In a report submitted to the Harvard Corporation yesterday, the Advisory committee on shareholder Responsibility (ACSR) said the University should refrain from introducing shareholder resolutions in companies operating in South Africa, except as "a last resort."

The report distinguished between "action" and "information" resolutions, and said it would consider the latter "appropriate" if companies refuse to cooperate with requests for information.

"Action" resolutions, asking companies to take specific steps to further racial progress in South Africa, "seem to us to be relatively ineffective," and Harvard should devote its time and money to "shareholder resolutions that are likely to be effective," the report added.

The ACSR said it believes private discussions with company directors will normally be sufficient to acquire all the needed information, and does not anticipate the need for sponsoring information resolutions.

Several students active on the South Africa issue yesterday criticized the report as a further weakening of what they see as an already unsatisfactory University policy to get corporations in Harvard's portfolio to help bring about the end of the apartheid system.

Julie E Fouquet '80, who resigned from the ACSR last month and now chairs the undergraduate group boycotting the ACSR, yesterday called the report "a step backwards from last year."

"There is a whole lot of information on company practices in South Africa no one will ever get anyway," she said. "If they can't do anything about it, why bother at all with the attempt?" she added.

The steering committee of the Southern Africa Solidarity Committee (SASC) said in a statement last night that the group has "been saying all year that shareholder resolutions calling for corporate withdrawal don't work. Now the ACSR has admitted that. Will the Corporation draw the logical conclusion and divest?"

Cooperation

A. Michael Spence, professor of Economics and ACSR chairman, could not be reached for comment yesterday. Francis M. Bator, professor of Political Economy and one of the ranking members of the ACSR, said yesterday most companies have cooperated in giving the committee the information it has requested, in order to judge whether a company should be allowed to remain in South Africa.

"We're each checking on a few companies, and when the ACSR meets again in a couple of weeks we'll get together and make our evaluations." Bator said. "More good comes from working with companies than in shooting off a rocket and having nothing left we can do," he added.

If the ACSR decides a company has not given it all the information it has requested, according to its official policy it would then consider sponsoring "information" or "action" resolutions. The deadlines for submitting resolutions in most companies are coming up within the next few weeks.

"We hope our deliberations will be in time," Bator said.

The ACSR report also leaves open the question of what Harvard should do if an "action" resolution fails. "We haven't projected that far in advance," Bator said.

Far Out

Carl F. Rosen '80, a member of the undergraduate group that elected Fouquet last year and voted to boycott the ACSR this year, said yesterday that the ACSR "is so far from reality they can't speak for the Harvard community. The report highlights the need for reforms of the ACSR."

Bator said he agrees "with President Bok, that to democratize the ACSR you would have to fill a classroom."

Hugh Calkins '45, chairman of the Corporation's investment subcommittee to which the ACSR reports, could not be reached for comment yesterday.