| Overall Rating | Gold - expired |
|---|---|
| Overall Score | 70.54 |
| Liaison | Tavey Capps |
| Submission Date | Oct. 18, 2013 |
| Executive Letter | Download |
Duke University
SD-14: Endowment
| Status | Score | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
|
N/A |
Tavey
Capps Environmental Sustainability Director Office of the Executive Vice President |
"---"
indicates that no data was submitted for this field
None
The institution's total endowment market value as of the close of the most recent fiscal year:
6,000,000,000
US/Canadian $
None
Date as of:
June 30, 2013
None
Does the institution offer donors the option of directing gifts to an investment fund that considers environmental/sustainability factors?:
No
None
If yes, or if currently under consideration, provide a brief description:
---
None
Has the institution made investments in on-campus energy and/or water efficiency projects through the endowment (as an endowment investment and not a payout or using operating budget funds):
No
None
Size of capital commitments made within past 3 years:
---
None
Provide a brief description:
---
None
Does institution lack the ability to vote proxies on environmental and social resolutions, as the entire equity holdings of the endowment are invested in mutual funds (e.g. CommonFund, Fidelity, Vanguard)?:
No
None
Does the institution lack the ability to vote proxies on corporate governance resolutions, as the entire equity holdings of the endowment are invested in mutual funds (e.g. CommonFund, Fidelity, Vanguard)?:
No
None
Do investment managers handle the details of proxy voting on environmental and social resolutions?:
Yes
None
Do investment managers handle the details of proxy voting on corporate governance resolutions?:
Yes
None
Are investment managers provided with general guidelines that determine proxy votes on environmental and social resolutions?:
Yes
None
Are investment managers provided with general guidelines that determine proxy votes on corporate governance resolutions?:
Yes
None
Are investment managers provided with specific guidelines that determine proxy votes on environmental and social resolutions?:
No
None
Are investment managers provided with specific guidelines that determine proxy votes on corporate governance resolutions?:
Yes
None
Does a single administrator determine proxy votes on environmental and social resolutions?:
No
None
Does a single administrator determines proxy votes on corporate governance resolutions?:
No
None
Does a committee of administrators and/or trustees deliberate and make decisions on proxy votes on environmental and social resolutions?:
Yes
None
Does a committee of administrators and/or trustees deliberate and make decisions on proxy votes on corporate governance resolutions?:
Yes
None
Does a committee that includes student representatives deliberate and make recommendations or decisions on proxy votes on enviromental and social resolutions?:
Yes
None
Does a committee that includes student representatives deliberate and make recommendations or decisions on proxy votes on corporate governance resolutions?:
Yes
None
Is institution community feedback incorporated into proxy voting decisions on environmental and social resolutions through town hall meetings or a website?:
No
None
Is institution community feedback incorporated into proxy voting decisions on corporate governance resolutions through town hall meetings or a website?:
No
Data source(s) and notes about the submission:
Duke does have a committee that deliberates and makes recommendations about environmental, social and corporate governance resolutions. However, it meets on an as needed basis. Details below.
In 2004, the Duke Board of Trustees approved the Guideline for the University on Socially Responsible Investing. Recognizing the need for a mechanism to assist the President on making recommendations to the BOT on this issue, two committees were created, the President’s Special Committee on Investment Responsibility (PSC) and the Advisory Committee on Investment Responsibility (ACIR).
The PSC considers proposals from the University community relating to investment responsibility concerns and determines if there are credible allegations of substantial social injury. If the PSC agrees an issue requires further investigation, it will be referred to the ACIR for further review. The ACIR examines the issue and determines whether to propose to the President a course of action by the BOT. The President has the option to take the recommendation to the BOT or provide a written explanation to the ACIR on why their recommendation was not accepted. The President’s Office presents an annual report to the Duke Community on the work of the PSC, ACIR and the President’s and BOT responses.
When the University community has engaged in substantive discourse on an issue and expressed broad concern that a substantive social injury is being caused by such policies or practices, the President may make a recommendation to the BOT. Where the BOT agrees, it may instruct the Duke University Mgt. Company (DUMAC) to take appropriate action, including the exercise of the University’s practicable shareholder rights to seek modification of the company’s activities to eliminate or reduce the injury, using such means as –
- Direct correspondence with management
- Proxy votes
- Sponsoring shareholder resolutions
In cases where these actions do not impact the company’s actions, the BOT can also instruct DUMAC to divest the securities in question within a reasonable time period.
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.