CMA sets out new guidance on collaborations between UK universities and research institutions
Published on 9th March 2026
The guidance identifies what higher education providers can and cannot do as they look to work more closely together
At a glance
The CMA has issued new guidance clarifying when universities and research institutions can collaborate without breaching competition law.
Most forms of partnership – from shared infrastructure to joint procurement – are unlikely to attract regulatory scrutiny.
Institutions should exercise caution around course collaboration and the sharing of commercially sensitive data with rivals.
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has issued guidance on how higher education (HE) providers can work together as institutions look to pool resources and share expertise in an increasingly challenging financial environment.
The guidance encourages providers to work together by giving examples of partnerships and informal collaborations that pose low competition risk.
Competition law applies to all HE providers, including UK universities and research institutions, that charge fees for courses or otherwise carry out economic activities, even if they are not for-profit businesses.
CMA tips
The CMA has set out tips for working with other HE providers on how to establish and demonstrate that a collaboration is not anti-competitive. It recommends that providers:
- Define the purpose of the collaboration and the benefits it will bring. This will help demonstrate that any anti-competitive effects caused by the collaboration will be outweighed by its benefits.
- Articulate why these benefits could not be achieved by one of the HE providers alone.
- Consider the effect of the collaboration on competition. Does it reduce the choices available for students?
- Ensure that any parts of the collaboration that do reduce competition go no further than is strictly necessary to achieve the purpose and benefits of the collaboration.
- Ensure they do not share or receive competitively sensitive information (CSI) with other HE providers. CSI is information that reduces strategic uncertainty between you and your competitors, such as your confidential future pricing or admissions strategies. Sharing this would constitute anti-competitive conduct.
Low-risk collaborations
The CMA identifies a broad range of collaborative activities between HE providers that are unlikely to raise competition law concerns. These include arrangements to help students or staff move between institutions when, (for example, a course closes), as well as joint participation in policy discussions with government or regulators.
Pooling purchasing power for procurement, such as for equipment or wellbeing services, is also unlikely to raise competition concerns, nor is the sharing of infrastructure – including back-office functions, libraries, sports facilities or even a data centre for AI research – or research and development partnerships with non-competitors (for example, businesses and non-university-affiliated research institutes) and other work with non-HE providers are also considered low risk.
Higher-risk activities
The CMA recommends caution around exchanging information with other HE providers for benchmarking purposes, such as for recruitment, best practices, and procurement. Some information sharing is permitted, but the regulator points out that it is important to ensure that no CSI is exchanged. Information that is publicly available, aggregated, or old is unlikely to be CSI. If institutions want to use other HE providers' data for benchmarking, they can use a third party such as an independent consultancy to ensure that they and the other HE providers are screened from each other's CSI.
The guidance also identifies that risks can arise when HE providers collaborate on course provision. This poses a risk if it would reduce choices available for students. If there are many other UK providers attracting students from around the country, this is unlikely to be a risk. If there are few similar courses available, or students are unlikely to travel far for the course, consider whether the benefits of the collaboration outweigh any potential loss of options for students.
Osborne Clarke comment
This guidance follows a CMA blog post acknowledging the financial issues faced by UK universities that may be preventing HE providers from working together. While the guidance largely restates the existing law with a higher education perspective, it signals that the CMA is making an effort to remove perceived barriers to collaborations with an eye on the economic benefits that flow from higher education and in keeping with the government's broader growth agenda.
Last year's blog post referenced a previous CMA announcement that it would "not prioritise" the investigation of certain collaborations relating to cancer therapies. This is in keeping with the CMA's intention to ensure that businesses are not put off engaging in genuinely beneficial agreements for fear of competition law reprisals. Further down the line, we may be able to expect the CMA to identify key growth areas for universities and research institutions for which collaborations will become unlikely to face investigations. This may offer institutions greater certainty as they navigate an increasingly complex financial landscape.
Laura Henderson, a trainee solicitor with Osborne Clarke, contributed to this Insight.
