Invest Positive
Sam introduced the context of the policy and explained how it went to Union Council and was referred to Sustainability Zone for further discussion.
Mike explained that Invest Positive looks to lobby the University to the ethical investment of its endowment fund. The group formed after the policy passed in June, and recently wrote an open letter to University, signed by numerous societies in Sustainability Zone, asking them not to invest in the most damaging industries. The policy caused considerable debate around the arms industry and there was an attempt to remove the clause but Council voted to keep the clause in. Due to the controversial nature of the policy, it was decided to take it to Sustainability Zone Committee to allow more discussion. Mike emphasised that whilst he would like the essentials of the policy to remain the same, he would be willing make changes.
Sam Bailey said that one of the main issues at Union Council were the large amount of engineering students who then go on to work in some of the targeted industries.
Shruti said that a lot of the links with industries come from investment and that there is the risk that it appears to be condemning industries that the University has links with.
Mike noted that most endowment fund is currently in cash and so there is very little investment at the moment, so the links with industries are not entirely made by investment.
Shruti said that if the University is seen to be not investing in partners there is an implied criticism.
James said that when he went to a recent careers fair, nearly all, if not all stands had a relation to the defence industry and it felt like the fair was restricted to the defence industry.
Amy said that Socially Responsible Investment (1415P30) policy was originally a lot more strongly worded before getting modified into something too vague. She added by saying that SUSU does not know what the investment relationship has been in the past and questioned whether companies come to the University because of investment or because the University has an excellent Engineering department.
Mike was asked about other universities, and responded that most are associated with Fossil Free and that he was strongly advised to form own independent group like the University of Cambridge. He added that a lot of universities already have a socially responsible investment policy, which the University of Southampton doesn’t (with the exception of prohibiting the investment into Tobacco companies) and would like to open up a dialogue with students and staff about getting one written. Furthermore other Universities have seen a lot of positive press about their various campaigns.
Sam noted that the Socially Responsible Investment policy would still stand if both policies passed.
Shruti expressed concerned about how much consultation had taken place especially considering the large numbers of students from military backgrounds at this University. She noted that the societies who had signed the open letter were mainly from one group and that more widespread consultation was needed about the possible consequences.
Mike reiterated that his policy is not at all a criticism of anyone who serves in the armed forces, and he would be very happy to draw a distinction between military and the arms trade.
Kokulan noted that the tobacco industry never came up in the previous debate, so it can be assumed that there are no problems with that part. He added that because the University of Southampton’s endowment fund is very small compared to some universities, the issue is not about the money, but rather the symbolic nature of not investing in particular. Kokulan also noted that there would be hypocrisy for the University to take money from the industries for research grants but not giving them money back in investments.
Mike said that only people who actively wish to engage with those industries are able to, whilst investing positively would disassociate other people from those industries that they have no connection with.
Kokulan said that he still believed the policy lacked the support of the student body and needed a wide consultation because it affects a lot of students.
Mike suggested that perhaps an elected representative body is more significant than a low turnout referendum.
Frazer noted that it is possible to call a general meeting or an open council where everyone could vote on the issue.
Mike said that even if the policy is passed, it shows that the Union, on balance, favours the ethical investment of the endowment fund and then there would need to be much wider consultation about the issue.
Frazer suggested adding a ‘mandates’ section to the policy to show people exactly what would happen if the policy passes.
Mike thanked everyone for the discussion and suggestions and said that he would make some changes before bringing the policy back to Union Council.
EAUC
It was explained that this was an annual conference and that there had been a call for session papers. There was a discussion about whether equality projects could still be used and it was agreed that it would be good to bring something unique to the conference.
