In 2018, Seattle University's (SU) Board of trustees voted to divest from fossil fuels with goals to, "by June 30, 2023, fully divest the marketable portion of the endowment from any investments in companies owning fossil fuel reserves,” and “to achieve a 50 percent reduction by December 31, 2020.” In March 2020, the 50% reduction was reached, nine months ahead of schedule. In June 30, 2023, SU fully divested from fossil fuels.
Learn more about the SRI Working Group
Divestment is simply is the opposite of an investment. It is the process of getting rid of stocks, bonds, or investment funds which can serve financial, ethical, or political objectives.
Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria are the three key factors used to judge the sustainability and ethics of an investment.
Socially responsible investing (SRI) describes investments that promote positive social or environmental change. This can include investments in companies that are free from fossil fuel usage, give their employees living wages, etc.
For a detailed timeline depicting all divestment events at SU, see Detailed Divestment Timeline
Future suggestions by SSA members include:
-1920x745.png)
In January 2022, a group of students affiliated with CEJS and Student Sustainable Action sat down with Wilson Garone, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, and Bret Myers, Director of Treasury & Risk Management, to talk about SU's divestment journey and the future of sustainable reinvestment. Read the full conversation here.
The endowment value on June 30, 2018 was approximately $230 million. (Office of the President, 2018)
On June 30, 2017, before SU committed to divestment, the endowment portfolio had an estimated 6.7 percent, or $13.6 million, exposure to securities of fossil fuel companies, as defined by ownership of fossil fuel reserves. These securities were owned indirectly through the university’s investments in funds managed by external investment managers. (Office of the President, 2018)
This is not an either/or choice. We can and should address the concern about climate change through both our investing strategy and by addressing other areas where we are presently not acting sustainably. Future investments must be made to enable a transition away from these fuels, which is one reason that divestment and (eventual) re-investment is an appropriate response. Furthermore, it is not a bad thing for us to grapple with areas where we are not ethically consistent because only by reflecting on these inconsistencies is change possible. (SRI Working Group, 2018)
We find it unlikely that donors expected the university to follow a completely amoral approach to investing and the university has already decided that social issues should be incorporated into its financial planning. This is why the SRI committee was created in the first place. In light of our mission, it is important for the university to consider more than just maximization of financial return. (SRI Working Group, 2018)
At this time, it is more practical and less financially risky to direct managers to exclude a relatively small number of companies from their portfolios than it is to direct them to make specific investments in new, sometimes unproven technologies. Furthermore, while divestment and positive re-investment are not mutually exclusive—we would be surprised if our managers do not look carefully at clean energy—we recognize that we should first “do no harm” before transitioning into the positive investments that will help fund a clean energy future. Finally, there is presently significant social momentum behind the divestment movement, meaning that it is an action that can be taken in the near term. Planning a separate, practical re-investing approach could take years and is something that will be easier to do once the issue of divestment is resolved. (SRI Working Group, 2018)