The University of Cambridge council¡¯s decision against fully divesting from fossil fuels in the institution¡¯s ?6 billion endowment and against putting money into environmental funds shows the ¡°huge influence¡± of the institution¡¯s ¡°unaccountable financial bureaucracy¡±, according to campaigners.

The decision ¨C where the involvement of the university¡¯s investment board is spotlighted in council minutes seen by Times Higher Education ¨C?comes after a three-year campaign for divestment by students in the Cambridge Zero Carbon Society and the setting-up of a divestment working group (DWG) by the university in May 2017.

Cambridge¡¯s governing body, the Regent House, passed a motion backing full divestment in 2017. But a majority of the council, the university¡¯s executive body, took a different stance.

The council¡¯s response to the DWG report, , repeats a previous commitment by the university ¡°that it will have no direct holdings in the most polluting industries, previously defined as thermal coal and tar sands¡±.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

But in terms of indirectly managed funds, invested with external fund managers ¨C which make up the ¡°vast majority¡± of the university¡¯s investment portfolio, the notes ¨C the council says that it is ¡°inevitable in a diversified and indirectly managed investment portfolio that some exposure may appear in some funds and therefore it is not possible to demand absolute exclusion¡±.

Two members of the council ¨C the Cambridge University Students¡¯ Union president and the Graduate Union president ¨C said they were ¡°unable to consent¡± to the decision, while a further two members of council, staff members Nick Gay and Alice Hutchings, , rarely used in council decisions. The note says that ¡°repeated requests to the chief investment officer¡­for information about the identity of the secondary fund managers used by [Cambridge University Endowment Fund] and the composition of their portfolios have been refused¡±, criticising a ¡°culture of secrecy and hostility to oversight within the investment office¡±.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

The DWG had recommended that 10 per cent of the university¡¯s indirect investments should go ¡°into dedicated environmental, social, and governance?(ESG)?funds consistent with a carbon neutral future¡±.

But the council¡¯s response called this ¡°a relatively immature field¡± ¨C committing only to research into the possibility of such investments.

Minutes seen by THE?show that the council considered a draft response to the DWG report at a meeting in May, where members ¡°expressed their concern that the tone of the draft response¡­could be perceived as too confrontational¡± and said that ¡°some of the report¡¯s recommendations would need further discussion at the council¡±.

Divestment supporters believe this shows some council members showing support for the DWG¡¯s ESG plan.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

However, come the 6 June extraordinary meeting, when Stephen Toope, the Cambridge vice-chancellor, reported that a revised draft of the council¡¯s response had been produced, there was still no support for ESG funds.

¡°The investment board [which advises the investment office on management of the CUEF] had considered the revised draft at its meeting on 30 May 2018,¡± the minutes state. ¡°The investment board had been largely supportive of the response and had decided not to submit a separate statement for today¡¯s meeting.¡±

Angus Satow, press officer for Cambridge Zero Carbon Society, said the matter showed ¡°the huge power and influence the university¡¯s unaccountable financial bureaucracy now wields over decision-making¡±.

CZCS is calling for a review of the university¡¯s governance, so ¡°the people who make up this university have a far greater say in running it¡±, he added.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Professor Gay, professor of molecular and cellular biochemistry,?said the council decision is ¡°not the end¡± of the divestment issue. ¡°I think we [the university] may well find we¡¯re on the wrong side of history on this,¡± he added.

john.morgan@timeshighereducation.com