The Earthshot Prize’s sixth annual awards ceremony is scheduled for 17 November at Mumbai’s Jio World Convention Centre. The venue choice has drawn criticism because the centre is part of a Reliance Industries development, while conservationists have also raised concerns about Vantara, the private wildlife facility funded by Reliance’s philanthropic arm. Earthshot says it is renting the space at the standard commercial rate and has not sought a philanthropic partnership. The dispute is about environmental credibility and association, not proof that the prize has engaged in greenwashing.
A high-profile award, an unexpected venue debate
The awards night is the centrepiece of a two-day Mumbai programme on 16 and 17 November. Earthshot’s official event page says five of the 15 finalists will be named winners on 17 November, with each receiving £1 million to help scale an environmental solution. The organisation presents the move to India as a chance to highlight the country’s climate work and connect finalists with business leaders, investors and philanthropists. The event has not yet taken place; the criticism surfaced before the ceremony.
The immediate objection is not to holding an environmental event in Mumbai. It concerns the choice of a venue within the Jio World Centre, a major commercial and cultural development associated with Reliance Industries. In a report published on 8 November, The Guardian said conservationists questioned whether an award designed to recognise climate and nature solutions should stage its flagship event at a site connected to a conglomerate with extensive fossil-fuel operations and a controversial wildlife facility. The timing matters: the ceremony remains scheduled for 17 November.
Sources: Environmentalists criticise choice of Earthshot prize venue owned by fossil fuel firm · Mumbai 2026 - The Earthshot Prize · Our History - Reliance Industries Limited | An Extraordinary Vision for an Extraordinary Nation
Why Reliance’s business profile matters
The Jio World Centre opened in Mumbai in 2022 and is described by Reliance on its corporate history page as a destination for business, commerce and culture. The Jio World Convention Centre is one of the complex’s event facilities. The Guardian identifies the convention centre as part of Reliance Industries, whose Jamnagar operation is a major oil-refining asset. That corporate connection is central to the debate: critics are assessing the reputational signal created by the venue, not alleging that the ceremony itself is an oil-industry event.
Reliance’s own reporting shows why the company is not easily reduced to a single label. Its Oil-to-Chemicals business includes transportation fuels, polymers, elastomers, intermediates and polyesters, supported by refineries and petrochemical units. The same report sets out a strategic objective to expand new-energy integration and reach net-zero carbon by 2035. Those ambitions sit alongside an established fossil-fuel and chemicals business. For critics, that combination makes the association consequential; for the company, it reflects a wider transition strategy rather than a simple choice between old and new energy.
Sources: Environmentalists criticise choice of Earthshot prize venue owned by fossil fuel firm · Our History - Reliance Industries Limited | An Extraordinary Vision for an Extraordinary Nation · Oil to Chemicals (O2C) Business Overview | Refining & Petrochemicals FY 2025-26
Vantara brings a second conservation question
The venue debate is sharpened by Vantara, a large private animal facility in Gujarat founded by Anant Ambani, the son of Reliance chair Mukesh Ambani. The Guardian reported that Reliance’s philanthropic arm funds the facility, which houses more than 150,000 animals across more than 2,000 species. Conservation groups have questioned how quickly the collection grew and how some animals were sourced. Their concerns are questions about wildlife acquisition, transparency and conservation outcomes; they are not, by themselves, findings that the facility committed an offence.
The scrutiny has continued through international wildlife-trade processes. The Guardian reported on 8 November that, at its 2–6 November meeting in Geneva, the CITES Standing Committee asked India for another report on measures addressing concerns over protected-species imports and asked the CITES Secretariat to review 11 cases involving unresolved questions about transfers to Vantara. A separate Guardian investigation published on 3 November described UK officials’ advice against formal engagement with the facility while CITES compliance matters remained active. Vantara has denied wildlife-trafficking allegations and describes its work as rescue, treatment and long-term care.
Sources: Environmentalists criticise choice of Earthshot prize venue owned by fossil fuel firm · UK ministers told not to engage formally with Indian mega-zoo after lobbying · Eighty-first meeting of the Standing Committee
The legal record is more complicated than a simple allegation
There is also an important legal qualification. India’s Supreme Court accepted a court-appointed Special Investigation Team report on earlier animal transfers and, in March 2026, declined to reopen substantially the same matters. In a further order dated 27 May 2026, the court said the CITES material raised forward-looking, systemic questions about India’s regulatory due diligence, rather than establishing culpability by the facility’s operators for the transfers already examined. The court did not order a fresh investigation into those past transfers.
That distinction does not erase the continuing international compliance questions described in the latest reporting, but it does prevent the venue story from being presented as proof of illegal animal imports. The current CITES review and the court’s treatment of historic transfers address related but different questions: one concerns future scrutiny of India’s wildlife-trade controls, while the other closed the door on reopening specified past cases. The Earthshot venue criticism is therefore a debate about association and trust, set against a contested but legally qualified conservation record.
Sources: Environmentalists criticise choice of Earthshot prize venue owned by fossil fuel firm · UK ministers told not to engage formally with Indian mega-zoo after lobbying · REPORTABLE · Eighty-first meeting of the Standing Committee
Earthshot says it is a commercial booking, not a partnership
Earthshot’s response is direct. Joanna Swift, the prize’s executive director of communications, told The Guardian that the organisation had not sought a philanthropic partnership for the venue and was paying the standard commercial rental rate. She said the centre was selected because it could meet the practical requirements of an event of this size, including facilities, technical infrastructure and experience hosting major international gatherings. Swift also pointed to the venue’s role in hosting the first Mumbai Climate Week in February.
That distinction matters. Renting a convention hall at a commercial rate is not the same arrangement as accepting a donation, entering a philanthropic partnership or naming a corporate sponsor. Earthshot’s Mumbai page separately identifies Serum Institute of India as the principal sponsor of the 2026 Summit. The available information therefore supports a narrow description: Reliance is connected to the venue, while Earthshot says its relationship for the awards night is a standard rental. It would be inaccurate to describe the venue booking itself as a Reliance sponsorship.
Sources: Environmentalists criticise choice of Earthshot prize venue owned by fossil fuel firm · Mumbai 2026 - The Earthshot Prize
A credibility test, not a verdict on greenwashing
The criticism is an ESG credibility challenge because environmental awards depend on more than the technical quality of their finalists. They also rely on public confidence that the institutions staging them understand the environmental implications of their partners, suppliers and venues. Choosing a large, well-equipped Mumbai centre may be operationally sensible and may help bring Indian climate solutions to a global audience. At the same time, the ownership and wider business context can shape how the event is interpreted, even when the venue is rented on ordinary commercial terms.
Neither the venue choice nor the criticism settles the question of greenwashing. The reporting available by 8 November identifies reputational concerns, but does not establish that Earthshot misrepresented its own environmental performance or made false claims about the venue relationship. The immediate issue is narrower: whether the prize has adequately weighed reputational association against event capacity and local visibility. With the ceremony still ahead, its organisers have offered a practical explanation, while conservationists have made clear why they believe the symbolism deserves scrutiny.
Sources: Environmentalists criticise choice of Earthshot prize venue owned by fossil fuel firm · Mumbai 2026 - The Earthshot Prize · Oil to Chemicals (O2C) Business Overview | Refining & Petrochemicals FY 2025-26
