|Overall Rating||Silver - expired|
|Submission Date||March 13, 2015|
PA-13: Committee on Investor Responsibility
|2.00 / 2.00||
Princeton University Investment Company
Does the institution have a formally established and active committee on investor responsibility (CIR) or similar body that has multi-stakeholder representation (i.e. includes faculty, staff, and students) and otherwise meets the criteria for this credit?:
The charter or mission statement of the CIR or other body which reflects social and environmental concerns or a brief description of how the CIR is tasked to address social and environmental concerns:
The Resources Committee of the Council of the Princeton University Community was established in 1970 to “consider questions of general policy concerning the procurement and management of the University’s financial resources.” The Resources Committee is responsible for recommendations to the University Trustees as to when the Trustees should take a position regarding issues of broader social concern. The key criteria used in making this determination include the presence of “considerable, thoughtful, and sustained campus interest,” determination that a core University value is at stake, and the ability of the University community to reach consensus on a response.
Members of the CIR, including affiliations and role (e.g. student, faculty, alumni):
The 2013-2014 Committee members were as follows:
Ms. Carolyn N. Ainslie, Vice President for Finance and Treasurer
Ms. Mallory A. Banks ‘16
Ms. Jennifer Birmingham, Managing Director, PRINCO (non-voting member)
Ms. Karen Jezierny, Director of Public Affairs (Secretary)
Mr. Elan P. Kugelmass ‘14
Prof. Yueh-Lin (Lynn) Loo, Engineering and Applied Science
Prof. Deborah A. Prentice, Psychology and Public Affairs
Ms. Leila M. Shahbender, Office of Information Technology
Ms. Brianne K. Smith GS
Prof. Paul E. Starr, Sociology and Public Affairs (Chair)
Examples of CIR actions during the previous three years:
During the previous three years, the Resources Committee has reviewed proposals and issued reports on potential divestment from weapons manufacturers and possible changes to the investment review process. Additionally, the Resources Committee hosted a lecture for the public on socially responsible investing and how various educational institutions approach it.
The website URL where information about the CIR is available:
Princeton University’s primary mechanism for consideration of investment-driven social responsibility issues is the Resources Committee of the Council of the Princeton University Community. The Resources Committee was created in 1970 and includes members of the faculty, undergraduate students, graduate students, and staff. The key criteria for consideration of issues, including matters of environmental or social concern, are the presence of “considerable, thoughtful, and sustained campus interest,” determination that a core University value is at stake, and the ability of the University community to reach consensus on a response. The Resources Committee has a broad mandate to help identify issues of concern to the University community, provide opportunities for discussion and education, research and review alternatives, and recommend a course of action that shares broad support across campus constituencies. When appropriate, the Resources Committee makes investment recommendations to the Trustees regarding issues of broad social concern.
At a time when the University’s portfolio included substantial investment in traditional stocks and was managed directly by the Trustee Committee on Finance, the Resources Committee made proxy voting recommendations to the Trustees. However, as investment instruments changed and the Princeton University Investment Company (PRINCO) assumed day-to-day management of the Endowment, the number of opportunities to vote proxies decreased significantly. PRINCO, an internal unit of the University responsible for investing the Endowment, allocates all but a very small fraction of the portfolio to commingled funds and partnerships in which proxy votes cannot be controlled directly. As a result, the Resources Committee stopped evaluating proxy ballots and instead devoted its energies to creating a venue to discuss investment-related issues of significant interest more broadly. This venue allows the Committee to contemplate and implement change on a larger and more systemic basis than the very narrow, indeed negligible, basis provided by proxy voting. Princeton believes this approach is more likely to create opportunities for individual and institutional change and is more effective and efficient than a narrow focus on proxy voting and investment restrictions.