| Overall Rating | Silver - expired |
|---|---|
| Overall Score | 59.22 |
| Liaison | Andrew D'Amico |
| Submission Date | March 15, 2012 |
| Executive Letter | Download |
Princeton University
PAE-16: Committee on Investor Responsibility
| Status | Score | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
|
2.00 / 2.00 |
Jennifer
Birmingham Managing Director Princeton University Investment Company |
Does the institution have a committee on investor responsibility or similar body that 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 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” in a specific issue in which a core University value is at stake and whether it is possible for the University community to reach a consensus on how to respond.
Members of the CIR, including affiliations:
2010-2011 Committee members:
Prof. Markus Brunnermeier (faculty)
Prof. Rene Carmona (faculty)
Mr. Daniel Condronimpuno '12 (undergraduate student)
Ms. Kristina Johnson GS (graduate student)
Prof. Deborah Prentice (chair) (faculty)
Mr. Salvador Rosario (staff)
Recent examples (within the past 3 years) of CIR actions:
The website URL where information about the committee is available:
Data source(s) and notes about the submission:
Princeton University does have a mechanism for consideration of investment-driven social responsibility issues, through the Resources Committee of the Council of the Princeton University Community. The Resources Committee was created in 1970 and includes members of the faculty, undergraduates, graduate students, and staff. The key criteria for consideration of issues - including matters of environmental or social concern - includes the presence of “considerable, thoughtful, and sustained campus interest” in a specific issue in which a core University value is at stake and in the ability of the University community to reach a consensus on how to respond. The Resources Committee has a broad mandate to help identify issues of concerns to the University community, provide opportunities for discussion and education, research and review alternatives, and recommend a course of action that shares broad support among and 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 a substantial investment in traditional stocks and when the portfolio was managed directly be the Trustee Committee on Finance, the Resources Committee made proxy voting recommendations to the Trustees. However, as investment instruments have changed, reducing significantly the number of opportunities to vote proxies, and the day-to-day management of the endowment portfolios was delegated to the Princeton University Investment Company (Princo), an internal unit of the University responsible for investing the endowment, which in turn allocates all but a very small fraction of the portfolio to commingled funds and partnerships in which proxy votes cannot be directly controlled, the Resources Committee stopped evaluating proxy ballots and advising the Trustees on those matters. Instead, the Resources Committee devoted its energies to creating a venue to discuss broad campus issues of significant interest to a wide range of the campus community. This venue allows us to discuss and implement change on a broader 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.
Princeton University does have a mechanism for consideration of investment-driven social responsibility issues, through the Resources Committee of the Council of the Princeton University Community. The Resources Committee was created in 1970 and includes members of the faculty, undergraduates, graduate students, and staff. The key criteria for consideration of issues - including matters of environmental or social concern - includes the presence of “considerable, thoughtful, and sustained campus interest” in a specific issue in which a core University value is at stake and in the ability of the University community to reach a consensus on how to respond. The Resources Committee has a broad mandate to help identify issues of concerns to the University community, provide opportunities for discussion and education, research and review alternatives, and recommend a course of action that shares broad support among and 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 a substantial investment in traditional stocks and when the portfolio was managed directly be the Trustee Committee on Finance, the Resources Committee made proxy voting recommendations to the Trustees. However, as investment instruments have changed, reducing significantly the number of opportunities to vote proxies, and the day-to-day management of the endowment portfolios was delegated to the Princeton University Investment Company (Princo), an internal unit of the University responsible for investing the endowment, which in turn allocates all but a very small fraction of the portfolio to commingled funds and partnerships in which proxy votes cannot be directly controlled, the Resources Committee stopped evaluating proxy ballots and advising the Trustees on those matters. Instead, the Resources Committee devoted its energies to creating a venue to discuss broad campus issues of significant interest to a wide range of the campus community. This venue allows us to discuss and implement change on a broader 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.
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.