What is Responsible Investment at Harvard? It’s a growing movement targeting the manner in which Harvard invests its money. The movement’s primary goal so far has been to give those who donate to Harvard the option of having their gift enter a separate fund managed with attention to environmental, social, and governance concerns.

Thus far, individuals and organizations in the Harvard community seem to overwhelmingly agree that the goals of Responsible Investment at Harvard are both important and necessary. However, few have considered the perspective of the Harvard administration. This is unfortunate, because any modification of Harvard’s policies requires us to understand and humanize the perspective of both students and the administration. What does that mean? Let me explain.

I am the College’s representative to the Student-Faculty Advisory Committee for Shareholder Responsibility. The ACSR is a 12-person committee that meets every two or three weeks at the Harvard Faculty Club over dinner to discuss how Harvard will vote in the annual shareholder meetings of the companies in which Harvard has placed its money.

Harvard’s money is partly invested in thousands of companies. Every year, publicly-traded companies hold a general meeting of shareholders to elect a new Board of Directors and complete actions that require shareholder approval. Those who have invested money in that company (the shareholders) have a right, as partial owners of that company, to submit proposals for change within that company. For example, if a shareholder of ConocoPhillips wants the company to stop drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, he will submit a proposal. If a majority of shareholders present vote for the proposal at meeting, then the company is legally bound to comply. The ACSR’s role is to debate the worth of the proposals and give its opinion to the Corporation Committee for Shareholder Responsibility. The CCSR is a subcommittee of the Harvard Corporation, a ten member committee that serves as Harvard’s executive authority and is also known as the President and Fellows of Harvard College.

The ACSR was created in 1972 in response to student protests over Harvard’s investment in Gulf Oil Corp., which allegedly aided the Portuguese government fighting rebels in Angola. The creation of the ACSR was an important step forward for ethical investing and galvanized universities all around America to create their own advisory committees. In 2005, the ACSR recommended that Harvard divest its stocks in PetroChina, a close partner of the genocidal Sudanese government. The CCSR followed the ACSR’s advice, and directed the Harvard Management Company to pull the University’s money out of PetroChina.

Although the creation of the ACSR was an important step forward, the organization leaves a lot to be desired. First, the CCSR is not required to listen to the ACSR, making the ACSR purely symbolic. Second, and most importantly, the ACSR has no ability to initiate proxy proposals or to recommend that Harvard reconsider its investment in certain companies. The only reason the CCSR listened to the ACSR’s advice on PetroChina was that PetroChina had become a major public issue that Harvard could no longer ignore. Third, the ACSR has no way of communicating to either students or to the CCSR. This is why RI@Harvard’s objective to strengthen the ACSR is necessary.

I have no doubt that members of the Harvard administration support the goals of RI@Harvard for investment according to basic socially responsible principles. Instead, the real question is whether the administration will actually do something. The future of responsible investment at Harvard depends on the ability of students and administrators to understand each others’ perspectives, which may be more nuanced than each group likes to think. On the one hand, the administration is genuinely concerned over the manner in which Harvard invests its money. It is not opposed to change, but understands that compromises are inevitable when working in a large organization. The administration often does not implement changes without a major crisis to spark reform. On the other hand, the students are a force committed to revising Harvard’s investment policy for the common good. They represent a powerful, but inexperienced, movement toward a better and more ethical future.

The next step forward for RI@H is to join the shared experiences of the administration and the students. The challenge is not disagreement over goals but communication and cooperation. The administration needs to understand that the issue of responsible investment will not go away. Harvard should not rely on crises to catalyze progress. Students, in turn, should draw on the vast experience that the administration has in managing the school. The school and its students complement each other. They can and should trust each other more.

Felix de Rosen ’13 is a social studies concentrator in Leverett House. He is the Harvard College representative on the Student Faculty Advisory Committee on Shareholder Responsibility.