Overall Rating Platinum - expired
Overall Score 85.74
Liaison Moira Hafer
Submission Date June 28, 2017
Executive Letter Download

STARS v2.1

Stanford University
PA-9: Sustainable Investment

Status Score Responsible Party
Complete 1.33 / 4.00 Moira Hafer
Sustainability Specialist
Office of Sustainability
"---" indicates that no data was submitted for this field

Does the institution wish to pursue Option 1 (positive sustainability investment)?:
No

Total value of the investment pool:
---

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 ---

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

Percentage of the institution's investment pool in positive sustainability investments:
0

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

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

A copy of the sustainable investment policy:
The sustainable investment policy:
---

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

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

Stanford University has developed and applied certain investment responsibility proxy voting guidelines which address many current Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance (ESG) issues.

For example, in 1998, Stanford University adopted a climate change proxy voting guideline that states the following: “Stanford votes ‘Yes’ on resolutions that companies analyze levels of greenhouse gas emissions, develop action plans to reduce them, report on significant company actions to remediate, reduce and/or eliminate them, and continually assess and report on material impacts caused by company action and/or inaction with respect to greenhouse gas emissions.”

Stanford University’s Statement on Investment Responsibility directs that the University will normally “vote according to existing University proxy voting guidelines.”

Stanford has also adopted investment policies which preclude directly owning securities in specific companies with operations in Sudan, specific companies in the tobacco industry and specific companies whose principal business is the mining of coal for use in energy generation.


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?:
Yes

A copy of the proxy voting guidelines or proxy record:
A brief description of how managers are adhering to proxy voting guidelines:
---

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?:
No

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

Stanford University adopted an investment policy which precludes directly owning securities in specific companies whose principal business is the mining of coal for use in energy generation.

In taking the action, the trustees endorsed the recommendation of the university's Advisory Panel on Investment Responsibility and Licensing (APIRL). This panel, which includes representatives of students, faculty, staff and alumni, conducted an extensive review over the last several months of the social and environmental implications of investment in fossil fuel companies.

The resolution means that Stanford will not directly invest in directly held publicly traded companies for which coal extraction is the primary business, and will divest of any current direct holdings in such companies. Stanford also will recommend to its external investment managers, who invest in wide ranges of securities on behalf of the university, that they avoid investments in these public companies as well.


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:

Coal - Stanford University adopted an investment policy which precludes directly owning securities in specific companies whose principal business is the mining of coal for use in energy generation.

Tobacco – During the 1990s, Stanford implemented many proxy voting guidelines and engaged corporations in an effort to end injuries caused by company products. In 1998, Stanford ended investment in core tobacco companies.

Human Rights – Stanford adopted investment policies which preclude directly owning securities in specific companies with operations in Sudan.


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?:
Yes

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

Stanford participates in the College and University Consortium on Investor Responsibility and is a member of CERES.


The website URL where information about the programs or initiatives is available:
Additional documentation to support the submission:
---

The link to an article describing Stanford's decision to divest from coal companies on May 6, 2014:
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/may/divest-coal-trustees-050714.html

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 and complete the Data Inquiry Form.