CONSULTATION: Should the University divest from fossil fuel companies?
18 Apr 2016
Staff and students are invited to take part in a consultation being run by the University's Fossil Fuels Review Group
In December 2015, 195 world leaders adopted the Paris Agreement – a key and legally binding document that commits all signatories to action on climate change for the coming two decades. At its core the Paris Agreement contains a quantitative framing of climate change against which any action on reducing emissions can be assessed. All 195 leaders, including the UK Prime Minister, committed to reduce their nation’s emissions in line with their respective nation’s fair contribution to holding the rise in the global average temperature to “well below 2°C” and to “pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C”.
In July 2015, the University’s Board of Governors resolved to review the current Socially Responsible Investment Policyin response to a paper brought by the University of Manchester Students’ Union and Fossil Free Manchester that proposed that the University should divest from fossil fuel companies* within its investment portfolio. In readiness for this review, the University agreed to examine the wider ethical arguments concerning divestment from fossil fuel companies.
The Fossil Fuels Review Group (FFRG) is responsible for forming an opinion on the question of socially responsible investment and is seeking to understand the aims of divestment strategies, assess their potential value in catalysing change and to consider whether the strategy is likely to have a positive or negative impact on the recognised need for meaningful action to reduce global carbon emissions. While the divestment campaign is solely targeted at the investment portfolio held by the University, the Group has acknowledged that fossil fuel divestment is a broad issue involving many different University schools and activities, and that any engagement on this issue will need to consider a wide range of stakeholders.
Noting the divestment campaign and given the University's broad research engagement in related areas and disciplines, we are seeking opinions from across the University. We now invite interested parties to submit comments that will inform the Group’s consideration of the question of possible divestment from companies that derive much of their revenues from fossil fuels. We are also interested in evidence or views on whether there are alternative ways in which the University should engage in the debate about climate change. The FFRG will review submissions at its next meeting, and will publish a summary of the views received, ensuring that such views are given proper consideration when it develops its Report on the options that might be considered by the University.
We would welcome comments on any aspect of this from members of the University community, and specifically would ask you to consider the following:
- the implications of divestment from fossil fuel companies in terms of the University’s research/teaching relationships, its standing, profile or in terms of its wider engagement;
- your opinion on divestment from fossil fuel companies as an approach to influencing corporate behaviour and/or combating climate change;
- noting the different definitions of fossil fuel companies and the different divestment decisions taken by other HEIs, including statements from Harvard, Stanford, Edinburgh and Glasgow, if you believe that divestment could influence corporate behaviour/combat climate change, what scale or scope of divestment would you propose?
Interested parties should send their submissions to:
The deadline for submissions is 2 May 2016.
We would particularly value combined responses from Schools, Faculties, Student Societies, research groups and other relevant bodies from within the University. Please note that at this stage we are only consulting with members of the University, and therefore all contributions should be sent via a University email address.
-----
* There are multiple definitions of fossil fuel companies within the divestment movement. We would therefore welcome comments on any workable definition that might be adopted in response to Question 3.