Overall Rating Gold - expired
Overall Score 67.35
Liaison Laurie Husted
Submission Date June 9, 2017
Executive Letter Download

STARS v2.1

Bard College
PA-9: Sustainable Investment

Status Score Responsible Party
Complete 1.33 / 4.00 Taun Toay
Associate Vice President
Vice President
"---" indicates that no data was submitted for this field

Does the institution wish to pursue Option 1 (positive sustainability investment)?:

Total value of the investment pool:
280,000,000 US/Canadian $

Value of holdings in each of the following categories:
Value of Holdings
Sustainable industries (e.g. renewable energy or sustainable forestry) 0 US/Canadian $
Businesses selected for exemplary sustainability performance (e.g. using criteria specified in a sustainable investment policy) 0 US/Canadian $
Sustainability investment funds (e.g. a renewable energy or impact investment fund) 0 US/Canadian $
Community development financial institutions (CDFIs) or the equivalent 0 US/Canadian $
Socially responsible mutual funds with positive screens (or the equivalent) 0 US/Canadian $
Green revolving loan funds that are funded from the endowment 0 US/Canadian $

A brief description of the companies, funds, and/or institutions referenced above:

We use a broad range of selection criteria to determine investments, so funds and companies chosen strictly on the criteria above are very few. All of the investments are subject to the scrutiny of the SRIC and it should be noted that the criteria as outlined only reward investments within sustainability, as opposed to using investments to foster greater sustainability.

Percentage of the institution's investment pool in positive sustainability investments:

Does the institution wish to pursue Option 2 (investor engagement)?:

Does the institution have a publicly available sustainable investment policy?:

A copy of the sustainable investment policy:

The sustainable investment policy:

N.A. Although all holdings are publicly available.

Does the institution use its sustainable investment policy to select and guide investment managers?:

A brief description of how the policy is applied, including recent examples:

N.A. Drop down message should refer to the previous question.

Has the institution engaged in proxy voting, either by its CIR or other committee or through the use of guidelines, to promote sustainability during the previous three years?:

A copy of the proxy voting guidelines or proxy record:

A brief description of how managers are adhering to proxy voting guidelines:

Proxy votes guidelines are made by the student members of our SRIC.

Has the institution filed or co-filed one or more shareholder resolutions that address sustainability or submitted one or more letters about social or environmental responsibility to a company in which it holds investments during the previous three years?:

Examples of how the institution has engaged with corporations in its portfolio about sustainability issues during the previous three years:

Through the Bard College Socially Responsible Investment Committee (a group of 4 elected student representatives and 4 faculty and staff members), Bard actively screens its investments and engages companies over issues of concern. This shareholder engagement has taken the form of letter writing, proxy voting, and resolution filing. Bard has engaged companies over issues such as, but not limited to: oil sands drilling; operation in Darfur; and pesticide practices, monitoring and reduction. Most notably, the College lead-filed a shareholder resolution over cotton engagement in Uzbekistan . This dialogue remains ongoing, as do the active screening and engagement of holdings within the endowment. Bard also offers a Social Choice Fund that negatively screens its holdings for donors wishing to contribute to the endowment through predefined social screens.

Does the institution have a publicly available investment policy with negative screens?:

A brief description of the negative screens and how they have been implemented:

Bard also offers a Social Choice Fund that negatively screens its holdings for donors wishing to contribute to the endowment through predefined social screens.

Approximate percentage of the endowment that the negative screens apply to:

Does the institution engage in policy advocacy by participating in investor networks and/or engage in inter-organizational collaborations to share best practices?:

A brief description of the investor networks and/or collaborations:

We have worked with the Investor Environmental Health Network and the Responsible Endowment Coalition. Socially Responsible peer to peer, that works with other colleges.

The website URL where information about the programs or initiatives is available:

Additional documentation to support the submission:

Updated URL SRIC

Para on Cotton Engagement

SRIC Voting Proxy public plan

The information presented here is self-reported. While AASHE staff review portions of all STARS reports and institutions are welcome to seek additional forms of review, the data in STARS reports are not verified by AASHE. If you believe any of this information is erroneous or inconsistent with credit criteria, please review the process for inquiring about the information reported by an institution or simply email your inquiry to stars@aashe.org.