Comments & Discussion

Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.

There are 7 comments on New Socially Responsible Investing Committee Meets This Week

  1. As a function of the historical age and size of the university the BU endowment is relatively small. At a time when PHS is cutting funding and the economy is still not doing all that well BU is not is position to pick and chose investments based on political correctness. BU needs to be making money off its investments not making global mission statements.

    I am not saying BU should avoid companies with sustainable products that are doing well but not investing in fossil fuel companies etc that are profitable because of political correctness is a bad idea period.

    The students and alumni who support this are also often supported by internal BU grants etc. and are effectively killing the goose that lays the golden egg by advocating for this policy.

    The board of trustees has a fiduciary duty to the corporation to invest the endowment in companies that make money not in those that make political statements to appease a utopian fantasy of some of the students and alumni.

  2. I am proud that BU has decided to set up such a committee, as it speaks to the value of humanity and not just of dollars. In 1979 BU did indeed divest from apartheid–an unusual decision which put the university ahead of almost all universities in the country. However, BU limited its divestment to a portion of its holdings: non-voting bonds and similar holdings. The argument BU made at the time was that they could impact corporate policies through owning stocks in US companies in South Africa,and so kept the stocks while selling the bonds.

  3. Actually, the board of trustees does not have a fiduciary duty to the corporation to invest in just any money-making endeavor; the board should not invest in evil or corrupt opportunities. There is plenty of legal scholarship that supports the notion of socially responsible investing even in economically difficult times.

    1. Yes it has duty not to invest in evil or corrupt companies but just because a company is not green does not mean it is corrupt or evil per se and investing in green companies over more profitable non green companies is not the same things as not investing in companies that are corrupt. You have to understand what the prudent business person rule of fiduciary duty is and why it compels the board to make the safest most profitable investments. Politically correct investments can only be made when all things are otherwise equal or the profitability of the green company exceeds that of the non green company. You may not like it but that is how life in the real world works.

      1. No one ever said “green company” meant not corrupt or evil; no one ever said “non-green” meant corrupt or evil. “Evil” is a pretty poor qualifier for investment or non-investment. Corrupt is a pretty good one.

        Investing in a company (or funds that invest in companies) whose business or product presents a real and immediate threat/harm/danger to the human race or planet are also not investments worthy of the University endowment.

    2. “There is plenty of legal scholarship that supports the notion of socially responsible investing even in economically difficult times.”

      Legal scholarship is not case law and therefore this comment is meaningless hyperbole.

  4. The Darfur decision is the most commendable. This ongoing genocidal development has largely been ignored in most of the world. I remember eerily how when it all became transparent a minister of development of an EU member state said in a radio interview “something has to be done in the next FOUR weeks” … and I never heard of the issue ever after. Honi soit qui mal y pense – that couldn’t have been due to economic interests?

Post a comment.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *