Overall Rating | Gold - expired |
---|---|
Overall Score | 66.24 |
Liaison | Justin Mog |
Submission Date | Feb. 27, 2019 |
Executive Letter | Download |
University of Louisville
PA-9: Sustainable Investment
Status | Score | Responsible Party |
---|---|---|
1.60 / 4.00 |
Keith
Sherman Foundation Employee Administration |
"---"
indicates that no data was submitted for this field
Option 1: Positive Sustainability Investment
Yes
Total value of the investment pool:
674,361,451
US/Canadian $
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 $ |
If any of the above is greater than zero, provide:
Sustainable industries:
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:
19.07
Option 2: Investor Engagement
Yes
Sustainable Investment Policy
No
None
A copy of the sustainable investment policy:
---
None
The sustainable investment policy:
n/a
None
Does the institution use its sustainable investment policy to select and guide investment managers?:
No
None
A brief description of how the policy is applied, including recent examples:
n/a
Proxy Voting
Yes
None
A copy of the proxy voting guidelines or proxy record:
None
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.
Shareholder Resolutions
No
None
Examples of how the institution has engaged with corporations in its portfolio about sustainability issues during the previous three years:
n/a
Negative Screens / Divestment Efforts
No
None
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
None
Approximate percentage of the endowment that the negative screens apply to:
1.80
Investor Networks
No
None
A brief description of the investor networks and/or collaborations:
n/a
Optional Fields
Additional documentation to support the submission:
---
Data source(s) and notes about 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 or simply email your inquiry to stars@aashe.org.