| Overall Rating | Platinum |
|---|---|
| Overall Score | 87.91 |
| Liaison | Pierre Lemay |
| Submission Date | Dec. 19, 2022 |
Université Laval
PA-10: Sustainable Investment
| Status | Score | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
|
1.00 / 3.00 |
Pierre
Lemay Development Advisor Office of the Vice Rector, External and International Affairs and Health |
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 funds funded from the endowment | 0 US/Canadian $ |
A brief description of the companies, funds, and/or institutions referenced above:
Specific to green energy, we have fragmentary information that allows us to state that 0.7% of our investments are in this sector if we consider that 20% or more of the company's revenues are sufficient to qualify. Alternatively, if we adopt a more stringent criterion of 50% or more of the company's revenues, we hold 0.1% of our investments in such companies.
Percentage of the institution's investment pool in positive sustainability investments:
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 sustainable investment policy is applied:
Upon selection, the investment committee consider the carbon footprint of the fund, the ratification of the UNPRI by the fund managers, the quality of its sustainable investment policy and its participation in responsible investment associations.
As for ongoing relation with investment managers, our annual review includes the same considerations as for the selection process.
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:
The University currently does not have segregated stocks funds and therefore cannot vote directly. However, it is our belief that proxy voting is one the strongest action a responsible investor can take. We therefore question our external manager during the annual reviews regarding their voting policies and, when using an external service (ISS, Glass Lewis, etc.) encourage them to switch to the responsible / climate policy of said service provider. Furthermore, we introduced for the past annual review a questionnaire which included questions about key subjects / votes.
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 participate in a public divestment effort and/or have a publicly available investment policy with negative screens?:
A brief description of the divestment effort or negative screens and how they have been implemented:
Approximate percentage of endowment that the divestment effort and/or 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 Master Trust is an member of the following networks:
■ UN Principles for Responsible Investment (UNPRI)
■ RIA Canada – Responsible Investment Association Canada
■ Ceres Investor Network on Climate Risk and Sustainability
■ Climate Action 100+
■ Investing to Address Climate Change : A Charter for Canadian Universities
Also, the institution was a signatory of the 2021 Global Investor Statement to Governments on the Climate Crisis to pressure world leaders during COP26.
Website URL where information about the institution’s sustainable investment efforts is available:
Additional documentation to support the submission:
Data source(s) and notes about the submission:
The institution has set specific carbon footprint reduction targets for its public equities portfolio. Although not targeting specific companies by name, this policy implies the exclusion of the biggest carbon emitters, indiscriminately of its industry.
We maintain that a strong carbon footprint reduction target is a positive/negative screen. Other regular negative screens, notably « tobacco companies, alcohol companies, gambling companies, weapons manufacturers, nuclear power companies and resource extractors (coal, oil and gas)" are generally identified through third parties, such as MSCI, who identify companies as such based on thresholds, as large listed companies rarely work in just one very specific industry. Carbon footprint reduction targeting is in every way similar. It negatively screens companies with poor environmental records / high carbon footprint. Additionally, this specific screen applies across all industries, rather than just "resource extractors". In that regard, we have to point out that your definition of "negative screens" includes "Companies with especially poor […] environmental records ».
The institution has set specific carbon footprint reduction targets for its public equities portfolio. Although not targeting specific companies by name, this policy implies the exclusion of the biggest carbon emitters, indiscriminately of its industry.
We maintain that a strong carbon footprint reduction target is a positive/negative screen. Other regular negative screens, notably « tobacco companies, alcohol companies, gambling companies, weapons manufacturers, nuclear power companies and resource extractors (coal, oil and gas)" are generally identified through third parties, such as MSCI, who identify companies as such based on thresholds, as large listed companies rarely work in just one very specific industry. Carbon footprint reduction targeting is in every way similar. It negatively screens companies with poor environmental records / high carbon footprint. Additionally, this specific screen applies across all industries, rather than just "resource extractors". In that regard, we have to point out that your definition of "negative screens" includes "Companies with especially poor […] environmental records ».
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.