the risk of institutional legitimisation. Universities should consider whether publicly endorsing an interest group representing commercial actors in an industry with significant documented labour problems risks inadvertently legitimising unfair or potentially exploitative practices.

I would also draw your attention to the University of Bristol, which was previously listed among the ATC’s University Partners. Following questions raised during my investigation, Bristol confirmed that its proposed collaboration had undergone an institutional governance review, with oversight at School and University Education Committee levels. Bristol subsequently disappeared from the ATC’s published list of university partners, although I have not established whether these developments were connected.

Bristol’s response demonstrates that university–industry relationships can be subjected to identifiable institutional scrutiny without prejudging the outcome.

I therefore respectfully request that Cardiff University undertake and document a proportionate review. Such a review should consider conflicts of interest, academic freedom, research independence, reputational risks, and the interests of students and the translators and interpreters whose professional lives are shaped by the industry.

I am not arguing against university–industry collaboration. I am asking that such collaboration be critically examined, with appropriate consideration of whose interests it serves and whose perspectives it privileges.

I hope Cardiff University will approach this request in the spirit of critical inquiry, academic freedom and institutional accountability.

Thank you for considering my appeal. I would welcome a substantive response and would be pleased to provide the relevant FOI correspondence and supporting evidence.

Yours sincerely,

Fardous Bahbouh

Image by MJ Duford on Unsplash