The University considered 27 proposals focused on environmental and energy issues, such as requests for companies to phase out the use of chlorine in paper production, to stop logging of old growth forests and to convert nuclear plants to natural gas.

Following ACSR recommendations, the CCSR voted in favor of a proposal asking General Electric "to adopt a public education effort along the Hudson River Valley, the Housatonic River Valley and other regions where appropriate to warn local residents and visitors of the dangers of fish consumption [due to PCB contamination] and prepare a report to shareholders."

Chronic exposure of animals to polychlorinated biphenyls(PCBs) can lead to disrupted hormone balances, reproductive failures or several forms of cancer.

It also supported a policy of annual pollution prevention review for Tosco, a large, independent oil refiner and marketer of petroleum.

The year before, the University faced fewer proposals involving environmental issues and voted to abstain on or oppose the ones it did consider.

Also, for the first time, the ACSR reccommended approving proposals that ask companies to endorse the Ceres Principles, a code of conduct for the environmentally sound performance of corporations. The ACSR had previously called the Principles poorly written and too hard for companies to implement.

During 1998, Harvard also voted on three shareholder proposals dealing with tobacco. According to a policy adopted in 1990, the University will not purchase stock in companies producing large amounts of tobacco products.

A proxy addressed to H.B. Fuller, a manufacturer and marketer of specialty chemicals and industrial adhesives, requested that the company not sell adhesives to "any tobacco-related entity when they will be used for the production of cigarettes or other tobacco products."

The ACSR voted in favor of the proposal, and the CCSR abstained "following long-standing CCSR precedent," the report said.

"The CCSR has tended to be very concerned about resolutions that are secondarily related to a key product," Gray said. "They're not a cigarette-making company. [It's a question of] how far do you go."

In both years, the committees voted multiple proposals addressing concerns about forced labor, human rights, equal employment, compensation for corporate executives, and military issues including contracting criteria and the sale of military materials overseas.

The Power of Proxies?

Despite Harvard's commitment to carefully review each proposal, many in the academic and business spheres question the efficacy of proxies.

Proxies enable institutions like Harvard to maintain a voice in company decisions about ethics without taking a strong stance.

"It's not at all efficient other than to raise public attention," said Joseph Hinsey IV, Weaver professor of business law. Hinsey said shareholder proposals rarely promote radical change.

Harvard's policy is never to propose proxies and only to vote on those presented by other shareholders.

"To intiate a proxy is to give the University a single voice," Gray said." Because it's a University that...represents so many different points of view and academic freedom is such an important part of the University, Harvard has tended [to do] only those things which it is required to do because it owns stock.