The University considered proposals this year on the ethics of its investments, covering issues that ranged from environmental practices to executive compensation, according to its annual report on shareholder responsibility which was released this week.

In the 1998 season, Harvard voted on 87 proxies--shareholder proposals which question whether a company's policies are socially responsible. The University voted in favor of 22, opposed 18 and abstained on the remainder.

These results mark a deviation, albeit a modest one, from the University's normally conservative voting patterns. In 1997, the University voted on 80 proxies. It voted in favor of 15, opposed 38 and abstained on the remainder. In 1996, Harvard voted to approve 14 of the 85 proxies.

"[In 1998] I was pleasantly surprised with the [University]. It was quite activist, quite aggressive in its stand, perhaps even more so than in previous years," said Ali Ahsan '99, who has served for two years on the Advisory Committee on Shareholder Responsibility (ACSR). Ahsan is also a Crimson editor.

Since 1972, the ACSR has been one of two committees working to address questions of shareholder responsibility.

Composed of 12 students, faculty members and alumni, the ACSR analyzes each proxy issue, takes a vote and presents its decision to the Corporation Committee on Shareholder Responsibility (CCSR).

The CCSR, which represents the interests of the president and fellows of Harvard, is composed of University Tresurer D. Ronald Daniel and Robert G. Stone Jr. '45-'47, a fellow of the University and chair of the committee.

The CCSR considers the ASCR's recommendations when making its final vote but traditionally has made more conservative and cautious decisions.

"The CCSR looks to precedent and to where Harvard has been on an issue. The ASCR is trying to bring up new points of view on issues," said Elizabeth A. Gray, secretary to the CCSR and senior associate secretary of the Board of Overseers.

"The CCSR is very literal about every single word in the proxy," she added.

During the 1998 season, the ACSR and the CCSR were in complete agreement on 53 percent of the proposals. In 32 percent of the proposals, the two committees partially agreed, meaning one abstained while the other voted in favor or against.

The ACSR failed to reach a decision in 13 percent of the votes.

In 1997, the committees achieved greater agreement, voting the same way in 70 percent of the proposals.

The Issues at Stake

Last spring, many of the shareholder proposals addressed concerns about environmental violations.