At the end of March, the President of the University of Toronto issued an official response to the Advisory Committee on Divestment from Fossil Fuels, which had reported in December 2015. The University rejected a blanket divestment strategy and opted to pursue a targeted approach which will incorporate environmental, social, and governance-based factors (ESG) in investment decisions. It states that the core mission of the university, research and teaching, will be used as its main contribution to the fight against climate change. The statement is summarized in a Globe and Mail article (March 30) . On April 12, the New York Times reported that Yale University had also found a compromise position regarding investment strategies for its endowment fund, rather than outright divestment. Arguing against such approaches: from researchers at the London School of Economics, “Climate value at risk’ of global financial assets” in Nature Climate Change online (April 4) which uses models to estimate the impact of twenty-first-century climate change on the present market value of global financial assets, and concludes that “losses could soar to $24tn, or 17% of the world’s assets, and wreck the global economy”. An article in The Guardian (April 4) summarizes this and other studies. Even the Harvard Business Review (April 14) is sounding the alarm, based on the latest research. An article in Corporate Knights magazine, “Defending Divestment” (April 6) considers the financial and moral arguments about divestment.
As it does every year to coincide with the World Economic Fund Meetings, Canadian magazine Corporate Knights released its rankings of the 100 Most Sustainable Corporations in the World in January 2016 . Perhaps surprisingly given the current VW emissions scandal, a German automaker, BMW, is ranked #1 in sustainability, based on its energy, waste and water reduction performance and for linking the salary of its senior executives to their sustainability performance. Corporate Knights also introduces its Eco Fund ratings , along with a discussion of responsible investing , “to make it easy for Canadian investors to see which funds provide the best combination of economic and environmental performance.” Canadian mutual funds are ranked, with calculations of their 3-year annualized returns, weighted carbon intensity, and exposure to green companies. Such ranking may prove useful to the financial managers at the University of Toronto, who are currently considering the recommendations of a Presidential Advisory committee on divestment from fossil fuels . The committee has recommended that the university determine a method to evaluate whether a given fossil fuels company’s actions blatantly disregard the 1.5-degree threshold, and then proceed with “targeted and principled divestment from specific companies in the fossil fuels industry”. Alternatives Journal puts this in context of the wider university divestment movement in “U of T could make Divestment History” (Dec. 2015) . Disappointingly, the Globe and Mail reported on December 23 “Ontario Teachers, CPPIB opt to maintain fossil-fuel assets” . The Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan and Canada Pension Plan Investment Board say they are committed to their roles as “engaged investors”, seeking transparency from companies regarding risk. On January 1, 2016, Marc Lee summarized the issues in The Tyee and asked, “Is your Pension Fund in Climate Denial?”