|Submission Date||Feb. 27, 2019|
University of Louisville
PA-9: Sustainable Investment
|1.60 / 4.00||
Does the institution wish to pursue Option 1 (positive sustainability investment)?:
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)||37,000,000 US/Canadian $|
|Businesses selected for exemplary sustainability performance (e.g. using criteria specified in a sustainable investment policy)||89,100,000 US/Canadian $|
|Sustainability investment funds (e.g. a renewable energy or impact investment fund)||2,500,000 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:
Manager A ($10.7M, 1.8%): "Environmental Awareness" themed companies make up %15 of this manager's portfolio. This includes companies that are focused on recycling, water and community development. More specifically, these companies may be organics, industrial waste, water treatment and green building related companies. The manager also incorporates negative screens excluding fossil fuel companies.
Manager B ($16.7M, 2.8%): This concentrated manager has one of their largest holdings and a significant percentage of their portfolio in a large hydroelectric utility company that is a major supplier of renewable energy in China.
Manager C ($9.6M, 1.6%): This manager contracts with an ESG research provider and uses these ratings in conjunction with traditional analysis for their stock selection. The manager integrates ESG data to help identify potential risks that may have a material impact on the economic return potential/financial performance of an investment. One of their top 10 positions is an environmentally friendly refrigerant chemicals company for example.
Businesses selected for exemplary sustainability performance:
Manager D ($9.6M, 1.6%): This manager has large positions in select global technology companies that score high in ESG ratings and have exemplary corporate sustainability practices. The manager may also participate in engagement/advocacy activities and/or proxy voting in order to help improve poor ESG policies of an invested company.
Manager E ($68.8M, 11.7%): This manager seeks companies with sustainable business models and some harmful business practices (such as polluting or harming the environment) are not sustainable in perpetuity and thus considered when making investment decisions. The manager takes into account political, environmental and social issues that are likely to have a material impact on a company's present or future financial position or cash flows or conflict with the manager's ability to manage and develop investments.
Manager F ($10.7M, 1.8%): This manager looks to improve ESG qualities in a company through friendly activism and takes ESG ratings into consideration for investment decisions. The manager also incorporates negative screens excluding companies in the following industries: adult entertainment, alcohol, fossil fuel, gambling, tobacco and weapons. This manager focuses on three themes: aging populations, efficiency gains and environmental awareness. The aging population and environmental awareness themes lend to a particularly social and environmentally conscious portfolio. In the environmental awareness bucket, some of their portfolio holdings come from recycling, water, and community development industries. This includes organics, industrial waste, water treatment, and green building related companies. In the aging population bucket of their portfolio, the manager may have holdings in hospitals, sterilization services, clinical trials, lab consumables, antibodies and reagents.
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:
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:
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:
In July 2016, UofL began participating in shareholder advocacy through a contract with Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) to help us manage our proxy voting at shareholder meetings. In 2015-16, UofL’s Committee on Investor Responsibility examined the proxy voting guidelines available through ISS and decided that the package which most closely aligns with UofL's mission and goals is the Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) Proxy Voting Guidelines. UofL uses these guidelines to vote on all shareholder resolutions for companies in which we are directly invested.
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:
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:
Manager A ($10.7M, 1.8%) - "Environmental Awareness" themed companies make up %15 of this manager's portfolio. This includes companies that are focused on recycling, water and community development. More specifically, these companies may be organics, industrial waste, water treatment and green building related companies. The manager also incorporates negative screens excluding fossil fuel companies
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:
The website URL where information about the programs or initiatives is available:
Additional documentation to support the submission:
UofL's investments are managed not by the university directly, but by the UofL Foundation. Manager market values reported here are as of 8/31/2018.
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.