Episode 20: Streamlining Sustainability Reporting with AASHE STARS

Julian Dautremont

Julian Dautremont

Guest: Julian Dautremont
Director of Programs, AASHE

Host: Dave Karlsgodt
Principal, Fovea, LLC

Production Assistant: Sarah Barr

From energy use to purchasing decisions, waste management to community engagement, it’s no secret that sustainability is a notoriously broad and difficult to measure concept.

Creating a comprehensive sustainability rating system was exactly the challenge guest Julian Dautremont and colleagues from the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) were tackling when the STARS program was born. STARS is short for the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment, and Rating System and is the most widely used sustainability reporting system among colleges and universities in the United States. (It’s also the primary metric used to determine the Sierra Club’s “Cool Schools” ranking each year, in case you were wondering).

If STARS still stumps you or if you’re simply curious about how a broad concept like sustainability can possibly be quantified and compared, join us this episode as Julian guides us through STARS’ creation, current function and challenges, and goals for the future.


Episode Transcript:

The following is an automated transcription of this episode which will include errors and omissions. You can listen and follow along with the text here:


Dave Karlsgodt 0:00

Welcome to the campus energy and sustainability podcast. In each episode, we'll talk with leading campus professionals, thought leaders, engineers and innovators addressing the unique challenges and opportunities facing higher ed. and corporate campuses. Our discussions will range from energy conservation and efficiency to planning and finance, from building science to social science, from energy systems to food systems. We hope you're ready to learn, share, and ultimately accelerate your institution towards solutions. I'm your host, Dave Karlsgodt, I'm a principal at Fovea, an energy carbon and business planning firm. In this episode, I talked with Julian Dautremont, the director of programs AASHE, the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. You'll hear us discuss the history of AASHE and how it has evolved from a small regional network into an international organization. We'll talk briefly about their annual conference and other member benefits. We then transition to a Q&A about STARS, AASHE's sustainability tracking reporting system for colleges and universities. We talked through the origins of STARS, and how it has emerged as a de facto standard for measuring sustainability progress on campuses. We also talked through some of the challenges the STARS team faces, including how to ensure a fair and reasonable scoring system, helping campuses navigate the extensive data collection process, and how the team rolls out new versions of the tool. We end with a sneak peek at what STARS 3.0 might look like as the tool continues to evolve. I hope you enjoy this June 2019 interview with Julian Dautremont. Well Julian, it's great to have you on the podcast today.

Julian Dautremont 1:39

Thanks. I'm glad to be here.

Dave Karlsgodt 1:40

Well, today we're going to talk a little bit about your organization, AASHE. We'll get into the general overview of the organization and who are the members and things like that, and then we can spend a little bit more specific time talking about the reporting that you guys manage through the STARS program. Before we get into any of that, can you just give us a little bit of background on who you are and and then maybe a little bit of high level overview of AASHE the organization itself?

Julian Dautremont 2:03

My name is Julian Dautremont and I'm the Director of Programs for AASHE which is the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. And we're a membership-based association of colleges and universities that are working toward a more sustainable future. And so we do the same kind of things that associations typically do, which is really all around helping members learn from one another. So we have an annual conference where members come together to share lessons and experiences firsthand and in person. We have a whole series of online resources and publications; we do a weekly newsletter with the latest news from around the world on what higher ed. is doing around sustainability. We do regular webinars; we do in person workshops. And again, all of it is centered around trying to create opportunities so that campuses can learn from other institutions all around the world.

Dave Karlsgodt 2:55

Can you talk a little bit about how AASHE is different than the many other organizations that play in the broad space of sustainability? I know there are a myriad of other organizations that touch higher ed. in some way. Where do you fit into that ecosystem?

Julian Dautrmont 3:10

Yeah, so there are a ton of really great organizations working in this space, what makes AASHE different is in particular kind of big tent approach, right? So we are not just focused on investment or climate, or any other particular dimension of sustainability--we try to be talking about sustainability across the institution. People often start with us. And then they may also join an organization with a more specialized focus on a particular area that's going to give a little bit more depth in that area.

Dave Karlsgodt 3:39

How did this organization get started? And how old is it, it's, you know, I've been involved with the conference at least for a couple of years now and it seems to have morphed even in the three or four years that I've been involved with AASHE. But give me a little bit of a longer history of where the organization started and how it maybe morphed a little bit over time.

Julian Dautremont 3:55

So AASHE was founded as AASHE in 2006. But we have a bit longer history than that. We actually started as a program of another organization that many of your listeners probably know: Second Nature, which administers the climate leadership commitments. They were founded in the 90s and, at the time, had a broad sustainability focus and had received some grant funding to create a west coast network focused on education for sustainability. So I was at the founding meeting for that, which was in 2002. And out of that meeting, came a loose network of mostly faculty actually, that were interested in these issues. And we called ourselves Education for Sustainability Western Network, and it was just the western U.S. and Canada. And we existed as EFS west for basically four years, when we became independent and adopted the name AASHE in 2006. We were growing capacity and we realized that there was really a need nationally or even beyond that, internationally, for a professional association for the sustainability staff, which was sort of a new and emerging profession at the time, there were not a ton of them, but they were enough that they needed a place to gather. And there wasn't really anyone else filling that role. So we changed our name to be more not regional. So it was no longer the Western Network, it was just the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Ed., and that became official in 2006 and we've been operating under that name since.

Dave Karlsgodt 5:22

If you had to put percentages on your focus in terms of how much is focused on staff versus education versus students versus you know, any other aspect of what you're doing...Is there a way you could break that down for us? Or is that difficult to say?

Julian Dautremont 5:36

It's difficult to say because most of what we do could serve any one of those audiences. So in terms of like, who it could serve, I think it's anybody who's trying to work towards change in higher ed. In terms of who it does serve, which we can quantify, like, who comes to our conference, at least we know, probably about half the people at the conference are sustainability staff. 10 to 15% are faculty. Maybe 25% is students and then the balance is businesses and other professionals in higher ed. who are not sustainability staff or faculty, but maybe they work in student affairs or facilities. But yeah, our core that is the sustainability staff, and then students and faculty are kind of the next big group.

Dave Karlsgodt 6:18

Well, let's talk a little bit about the conference. And I know that you do some retreats, and some other, you know, beyond just the main annual conference, but tell us a little bit about why one would go to that and what you hope to accomplish with that every year.

Julian Dautremont 6:29

Sure, so the conference is annual and this year it's in Spokane, Washington at the end of October and we would love to have folks join us. And the real purpose of the conference is to provide an opportunity for members to share the latest and greatest from their campuses with their peers, and to make connections because often this work can be kind of isolating. Many campuses only have one or maybe two sustainability staff or even somebody who's also doing another job and then takes on sustainability as kind of an additional project. So you come to AASHE to meet your community, your peers, the other folks who are doing this work and to get rejuvenated, to remind yourself why you're doing it, to get new ideas, to get techniques that you can bring to your campus. We try to really emphasize that learning opportunity. So there's going to be tons and tons of educational sessions, got great keynotes as well, poster sessions. We have an expo hall. So it's an opportunity to learn about new products and services that might help you achieve your sustainability goals. So yeah, I mean, the core things education and networking, I think are the main drivers for attendance at the conference.

Dave Karlsgodt 7:34

So it's one of my highlights of the year; I've been I think the four of them now? And planning to go to Spokane; I'm excited that it's only a couple hours away from my home here in Seattle this year, instead of having to go across the country. Let's talk a little bit about some of the retreats or some of the other regional work that you do too, because I know it's not just the annual conference, right?

Julian Dautremont 7:51

Yeah, we do three or four workshops, typically in any given year in person workshops. One is on curriculum. So it's mostly for faculty and how to integrate faculty across the curriculum and build a curricular sustainability program at your campus. There's another, it's called the sustainable professionals retreat, as the name suggests, for sustainability professionals to kind of get together and get trained and change management, get new ideas. Again, it serves a similar function to the conference, but it's more, there's a curriculum to it. Whereas the conference, you come in, in a sense, create your own curriculum. Our workshops have a defined curriculum that each participant is going to come away with. So in addition to the retreat, and the curriculum workshop, we do one on diversity, inclusion and equity and how that relates to sustainability. It's an emerging issue for many campuses and sustainability officers need to understand how that fits in with the work that they're doing and how they can be champions for diversity, equity, and inclusion. And then the final one that we've just started doing is on a change management approach called refocus. It's really about trying to figure out how to strengthen the position of the sustainability office within the organization and how to grow support. And so, I think we see within our membership, if you get a sustainability position, there's tons of projects to do. And it's really easy to get caught up in just doing projects, but never really building capacity per se and strengthening the program and gaining influence within the organization. The refocus approach just really tries to encourage practitioners as they're doing the projects, to keep in mind these larger goals, so that eventually you can get to that point where other people at the organization are doing the work for you and you're not doing each project yourself because the job is too big for any one person to accomplish by themselves. They need to be creating a broader culture of sustainability that spreads across the institution. That's really what that workshops about.

Dave Karlsgodt 9:42

Well, thank you for all that background. I think that helps. But I think what we really came here to talk about was the STARS program. And I know the AASHE stars program is considered sort of the gold standard of sustainability tracking for higher education right now. Let's dive into that a little bit. You know, I have a background in software development and have an appreciation for how much blood sweat and tears have probably gone into building the system you guys have today. But can you just start us off with a little bit of background on what STARS is, who's it for, any of the history just for context? And then I've got some more pointed questions for you there.

Julian Dautremont 10:14

Sure, so STARS is an assessment tool that hundreds of campuses use to measure and report on their sustainability performance. It stands for the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment, and Rating System. It started in 2006. Well, conversations about it started in 2006. It didn't become a live product until 2009, or technically 10, I guess, is when it officially became official, but really launched in the fall of 2009 is when we first had people sign up to start using STARS. Anyway, that structure of it, it really aims to provide a comprehensive sustainability assessment. So it looks at everything from academics, to operations, to engagement, to the administration and planning. And so institutions collected summit a ton of data about their sustainability performance. It all translates to a score, which then, in turn, translates to a rating. So you can be a STARS gold campus, or STARS Platinum or STARS silver. And as I said, we've got several hundred campuses using it and all their data is public online, so anybody can come and see why an institution was rated the way they were and what data they submitted. So transparency is a key principle for STARS and the methodology is all public as well. And that was important from the beginning because when we started developing STARS, there were a couple other efforts out there that were trying to to assess higher ed. on its sustainability performance, but, in general, they were characterized by significantly less transparency, so people didn't understand why they were ranked the way they were. And that led to some distrust in those systems that we've really tried to build into our system that anybody can see exactly how the score is generated, exactly what the institutions submitted.

Dave Karlsgodt 12:03

That makes a lot of sense, black boxing the information doesn't tend to build confidence does it? So one of the things that I hear a lot, just kind of being in and around campuses, is two things: first of all, it's beloved and everybody wants to get the highest rating possible and there's a lot of support for it, but there's a lot of gnashing of teeth around STARS as well. Namely, just the amount of time it takes for somebody to fill it out and go through that. Can you just speak to that point blank? I mean, this, it's a lot of work, right, to put this together? This is not a light, you know, something you can knock out in an afternoon?

Julian Dautremont 12:36

No, it definitely would take you longer than an afternoon, even if you had most of the data already collected, which most campuses don't. It is a lot of work. And some of that I think is unavoidable. Right, we set out to make a comprehensive and meaningful sustainability assessment and sustainability is a big, complicated topic. And so to do it justice does require some amount of work. And that has been important to ourselves stakeholders that it be meaningful, right? I think even worse than spending a lot of time collecting data would be spending time collecting data and have it mean nothing. So we've tried to really make sure that what is being collected is meaningful, and is helpful, in fact, for sustainability professionals trying to do the job of making their institutions more sustainable. At the same time, we do recognize that that is a major barrier for use of the tool. Many institutions don't have the resources to invest that much in data collection. So it's something we, in every revision, we really investigate any opportunities we can see to simplify the system without losing that methodological rigor. But yeah, the reason it's so much work is because sustainability is a large, expansive topic. And to do a meaningful assessment, we felt like, does in fact require quite a bit of work.

Dave Karlsgodt 13:52

Well, just for those like my friend Greg, who's not in higher ed. at all, who listens to the podcast, just so he understands, like, what kind of questions are you even asking? Is it just about carbon mitigation? Or is it about education? Or what are some of the topics you cover in STARS?

Julian Dautremont 14:06

It runs the gamut. So we've got the curriculum, so what's being taught in the classroom. We've got the research output, what kind of research faculty at the institution are engaged in. All kinds of aspects of operations, so energy, greenhouse gas emissions, building, transportation (both the fleet and how people get to and from campus), purchasing (all the stuff that they buy), grounds, how are the grounds maintained? Waste, of course, water use and stormwater management. Then we also look at campus engagement. So to what extent is there a culture of sustainability? How well are students and employees engaged as part of the program? We look at public engagement. So what is the relationship of the institution with its community? What kind of community engagement programs does it have? Is it working with other institutions around sustainability? Does it have any partnerships in the community to advance sustainability? And we also try to look at the social dimensions of sustainability. So that means the diversity is in there, affordability is in there, socially responsible investing. And there's probably areas of sustainability that we're not broad enough on; we're always getting suggestions that we need to look at a new issue that we haven't yet captured very well. So there is pressure in both directions both to simplify, but also to be more comprehensive, which is a real struggle for us. But it's quite comprehensive already.

Dave Karlsgodt 15:21

So some of those things sound pretty straightforward, especially on the operational side, like how are you getting your energy, for example, those are limited down to a couple of numbers here and there. But when you get into things like culture of sustainability, how do you score things like that, which are inherently subjective?

Julian Dautremont 15:36

That is something we struggle with, actually. So we look at the existence of peer to peer educational programs for students and for employees. And we try to put some metrics around the extent or the size of those programs. You know, like, what percent of the student body do they target, because many campuses will have, like, what they call an eco reps program, where they have people in every residence hall, who are the sustainability educator, and they educate their peers in that residence hall around, you know, how to recycle and how to save energy in their dorm rooms and that kind of thing. But if only 10% of your campus lives on campus, then that shouldn't get counted as much as an institution where they have a program like that, that reaches, let's say, 60% of their campus population. So we try to do some things like that, that make it somewhat quantifiable. But you're right, that it's it's incredibly imperfect. And it's something that is frustrating to us that we haven't been able to come up with a broadly agreeable way of sort of saying this is a strong engagement program. And this is a less strong engagement program. It's not as simple as I would like.

Dave Karlsgodt 16:39

No, it makes sense. But you can at least ask the questions and by asking the questions, then people have to think oh, no, we don't have that type of program, so maybe we should start it or we should think about how to expand it to more students. Or just by asking the question, I suppose you're promoting the idea that's behind it?

Julian Dautremont 16:52

Yeah. And it does give us a sense of who's doing what, which is one of the goals of this tool is to help see who's really a leader in this kind of program, who can I look to for models. So it does provide it, we have this database now, who is doing all these different strategies to try to engage the population. And I think there is a reasonable assumption that if you're doing a lot of these programs, you probably are doing a better job of reaching your campus population than if you just have very few. And again, we don't require you have all of the programs to get all the points, it's usually like a list of of options. And if you do some portion of them, you get all the points for that area. We really try to design it consciously to recognize the limitations of the data that we can get, but still provide some way of at least a common vocabulary to talk about it and to recognize programs that we know campuses are doing to try to impact student engagement on sustainability. So they, whatever they're doing, they should find a way to capture it in STARS in some way and get some credit for it.

Dave Karlsgodt 17:54

Yeah, let's talk about how do you use this information? I think you've alluded to a few things one, sounds like, knowing who's doing what. So I could theoretically contact AASHE and say: Hey, who's incorporated sustainability education into their curriculum, for example, and you guys could give me a list of schools that are doing that?

Julian Dautremont 18:11

Yeah, you probably want to ask a more precise question, because everybody is doing some sustainability in the curriculum. But yeah, actually, you don't even need to come to us, right, we've created a system so, as I said, before, all the reports are online for anybody to view. So you could go report by report and just look at campus reports for ideas. But if you want to take a more holistic look and say, okay, I want to do, let's say, some benchmarking on greenhouse gas emissions per student, or something like that, we have a benchmarking tool. So you can log in, pick the schools that you want to see, and then the data, so it's a carbon emissions per student, and it'll spit out a chart showing all the campuses you selected and what they reported as their carbon emissions per student, both in a visual format, and also a table with the data in a tabular format that you can export to Excel if you want to look at it in a different way. But we're trying to create tools so that users can answer their own questions and do their own research, and then use that information as a tool to help them more effectively advocate for increased investment in sustainability on their campus.

Dave Karlsgodt 19:13

Otherwise, you guys would just be fielding questions like that all day long, I suppose?

Julian Dautremont 19:16


Dave Karlsgodt 19:17

Good. Well, but back to my original question, I guess the ways that you use this information, so it sounds like you can benchmark you can, you know, there's the idea of just filling out the form sort of "it's the journey, not the destination" kind of approach where asking the questions forces an institution to think through all these components. But I know it's also used for other rating systems and there's just the general STARS rating that you do. What are some of the other ways that campuses use the information, or that it gets used outside of that?

Julian Dautremont 19:43

So, yeah, I think the first way that campuses typically use their program is for internal purposes, for planning and identifying where there's opportunities for improvement, where they're strong, how they compare with others. And then they can develop a plan around that like, okay, in two years from now, we want to be this level of the STARS score, or we want to have these programs in place. And that's a huge thing for especially for new sustainability staff. STARS provides a way to get a really good picture of the lay of the land at their institutions. It gives them an excuse, in a sense to talk to almost everybody on campus because you have to talk to a lot of different people to get all the data you need and that's a great sort of way to start making your way around campus and start to identify who might be a good ally, what opportunities there are for improvement, and then make a case to your stakeholders on campus for why you're focusing on one area or another. So that's the first thing. Then as you suggested, there are some pretty big reasons to do it from a recognition standpoint. So you do get the rating from STARS based on your score. The scoring data also feeds into Sierra Club's "Cool School's" ranking. So that's published every year and Sierra magazine. The STARS data also feeds into the Princeton Review's, green rankings, which they also publish a book, a guide degree in colleges, that include a ranking that's based on data that campuses submit through STARS. And then we, at AASHE, publish our own, something called the sustainable campus index, which ranks campus is in each of the categories that we assess in STARS. So you can see the top performers in the energy category, in the investment category, and water, and waste, and all the different impact areas I mentioned earlier. So there's a ton of recognition that comes with it. And our goal with STARS was to help campuses to report and communicate their progress more easily to students and employees because before STARS, lots of campuses were doing their own sustainability reports, but there was no way to make sense of the sustainability report. So again, that's another big reason that campuses do it. And then I think a last one I'll mentioned is on the education side of things. Doing STARS is an educational experience, you can learn a ton from it. And there's some really great opportunities to engage students along the way. And many institutions do either hire students to help with the process, or even use classes as a part of the data collection process. Could be an introduction to environmental studies class or a capstone course, where students actually play a role in collecting the data and entering it into the STARS reporting system. And I think it provides some valuable experiential learning into what it means to try to measure sustainability. What are the strengths and weaknesses of sustainability measurement approaches? And then they learn more about their campus as well, and what's going on in their campus, and potentially how they might play a role in strengthening their institution's sustainability program.

Dave Karlsgodt 22:34

How is STARS set up to avoid campuses just chasing the points? Because I, from what I understand, the points are set up, like, you get a certain number of points for answering yes or no to certain questions. How do you keep people from gaming the system?

Julian Dautremont 22:45

Yeah, it's something we struggle with, right? And it is a real challenge with those type of questions that are just yes/no because it does seem to encourage some out of point chasing. We've tried to create the credit so that if somebody does point chase, it's helpful. They're doing something that will actually advance their sustainability performance. They're not doing something that is just a distraction. So that's part of the answer, is trying to frame credits so that any points that people earn, it's because they've done something useful.

Dave Karlsgodt 23:14

In other words, if you're chasing points, the points are structured such that the things that they get points for are really what sustainability is all about. So you've kind of built that in, is that what you're saying?

Julian Dautremont 23:23

Exactly, yeah. That's the first part of trying to minimize the point chasing. The second part of it is that we also weight the credits within stars so that those things that are more impactful are worth more points. So we're trying to drive attention towards those things where there's a high opportunity for making an impact rather than things that the impact is less clear. So you'll see in STARS, the point value for each credit can vary quite widely. And some things are worth a lot more points and that's because we feel like that particular area and making progress in that credit has a greater impact than perhaps the other credit. So those two things collectively, I think, minimize the dangers of point chasing to a pretty significant extent.

Dave Karlsgodt 24:06

Whereas one that would be impactful, that might get more points than something that's not as important?

Julian Dautremont 24:11

So sure, a great example of credits that are highly weighted are the greenhouse gas emissions. That credit is pretty easy to measure. I know greenhouse gas emissions can be complicated, but relatively speaking, it's a fairly well established methodology for assessing greenhouse gas emissions. And so, any effofrt you make to reducing your greenhouse gas emissions is going to be positive. It's a performance-based credit, so that one is weighted really highly. Something that's weighted less highly on, like, the engagement side; we have some credits that are, in a sense, just a checklist of strategies you've taken or programs you have to engage students and the campus community in sustainability. Each of those items is going to be like a fraction of a point, whereas the energy credit, I think it's more than 10 points. So we really try to put, again, more points on those things where the benefit of a campus improving it's score is going to be higher.

Dave Karlsgodt 25:01

It's interesting, because you're right, a lot of this stuff is difficult to quantify. You mentioned that earlier, but you had to come up with a way of doing it and exposing students to that or exposing, you know, just as many people to those challenges that you already mentioned. So it's not just them beating you up, because STARS isn't perfect, but everybody sort of learning how to operate within a world of imperfect information. I think that's, you know, that's a noble effort, for sure.

Julian Dautremont 25:24

Yeah, and we hope that people who are participating in the process can help us make it stronger, right. So we're regularly doing surveys of our users. We have a whole governance process that includes technical advisors on each of the different impact areas that we cover, and then a steering committee that's partially elected by AASHE's membership and partially appointed in order to fill any gaps. But there are campus sustainability staff and others at all levels of that process, providing guidance to help strengthen the system, and we would not be anywhere close to where we are now if we didn't have that feedback mechanism. It has really made the program stronger every year because of all the ideas and feedback that we get through that structure.

Dave Karlsgodt 26:05

You know, just give us a little bit of color on how it feels to be where we are today. Like, do you feel good about the direction where things are going? Or, you know, where tell us where are you proud of how things have changed and morphed and maybe where are some places that you really see are still big sticking points that you want to improve?

Julian Dautremont 26:23

So I am really proud of how far STARS has come since it was just an idea when we were starting. And we have sort of like, seems like it would be better if there was a measurement tool that we're all using so we could compare with one another and we could talk the same language and we could try to identify, you know, campuses that are really doing great jobs, so we could learn from them. And stars really fulfilled a lot of the early goals that we had. And there were a lot of people, including us at times, that were like are like there's no way to do this. It's too hard, you can't do it fair, the higher ed. is too different, or, you know, there's a range of real challenges that I wouldn't say we've overcome, there's still challenges, but we've found a way to make a tool that worked well enough for a sizable enough body of campuses that it has really started to play the role that we hope it can. So that feels really good. Big picture, there's still room for improvement. Sustainability is not where I would have hoped it would be in terms of higher ed. priorities at this point in time. Right? When we started in the early 2000s, it was just emerging, and there was a lot of excitement and growth. And that growth continued through maybe 2012, 2013, it feels like, before it started to plateau. And not universally, there's definitely still things that are growing, but as a whole, the movement doesn't seem to be growing as fast as it was. And I'm not sure if it's moving fast enough in light of the challenges we're facing. So that is an area that I always struggle with is, there's so much to do to transform our institutions to be fulfilling their potential, to be sustainability leaders that we have not yet got to. And I think there's good reasons for it, it's totally understandable, but at the same time, it is a source of concern.

Dave Karlsgodt 28:05

Yeah. Do you think that just because going from not doing anything to starting to do something feels like a lot of progress, but when you are in the throes of it, the incremental change of day to day changes, or, you know, you're getting a little better every year, but it's hard to see that? Or is it just literally there's been some big walls that you've hit?

Julian Dautremont 28:22

I think it's different in each campus, right? Because I'm not talking about AASHE specifically at this point, but more just the higher ed. sustainability movement. So, I think there's some national political things that have slowed things down for sure, or at least taken attention off of some of the sustainability things we've been working towards, changes in executives and different priorities. It's hard to pinpoint any particular reason. I almost don't think there's anything that is a surprise or anything, like, really wrong, per se, it's just the scale of the problem that we face as a civilization, as a society is so vast that higher ed. is one piece of that and it's still fantastically hard to change at the pace that we need, is really what it comes down to. So it's not that higher ed. is doing anything wrong, or even that it's not changing, because it is changing. It's just, the question is whether it's fast enough. And that's a question that does apply to society at large, it's not just a higher ed. thing. The changes that are needed are vast and it's not clear we're changing fast enough.

Dave Karlsgodt 29:25

So, let's just come back to STARS, then it sounds like, so you've just released 2.2. Is that the current version or something close to that?

Julian Dautremont 29:31

Sorry, 2.1 is the version that is still in effect. 2.2 will be coming out shortly, but it has not yet been officially released yet.

Dave Karlsgodt 29:40

Got it. And then what, like how often do new releases come out? What does that process look like? So, and I guess with that question, if I'm a campus and I fill out 2.1, do I just have to start over for 2.2? Or is that just couple additional questions? Or how does that work?

Julian Dautremont 29:53

Great questions. So there's no fixed development timeline, so new versions come out, in a sense, when they're ready. And the time between each new version has lengthened over time. So I think 2.1 came out in 2016. So we're now 2019. So yeah, like a three year time period, just from 2.1 to 2.2. So there, there definitely is quite a bit of a gap. And then, when we do a larger revision, like what we'll be doing soon from 2.2 to 3.0, those take even longer. I don't think that's going to be... Yeah, I think it's at least 2022 probably before that comes out. Because, so we have within STARS, there's three types of changes. There's what we call administrative changes, which are fixing typos, like literally like tiny things that should have no implication on your score, just clarifications and typos basically or rewording something to try to make it clear what we're asking. Those we can do, sometimes a couple of year, when a new version comes out, just to fix issues that people have brought to our attention. Then we have what we do from like a 2.1 to 2.2. and that is called like a minor revision and there's limitations on what we can do there. We can't fundamentally overhaul the system. We can tweak some credits, add a credit here or there, but fundamentally, it's going to look pretty similar, you know, you're not going to see a huge difference. There'll be a couple credits that did change pretty significantly, but the overall structure is the same and it's pretty familiar system still. And then the big picture ones, the major revisions, they actually need to go through a whole public feedback process before they can be approved. So they end up taking quite a bit longer. And all of them, I should say too, any new version of any three of those levels, all of those changes have to go through the steering committee that I mentioned earlier. They are the final authority on any new version of STARS. So that also helps ensure that any changes we're making are going to be broadly acceptable and and make sense. And it also kind of slows down the process, which I think is probably good because I think there are some legitimate concerns about what happens when we make a change that it complicates things, it's confusing, and people don't like when we change too often. But to answer your question about what happens if you were already in the middle of doing a 2.1 submission, no problem at all. You have a year after we switch. So we will, at some point later this month, we will officially switch to stars 2.2. If you've got 2.1 in progress, you can wait until June of next year and still submit under stars 2.1 and get the rating and scoring of that version. You're welcome to upgrade and we have a tool to migrate any of your data. As long as the fields have stayed the same, your data will all go into the same place in 2.2. And then you'll just have to update. If we've changed the field, you'll have to re enter the data for that field, but we've tried to design it so that it's not too difficult to upgrade and you're not losing any work that was appropriate for 2.2.

Dave Karlsgodt 32:50

Got it. No, that makes I don't envy you managing that process as a, like I said, software developer in background I...Yeah, keeps me up at night trying to think about how to keep all that stuff in line because people don't like it when things break, but it sounds like you at least trying to address that and smooth it out as much as possible.

Julian Dautremont 33:06

Yeah, exactly. We do what we can to make it a smooth process and to minimize the transition costs.

Dave Karlsgodt 33:13

If somebody wanted to get involved with that steering committee, is that something that you recruit? Or how does that process work?

Julian Dautremont 33:18

Yeah, every fall we have sort of a governance nomination or application process. And with the STARS steering committee in particular (because we're also looking at the same time, I should say, for candidates for our advisory council, which is where the STARS technical advisors sit, and then our board as well, so the these three different kind of governance bodies: board, steering committee, and the advisory council). We recruit for them all around the same time. It's an online application. The STARS one, as I mentioned before, there are elections, so people will be invited to stand for election to join the steering committee. And the election typically happens in November. And then whoever's selected will start on the steering committee the next January. And depending how many seats are available, there may be a couple appointed positions as well and that would be, we usually appoint from the pool of people who ran for election. And often it's the runners up, but sometimes there's a reason that we want to make sure we have some perspective represented and so the steering committee will then decide, okay, let's go, let's invite this person to join the steering committee as well. But the entry point for somebody who's not on the steering committee right now is to watch out for that solicitation in the fall and put your name forward. You'll have to submit like a brief resume and a description of why you want to be on the steering committee, but it's designed to be fairly straightforward. And you can always reach out to me with any questions as well.

Dave Karlsgodt 34:42

Got it, but they can't reach out to you and blame you for every question, because it wasn't just you, right? That's not how it works.

Julian Dautremont 34:49

I mean, they can. I welcome feedback in any form, at any time. So that's fine. I always prefer when it's paired with, you know, constructive suggestions for improvement. But sometimes diagnosing the problem is important, too. We may know about it, but we might not, so it can't hurt to send it our way.

Dave Karlsgodt 35:08

Enlightened response. We'll take it from there. Alright, well, Julian, as we wrap up today's show, can you just give us a little bit of a vision for what does this look like going into the future? If we think 5, 10 years from now? What's the legacy you want to leave in your work with STARS? What is what does it look like? And how is it changing the world, you know, in the future?

Julian Dautremont 35:28

Sure. So it prompts for me STARS 3.0 and what we're thinking about for that. So that's the next big version and we've got lots of ideas, some of which will probably not happen, but I think it's helpful to put them on the table as things that we're working towards. They may not be in 3.0, but they could be picked up again for 3.1 or 4.0. So, the first thing that we're really thinking about a lot these days, and have been for a while, is can we move to a more dynamic form of reporting? So right now, campuses submit a STARS report and it's good for three years. They can update as often as every year if they want, but they don't need to. Your STARS rating is sort of legitimate or valid for three years from the date of submission. So that's great, but oftentimes campuses want to update some of their data, but not all of it. We don't have a process to allow that right now. Right now, if you want to update a single credit, you've got to submit a whole new STARS report. So we know there are campuses that, you know, their energy data changes every year, it makes sense to update it every year. The curriculum inventory, to see what percent of courses address sustainability, it doesn't necessarily change that quickly in most cases. So you might not want to update that every year. So creating a way to allow campuses to just update those things where they've made progress or have something new to report, but not be required to update every other field is one of the ideas for 3.0. And so we call that dynamic reporting. I'm also excited about trying to to expand STARS globally, right? We mostly have users in the U.S. and Canada right now. But we have a cohort of institutions in Australia and New Zealand, that is trying it. And we also have a number of campuses sort of individually in other parts world that are trying it as well. We had our first STARS gold institution outside of the U.S. and Canada recently from an institution in Ireland. So that's really exciting to me, the potential for STARS to be kind of the global platform for institutions to share their sustainability work. And as part of that we're trying to align STARS more and more with United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, which are a really powerful framework at the international level that's guiding a lot of decision making. There's lots of movement and activity around the STGs. And higher ed. too is interested in figuring out what, you know, what is our role in relation to the STGs? So to the extent that STARS can be a tool to assess that and report on that, we think that would be a powerful contribution to the global conversation. Another thing that we're looking at that I'm excited about (and I'll close with this one). So one of the ideas that we're exploring is trying to identify, within the family of STARS credits right now, what are the credits that are most representative of a transformational sustainability program? So what are the like key foundational elements of a transformational sustainability program? And can we kind of pull those out of STARS and have a real simple, or simpler, let's say more simple than doing all of STARS, just focusing on those core elements and having there be a way that campuses just getting started could just do those, it's probably like 15 items, it's not super long, it's not as long as the full stars, and have that be an entry point into STARS, just focusing on those 15 areas and reporting on that. That's something that I'm pretty excited about and I think could open the door for a much bigger population of schools to start using STARS. And then once they've got some of those foundational pieces in place, then they can start looking at some of the more quantitative, performance-based metrics that we've got and start building into doing full STARS. That's my current ideas as to what would be the best way to bring in new institutions.

Dave Karlsgodt 39:12

It's kind of like the easy form for doing your taxes, right?

Julian Dautremont 39:17

Yeah, there you go, I hadn't thought of that. But that's a good way to describe it.

Dave Karlsgodt 39:21

Perfect, okay. Alright, final question for you then is if people want to learn more or get involved, what's the best way to get in touch with AASHE, especially those who are not already members and may not be familiar with the organization?

Julian Dautremont 39:33

Sure. So the website, it's a great place to start. And then when you're on our website, you can create an account and get subscribed to our newsletters. So that's a way to stay up to date on what's going on with AASHE, what are the opportunities for getting involved, and what are other campuses doing around sustainability. And there's a number of different groups you can opt into to get those kind of communications. Beyond that, you can always send us an email, the sort of generic email is info@AASHE.org. But you can reach out to me directly if you want, it's just julian@AASHE.org, or any of you know, the staff list is on the website. And so, reach out to the person who's responsible for whatever area you're interested in, is a good place to start. But again, if you're not even sure, like, I don't know who to go to, that info address is a fine starting place. It goes to one of my colleagues, and then she'll forward it to the person who's most relevant to answer whatever question you have. And that's what we're here for. So, you know, don't hesitate. If we can be useful, we always would like to do that.

Dave Karlsgodt 40:33

Well, I'll look forward to seeing you in Spokane at the conference this fall. But thanks again for coming on the show and explaining all about STARS and your vision for a, I don't know, a sustainably measured future.

Julian Dautremont 40:46

Thank you. And thanks so much for having me. And yeah, look forward to seeing you in Spokane as well. And then I hope some of your listeners will join us there as well.

Dave Karlsgodt 40:53

Great. Thanks, Julian.

Julian Dautremont 40:54

Thank you, and have a great day.

Dave Karlsgodt 40:57

That's it for this episode. I want to give a shout out to the staff at AASHE for setting up this interview, as well as our new intern Sarah Barr, who helped to produce this episode. To learn more about today's episode or any of our shows, you can visit our website at campusenergypodcast.com. We recently added a new transcript feature on the website and we're working to add this to all of our previous episodes. If you want to follow us on Twitter, we are @energypodcast. We also recently added a page on LinkedIn. Just search for the campus energy and sustainability podcast. If you'd like to support the show, please consider leaving a rating or review on iTunes, or sending a link to a friend. As always, thanks for listening.

Episode 19: Sustainable Investing and Divestment

Claire Veuthey (left), Mike Fiorio (right)

Claire Veuthey (left), Mike Fiorio (right)

Claire Veuthey
Director of ESG & Impact

Mike Fiorio
Northland College Board of Trustees

Host: Dave Karlsgodt
Principal, Fovea, LLC

Remember the old adage, Put your money where your mouth is? Or maybe, vote with your wallet? No matter which way you say it, money talks. In this episode, Claire Veuthey of OpenInvest and Mike Fiorio of Northland College’s Board of Trustees discuss sustainable investments and how to make financial choices that reflect planet-forward values. Claire, the director of ESG & Impact at OpenInvest, a startup devoted to socially responsible investing, walks through the management of funds and investments and how they can become more sustainable. Mike discusses how Northland’s Board of Trustees reached their decision to divest from fossil fuels, and the importance of listening to student voices in balance with the university’s financial interests.

Production Assistant: Kaia Findlay


Episode Transcript:

The following is an automated transcription of this episode which will include errors and omissions. You can listen and follow along with the text here:


Dave Karlsgodt 0:00

Welcome to the campus energy and sustainability podcast. In each episode, we'll talk with leading campus professionals, thought leaders and engineers and innovators addressing the unique challenges and opportunities facing higher ed and corporate campuses. Our discussions will range from energy conservation and efficiency to planning and finance, from building science to social science, from energy systems to food systems, we hope you're ready to learn, share and ultimately accelerate your institution towards solutions. I'm your host, Dave Karlsgodt. I'm a principal at Fovea an energy, carbon and business planning firm.

Claire Veuthey 0:33

If your business is so extractive that you're going to lose all your customers, and you're not going to gain any new customers, that's not good for your business over time, it might be great this quarter, but in a couple of years, no one's going to be coming to you if

Mike Fiorio 0:44

you if our ultimate objective is to attract good students who want to be difference makers, change makers in the world, and make this place a better planet. The fact that we are divesting from fossil fuels, helps to college go out into the world and shout it out from the mountaintops and attract good students. And once they understood that, it was an easy transition.

Claire Veuthey 1:12

I think we've gotten to the point where it's more normal for folks to think about their purchasing decisions, like what they eat, what they were, what they drive or don't drive, but it's a little bit less common for folks to think about that in their investment portfolio.

Dave Karlsgodt 1:27

In this episode, I talked with two financial professionals about the concept of sustainable investing. My guests are Claire Veuthey of open invest, a public benefit corporation dedicated to making socially responsible investing easier and more accessible. And Mike Fioriro, a current member of the Board of Trustees at Northland college, a private liberal arts college in Ashland, Wisconsin. In our conversation, we talked through the various ways that individuals and institutional investors can promote sustainable business practices through their investments. We also discuss the Northland College Board of Trustees decision, divest from fossil fuels through their endowment. One quick update from our team. As I mentioned, in the last episode, we had a great response to our recent job posting about our summer internship program, we're excited to announce that we hired not just one but two interns. In addition to helping me out you'll hear from each of them individually as they produce their own episode over the summer. For now, I hope you enjoyed this may 2019 conversation with Claire Veuthey and Mike Fiorio.

So Claire and Mike, it's great to have you on the podcast today.

Claire Veuthey 2:32

Happy to be here. Thanks, Dave.

Mike Fiorio 2:33

Thanks. Dave agreed.

Dave Karlsgodt 2:36

Well, we've got a full plate of topics to get into today, some institutional investing 101 we might say and, and hopefully some real world experience around divestment. But before we dive in, maybe each of you can give a few minutes just to introduce yourself and how you found yourself working in and around this topic. Claire, maybe we'll start with you.

Claire Veuthey 2:55

Sure. So my day job is as director of ESG and impact at open invests and we're a pretty early stage startup in the socially responsible investing space. I also have a second job as a student. I'm a part time student in the Berkeley Hoss MBA for executives program.

Dave Karlsgodt 3:15

Great. Yeah. Mike, you want to give us a little introduction, please?

Mike Fiorio 3:18

Sure. I'm Mike Florio, I am He recently retired 60 year old man, who for the past 33 years, was a principal in a financial advisory firm in northern Wisconsin. over my career spanning four decades, I helped numerous investors individually as well as institutional wrestling with the concept of socially responsible and ESG investing. I'm also a trustee. Now going into my fourth year with a small liberal arts environmental college with a sustainable bent Northland, Northland college, and through my involvement at Northland, and my chairmanship of the business affairs committee and investment committee have helped the college wrestle with the notion of divestiture from fossil fuels, and through that relationship with Northland, and in an effort to get some good information, became acquainted with the intentional endowments network. Northland is now a member, I believe now for its third consecutive year. Normal college is 125 year old institution that is situated on the south shore of Lake Superior Northland is fairly unique in that it intertwines the liberal arts with the sciences, environmental sciences, natural resources and sustainability. Majority students at Northland, go there for the natural resources, environmental studies, outdoor education and sustainability course offerings.

Dave Karlsgodt 5:11

So I'd like to start with just some basics. I think most of our listeners know, you know, what a pension is, or what an endowment is, we don't need to get that basic. But I know for most people that have been in and around campuses, and they've heard of this divestment campaign, led by students are, like, you know, students storming the offices of the President, for example, demanding that the university divest of fossil fuels. But I know there's a lot of passion around this, but there isn't necessarily from my experience, a lot of deep understanding about how endowments work, how institutional investing works, etc. So Claire, I know you have a pretty good solid history of, of just institutional investing in general. So maybe you can give us a little bit of a background, who are the people making these decisions, or what or who even talking about here.

Claire Veuthey 5:59

So this really two major players, and then a whole ecosystem that has emerged around those players you have with the industry, cos asset owners, and they are, at the end of the day responsible for the assets and the funds that we're talking about. So that will be endowments, family foundations, often and at the small scale, it'll be individual people in their and their own personal funds. Then you have asset managers. So they're the professional investment folks like my company, for example, who are hired to manage assets on behalf of asset owners. And between asset owners and asset managers, you have a whole host of other service players, so many large asset owners will work with investment consultants, for example, who helped them find asset managers. In earlier parts of my career, I worked with a number of service providers that worked provided research for asset managers that we would rate listed companies on environmental, social and governance issues, for example, and there's a whole host of other providers that help both of those actors do their jobs better.

Dave Karlsgodt 7:04

Got it so that the like a university endowment, for example, would need to work with an asset manager or would leverage the work of a firm like the one you just described.

Claire Veuthey 7:13

Exactly. Yeah. And it would likely work with quite a few asset managers, actually, it would work with one for the fixed income, depending on the size of the endowment, one for fixed income, maybe a couple in the equity space, some in in real estate and private assets. Yeah, I could work with a whole stable of asset managers.

Dave Karlsgodt 7:29

So Mike, it sounds like you have done some of this work as well, in your career. Anything to add here, just ton of mechanics, the basics of what we're talking about, who are the players? And

Mike Fiorio 7:38

that's a good question. I would just add to what Claire said, Yes, from a perspective of both a past financial advisor and also current trustee of Norfolk college, I think you start with the fact that anybody who is charged with fiduciary responsibility of managing money, whether that be the trustee of the organization, an officer of the organization, or the actual asset managers, we are all trustees, or fiduciary, as I should say, and fiduciary duty of care to manage that money with lots of prudence. And there is a federal Act, which euphemistically, is called a myth, uniform prudent management of institutional funds act that has been adopted by 49 states, the District of Columbia, and the US Virgin Islands. And it's a enact that requires a duty of care for people like myself and Claire, that requires us to create a roadmap for the institution. And those of us in the industry refer to that as an investor the policy statement. And it's nothing more than a roadmap that lays out what the institution's goals are asset allocations, and expected return over the long haul, benchmarking of returns on the institutions portfolio to indexes. And as trustees, producers, officers of the organization, we use that roadmap and live and die by it. Part of an investment policy statement can include ESG and that's kind of the starting point for conversation of every organization with respect to inclusion or exclusion of investments that relate to the mission of the institution, such as divested or fossil fuels.

Dave Karlsgodt 9:52

So is that similar to like, I know, as a personal investor, you know, have a retirement fund. And they, they always make you fill out the form that says, you know, how aggressive Do you want your investments to be? You know, when do you expect to retire, things like that? Some of those seem to be just communication with the investment professional that I work with, but some of it seems to be they need to justify why they're making certain investments. Is that kind of similar to what you're talking about? But in this case, with an institution rather with an individual?

Mike Fiorio 10:20

Yes, yes, absolutely. And, you know, names and faces on, officers and trustees of organizations come and go, but the investment policy statement remains the same unless it is amended. And it truly is a roadmap. It's a living document, and over time, it can be changed and often is

Dave Karlsgodt 10:42

by a member. Okay, so if if you are in an institution, and you get to the point where you can amend that type of a document to say, okay, we'd like to increase the sustainability of our investments in some way, whether that's, you know, getting out of fossil fuels or or, you know, some other sustained ability goal, what are the different ways that that that can be pursued then? So maybe, Claire, I'll throw this one to you. I mean, like, what, what are the tools available to the institution at that point, or to the investment manager, asset manager, as you alluded to a second ago?

Claire Veuthey 11:17

Yeah, absolutely. There's really three methods, if you will, that sustainable investing can be implemented. The first is the one that's best understood, and that people really think about first when I think about socially responsible investing or sustainable investing, and that's exclusion. Right. So traditionally, Quakers, for example, when they started thinking about responsible investing, they said, Well, we don't want to own defense companies, that's just not in line with our passive, its values, it doesn't make sense for us to have a company that's really primarily manufacturing the products of war in our investment portfolios. So you can avoid companies whose activities you don't agree with or you don't think are sustainable in the financial sense or, and any other sense, really, there's a corollary to that which some people call positive screening, which is the opposite, right? You seek out companies that you think are doing good, and that fit your mission as an organization, and you can overweight those or include them when they wouldn't naturally be included, depending on your investment style. So that's the first method. The second method is a little bit more nuanced, and, and really aligned with how traditional investment managers work. And that's what I would call integration. So it's really looking at environmental, social, and governance factors as factors in the valuation work and in the calculations that go into figuring out a terminal multiple for a stock, for example, so when a fundamental analysts will peel through all the financials of a public company and say, Okay, well, we think the stock is worth x, but the market is pricing at why. And we think it's worth buying, because the stock will go up, we believe in business, part of how they can make that evaluation is based on environmental, social and governance issues. For example, if the company is creating products that allow people to reduce their energy use or replacements for energy intensive products, for example, beyond meat, just IPOs. And I think much of the interest around that stock has to do with folks choosing plant based options instead of meat based options. So that would be integration. Yeah, just

Dave Karlsgodt 13:19

to stop you there. So that would be an example. Like, it's not just that they're not doing bad, it's that what they're doing has a market for it, people are excited about their product, because it's something that hasn't been done before. But it also has, you know, environmental benefits to it that you could argue as well,

Claire Veuthey 13:35

exactly. Okay. And the third method is called engagement. So if you sit on the investor side, you'll call it company engagement. And if you sit on the company side, often it's called shareholder engagement. And that's really when those two parties talk. It can be very formal, but it's not a scripted or process that has really formal channels, like proxy voting, for example, it really has has to do with developing a trusted relationship. And the there's a number of ways to do that. But it's really about a conversation between shareholders and management or representatives of management, with the shareholders often counseling, pressuring, badgering, you know, depending on the conversation, the company to do more, or at minimum, disclose more about its impact on the environment or on social issues. Its plans to manage risk to its business based on climate change, for example, or changing societal norms, things like that. So that would be engagement. That's kind of a third way that investment managers can implement and integrate environmental, social and governance issues into their investment process.

Dave Karlsgodt 14:42

Okay, but that's real humans talking to each other. That's not just people buying or selling the stocks. It's not a market signal. It's real conversations.

Claire Veuthey 14:50

Exactly. each other. Yeah, exactly.

Dave Karlsgodt 14:53

And when that happens, who is who's at the table there? I mean, how, like, describe an example of what that looks like, in your more in a real sense, not in the general sense.

Claire Veuthey 15:02

Yeah, there's a huge range. I think, from the environmental, social and governance side, the folks who have been really good at this are long standing asset managers who've really at and they don't necessarily hold a huge piece of the stock, it really helps to get a meeting with management if you hold a big piece of the company's shares. And to be clear, these are publicly listed companies they are that means they're owned by the public, and very big asset managers will own a relatively big piece, which was often just a couple of percentage points. Right, BlackRock, just a gigantic asset manager, I think it's 6 trillion in assets under management often won't hold more than 15, or 20%, of a listed company. And for really big companies, it's more like 234 percent. So big, really big asset managers can easily get those meetings, but they're not always as informed about the environmental social governance issues. Smaller managers who really made their name in yesterday, engagements will will have developed deep relationships internally on not only with Investor Relations, but often also with the sustainability folks at the companies they're speaking to. And they'll overtime, you know, have a quarterly or bi annual call saying, Well, how are you doing on this issue? We asked you about last quarter. What about now we know you have other stuff to focus on. But keep keep this in mind. This is one of those important but not urgent issues. Eventually, what happens if the conversation isn't fruitful, shareholders will put together shareholder resolution and then try to put together a coalition of investors who will vote for that resolution and and try to get management attention that way.

Dave Karlsgodt 16:37

Okay, so that's more of a nuclear option at that point, because then it's more of a formal process versus just a conversation.

Claire Veuthey 16:43

That's right, exactly.

Dave Karlsgodt 16:45

Okay. I didn't fully appreciate that, when we were, you know, kind of prepping for this call. So thanks for that clarification. Is that something then that, like, say, if you're thinking about a university? I mean, is it conceivable that representatives of the University are every university endowment would be involved in a conversation like that? Or is it just the people that they would hire their asset managers that would do that?

Claire Veuthey 17:06

Either, or, we found that big asset owners who have the teams and the capacity to think about this deeply will do it themselves. So calipers, for example, like really big entities will often do the engagement themselves. I think the reality is that most asset owners don't have the ability to have a big team that's, you know, constantly really informed about these issues, and needs to rely they need to rely on their asset managers. Sometimes they'll split the difference, they'll say, Okay, well, we really know a lot about these issues. And we're going to keep engaging companies on climate change in corporate governance, but all the other issues, which are important, but are, you know, the issues of the day, for example, or that that kind of come and go or that are more technical, maybe they'll push those to the asset managers. But by and large, I think asset owners should feel free to push their asset managers to engage on their behalf. That's part of the investment process.

Dave Karlsgodt 17:57

Yeah. That you may not know the answer sort of this. I mean, I assume you don't sit you're not a CEO. But what would be the motivation of the senior leadership of these businesses to take these meetings? Is it because it gives them insight into what their shareholders are thinking? Or is it? You know, it's, I mean, if it's just a few percentage points, I can't imagine that it's not like they can take control of the company. Talk me through that? What would be the motivation?

Claire Veuthey 18:21

Now? Good question, uh, all of the above. And I think the most productive conversations like that, that I've been part of, generally, the CEO gets it, they know that this is an issue for their company, and they generally appreciate that shareholders will, will flag it, it's not just Oh, those pesky shareholders, we kind of need to do something to make them happy. I think the the CEOs that are the most engaged and and frankly, where you see the most change in the company is when they get that it's a long term issue that they need to think about. And they appreciate the nudge from their shoulders, I was on a call with a couple of years ago, and it's pretty unusual to have a CEO doing the cost, and it's an IR Investor Relations representative, maybe, you know, you really work at right, the corporate secretary or someone from the board. But in this case, the CEO was there was really active, really informed really knew a lot about the issue we're talking about, and really on the same page, and it was just about the kind of information shareholders want to disclose about work the board was already doing and the management was already doing so often. You know, in the best of cases, that's a situation the board says, look, we already have views on all of us, we just didn't feel the need to make it public. Because that's a threshold of particular scrutiny that companies tread carefully, which I understand, I think, to your point, CEOs, give those shareholders the time of day because they're like, Oh, wait, maybe there's something here that we either haven't been thinking about enough or that is going to get bigger, and we'd like to understand it better before it becomes a resolution in a couple of years time.

Dave Karlsgodt 19:49

Got it. In other words, they they may be doing good work and having lots of internal conversations. But making it public is both a lot of work, you know, you have to message it right. But also opens you up to risk and terms of talking about things either, you know, maybe competitive advantage is gone. Or there's other aspects of that, why they wouldn't say those things, but shareholders pushing them might. It opens the door for others to see. Okay, this, our competitors are doing this, so we should too.

Claire Veuthey 20:15

Absolutely. Yeah, exactly.

Dave Karlsgodt 20:18

Got it. Um, one thing I forgot to ask you, can you explain what it is that your firm does? I mean, where do you fit in this ecosystem you just described?

Claire Veuthey 20:26

Yeah, absolutely. So open investors, we use all three methods. So the portfolios we put together are designed to track benchmark indices very carefully. So they're really passive investments. But they're customized individuals and endowments values, right. So if you're a Family Foundation, really concerned about conservation, and you can make sure that your endowment In addition, for example, to your programmatic funds, are really aligned with your overall organized organizational mission. And what we'll do put together a portfolio that, for example, avoids companies that are the worst on deforestation practices, and overwhelms the companies that are the best. So that would be the positive and negative stream screening or exclusion and inclusion method that I described first. Because we're a passive shop, actually, we don't use that second tool, because we're not building individual evaluations for the companies, we really rely on the benchmark index provider to have a view on the way each company should have in a portfolio. And we use that as our baseline. The third method, and this is really novel, actually, we have a pending patent on this process. We've really distill down proxy voting. So that is simple and intelligible. Because it's a highly regulated process, it can get quite technical. And it's a little tricky to understand if you're not thinking about corporate governance all day, which most people, understandably, are not. So what we do is really distill down there often, but not always shareholder resolutions, but anything that needs to be voted on at a company annual meeting, that shareholders have the right to vote on will will distill the ones that are relevant to sustainability concerns down to a pretty simple question, provide our clients and investors with all the context they need, if they want to dig in more deeply, and then allow them to vote on their phones literally with a swipe. Yes or no on on on a proxy vote on those resolutions. So yeah, I'll take it back. We don't use the second tool, but we do use the investment divestment tool and the shareholder engagement piece of it.

Dave Karlsgodt 22:31

Well, two questions there. So one, part of the reason you don't use that second is because I assume you need enough scale or enough like if you're calipers, you if you have enough scale that you can absorb the administrative costs of taking on that engagement process. Yeah,

Claire Veuthey 22:44

that's right. Absolutely, we are looking to partnerships, and that's something I'm working on actively is working with other investors who are like minded and have similar views on the same issues. And this happens a lot actually, in the space investors will band together, aggregate the waist of the shares that they all collectively own, to push a particular point of view. So we are small, still on the asset side. But that really hasn't stopped other proponents and other asset managers from really making a difference. And really having the ear of some big companies on some important issues that they were, you know, conveniently ignoring before, there's actually a great story, a woman named Natasha Lamb who works at a company called agenda capital, who's led a series of really remarkable campaigns, particularly on gender pay equity over the last couple of years. And she's been engaging with a number of companies for years. And then I think when she just didn't see enough progress, submitted resolutions, shareholder resolutions at a bunch of financial services, companies and a bunch of tech companies, encouraging them to disclose on the gender pay gap and the gender pay difference within their employee base. And she's she's gotten a lot of attention, I think, really raised the issue in a way that hadn't been raised properly before.

Dave Karlsgodt 23:58

Basically, you don't have to do that, because you've got people that are focused on that. And you can pay attention to them and join forces with them. Maybe take the lead on other aspects of, of making them exactly,

Claire Veuthey 24:08

yeah, and I think that's the way these Coalition's work best because, you know, companies know their businesses really well, you can't just ask them to do things differently without being really informed, which is which is right. And it's pretty hard for investors who own even just 100 stocks, much less than, you know, thousand different different stocks to be as informed on all the issues as the management representatives are speaking to. So I think the best way for investor Coalition's to work is this divide and conquer approach, say, Okay, well, you asset manager x really focus on the climate issues and will really focus on the social issues will make sure that we're in sync, so where we agree on the position the other has taken, or we don't, you know, we don't join when we don't agree, or we have a different take, but it really allows for more traction and better quality discussions, frankly, between shareholders and companies, when you have that kind of structure.

Dave Karlsgodt 24:58

Okay, that helps in it. And then back to your proxy, you know, I guess it's like Tinder for proxy voting or like, the, you're simplifying it down so people know what they're voting on and giving them a chance, because I imagine that a lot of people just don't vote on stuff. Exactly. They just never take the time. So it's it's sort of like midterm elections that a few people get to make a bigger impact with their voting because they take the time to do it, or is or is it? Or is it structured such that the big shareholders have more sway, so

Claire Veuthey 25:31

it's not structured such but if you're an asset manager, you need to vote on behalf of your clients, so they are your asset owner, what happens most of the time is the default position is to vote with management. So you can see the how this becomes a little bit of a circus, right management puts together the agenda, all the points that need to be voted on the board says we recommend you vote x and most asset managers vote x, they don't even look at what the issue is. They just say management knows company best. We're just going to vote x. But okay, yes, sometimes. So there's obviously a lot of accountability, I have to say getting a shareholder resolution on on the ballot is pretty tricky. Already. There's a whole number of hurdles, you can't just file whatever you want, you need to own a certain number of shares, you need to have on them for a certain number of a certain number of years. It can't be considered meddling in the company's business. Since that not, that's not the investors role. It's usually about more information for investors from the company. And then even if a resolution were to pass and get over 50% of the vote, they're not those resolutions are not binding. So it and this has happened. Unfortunately, management can just choose to ignore the results, it behooves management to take a closer look and say, Okay, well 20% of our shareholder base thinks is an important question. Maybe we should take a look. It's just it's just not a great look to totally ignore that kind of results when you have a vote like that. But it but it definitely happens.

Dave Karlsgodt 26:54

Got it, maybe a way of putting it would be a resolution would be effective at getting things like disclosure, the, you know, gender pay gap example you gave a second ago, not necessarily saying we think you should go into this market, or we think you should try this product or something like that. That's that's management's job. So that's not

Claire Veuthey 27:10

correct. That's exactly yeah, investors generally shouldn't be making that kind of recommendation. But they can ask for more information. That's pretty standard. And you can see how it's a bit of a Trojan horse, right? The idea is, make sure you one, do if you don't have the data on gender pay gap within your company, you probably should. So please go set up those controls, and then report back to us on what the results are. And then you know, once the report is out there, because it's it will be made public. The expectation or the you'd expected company to do something about it, the numbers are really bad. Of course, they don't have to, but you'd hope that they would, that's part of the the point of asking for more information is then you know, acting on it?

Dave Karlsgodt 27:53

Well, it's interesting to hear you describe it from your perspective, as a consultant, we have been getting more inquiries from for profit company, most of our work has traditionally been just higher ed, where there does seem to be a little more of a mission link to, you know, the sustainability goals. Maybe they're being pushed by their students or faculty, as Mike alluded to earlier. But we're starting to see that in some for profit companies, and largely it is coming from shareholders. So I guess, good work, you know, on that front, but turning the conversation back to higher ed. Mike, I guess I would be interested in getting your perspective on those three methods that Claire just laid out, as a trustee or as a board of trustees, how have you interacted with those tools?

Mike Fiorio 28:33

Well, I would say that, in my experience over the past 33 years in the industry as an advisor, and now in the last three, as a trustee, it's been an evolution. Early on, there were a few money management investment companies out there that did socially responsible investing, you know, internally, they were charging a bit of quite a bit of money for what they did. Now, over the decades, things have come along, and it really isn't rocket science anymore. institutions. And individuals can invest money in a plethora of investment products that are sliced and diced to meet consumer demands. And it can be anything from, you know, plain vanilla mutual funds to exchange traded funds to separately managed accounts that will screen out specific industries, companies or search out companies that leave no, no mark on the planet with respect to carbon or humanity. With respect to north from college, I can say with certainty that Northland’s journey probably started easily 20 years ago, like you said, early on, we have demands from both students and faculty to divest from fossil fuels, the likes of AOC, and young people in general, who aren't afraid of the establishment, they're leading the charge and demanding change. The end of the day, this vision of higher learning its mission is to educate students. And in the absence of students, you know, there is no mission. And the objective of every institution of higher learning is to get students and if you're not listening to your audience, they'll go somewhere else, if you're not going to do your job, someone else is going to do it for you. So, you know, maybe this is a good segue into processes. But the process by which Northland ultimately went from essentially no holds barred, our objective is to earn as much money as we are fiduciary capable with the least amount of risk to doing that, with some attention to the planet, part of that journey led to the intentional endowments network, and me behind the scenes seeking some of the data that would help me go to, you know, 60, and 70, and 80 year old people who have spent their lives in business, in business, the ultimate objective is profit, any business whose objective is profit, you know, without it, they're out of business. So in the effort to make that case, in touch on the dominance network, provided me with some empirical evidence that would help me understand my fiduciary duty. And then from there, I always try to keep it simple. You know, Frank Luntz, who is a marketing guru in the car industry and now with the the Republican Party, says that it's not what you say, it's what they hear. And, you know, my goal in leading the conversation with trustees about divest from fossil fuels, was to help them understand that a as a fiduciary by divesting from fossil fuels, we are going to sacrifice returns necessarily on our underlying endowment portfolio. And be if our ultimate objective is to attract good students who want to be difference makers, change makers in the world, and make this place a better planet. The fact that we are divesting from fossil fuels, helps the college go out into the world and shouted out from the mountaintops and attract good students. And once they understood that, it was an easy transition, you know, divest from fossil fuels, in my view is a beginning. It's a starting point.

Dave Karlsgodt 33:06

Well, let's get into the specific process of this a little bit. Maybe, Mike, you could speak specifically to what did you guys actually do like, well, how did you actually get fossil fuels out of your investments and interest, an ongoing process? What did you actually go through? You had these conversations? At what point did you pull a trigger on a policy change or process or, you know, when did money start flowing from one account to another?

Mike Fiorio 33:32

Well, it was, like I say, this process, I think, started 20 years ago, and I came in as a trustee, I would say maybe a year into a conversation, trustees, collectively meet at our institution, just four times a year, quarterly. And it took, I would say, two years to go from starting the conversation myself, that is to having the conversation I just had with you about you know, it's not about sacrificing returns necessarily. But it is about doing what's right. being consistent with our mission. We do those things, the rest of the challenges of attracting good students. We're going in the right direction. After tabling the divesting of fossil fuels from our endowment over the course of several quarters. Finally, they got it they understood. You know, from a business persons perspective, climate change, Frank Luntz is the one that coined the term climate change. You said, global warming is not a warm and fuzzy. But climate change can be palatable. And that goes to it's not what you say, it's, it's what they hear. If you start conversations with if we don't start changing our ways, the planet is going to spin out of control, and we're all dead meat, you have to begin with maybe somebody those those ideas, but what about those ideas? And how can we change them, while at the same time not affecting our bottom line on the endowment, but our bottom line, in terms of attracting more and better students is a good conversation to have. And that's when they understood that we could do this, and then it was tabled for one more quarter. And we came in with a a motion resolution that said, we're going to do this, we're going to divest will give ourselves up to five years to make it happen. You know, your wheels are in motion. Our investment manager is essentially we're in private, separately managed accounts. And we're screaming out the fossil fuels. You know, again, that's a starting place. And I can see going forward into the future, you know, maybe not only screaming out fossil fuels, but tempting to start to look at, you know, carbon footprints of companies. And even beyond that. And again, it's not rocket science, there's a million in one ways of easily doing these things. And in terms of costs, which are part and parcel of a producer is responsibility to keep them low. Costs are compressing all the time. It's very competitive.

Dave Karlsgodt 36:24

Yeah. So let me just summarize what I've heard then. So first and foremost, it was expensive initially, because nobody really knew how to do it. And it was basically a boutique service offering at that point, but the costs have come down. The second part was the conversation with the rest of the trustees really had to focus on how does this help us be better trustees and be better stewards of the money that we're being trustees of promoting the mission of the institution and things like that? Maybe with the backdrop of climate change, but not certainly not? We're going to save the world through our dollar investment. It's really more about we're going to make a great university because we're investing in a smart way. Is that a fair way? To summarize it?

Mike Fiorio 37:03

Yes, it would be the only other thing I would add is your best friends in effecting these changes are your faculty and your students? And that's where change comes from, ultimately, that they're, they're pushing

Dave Karlsgodt 37:19

for that. Got it? You don't have lots of quippy sayings on T shirts and the Board of Trustees meetings, most people are pretty buttoned up, it sounds like, yes. Okay. Claire what maybe you, go ahead

Claire Veuthey 37:32

I just want to jump on a point that Mike made earlier, I think asset managers and an asset owners actually have a duty of care as a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value, and that has increasingly or overtime really been interpreted as maximizing the stock price. But you can see value isn't only an exclusively encompassed by the stock price. There's lots of other components. And lots of investors, and other folks will tell you, it's not the only thing they care about, right? They want the business done, right? They want it to be sustainable again, in the traditional financial sense, if your business is so extractive that you're going to lose all your customers or, and you're not going to gain any new customers, that's not good for your business over time, it might be great this quarter, but in a couple of years, no one's going to be coming to you. And I think that's a pretty easy concept to understand, even if you're only focused on returns. So I just want to be a little bit cautious about this, this idea of fiduciary duty, it's it's super important. But we can be a bit quick to rush to that to the idea that it's just about maximizing the share price and not a slightly more holistic understanding of what value

Dave Karlsgodt 38:41

Yeah, fair enough. I mean, there's both short term value long term value, but there's also societal value. And that's starting to become I mean, those are intertwined. Right. Or another way I've heard that put is, if we really do see massive impacts from climate change, then the economy itself is at risk. It's not about right, choose between one or the other. It's just that it. Yeah, there is no economy at a certain point, if it gets too bad.

Claire Veuthey 39:06

Exactly. There's there's no business on a dead planet.

Dave Karlsgodt 39:09

Fair enough? That's a good way to say it. I want to bring up a question, then I think both of you, I would venture a guess would consider yourselves capitalists in the general sense. You know, basically, the basic idea of Adam Smith's invisible hand saying that as long as you have good information that, you know, markets are the most efficient way to organize your economic system, rather than like a Soviet style command control. But that said, the the key point that I think people often forget is, its access to information is central to that idea. I'm curious how much access there is to this information. I know that, like I mentioned earlier, some there are companies coming to us now and saying, Hey, we need to get this information out there to the world for people to look at. But I would say frankly, most of what I'm seeing out there is not particularly detailed. And there's a lot of you know greenwashing information or just inadequate information, or just people just don't know how to capture this, as investors are from your perspectives? Are you seeing enough information to make these types of decisions? Is that getting better? Or just just talk to me about that, that idea? Or you know, or argue my my premise in the first place?

Mike Fiorio 40:17

day? That's a good question. There's a lot of information out there, I would start by mentioning a study I read, and I'm thinking it's maybe five or six years old now. That was done by Merrill Lynch. The study essentially made an attempt to create a an ethical score for all the larger capital life companies, publicly traded companies in the United States, and then correlated, those ethical scores with long term performance. While behold, those companies that had good ethical scores tended to perform better than those that through out the window, by ethical, I'm talking about companies that don't cook their books, treat their employees respectfully apply best practices, or regulatory hot water. Those are the companies that are the good long term performers. And in recent history, what comes to my mind is balling, you know, bowing his head, it's your issues recently, and course, their stock prices suffered. And it gets down to maybe 11% or so over its highs in recent history. There many, many other examples, Volkswagen, you name it in banking as Wells Fargo, I think there's plenty of information that will give investors and investment companies enough information to make reasonably good choices and who gets into the portfolio and who doesn't.

Dave Karlsgodt 41:58

So Claire, same, same question to you. So how, how does your firm for example, help your clients separate the greenwashing from actual actionable information?

Claire Veuthey 42:08

So let me take a step back and just talk a little bit about sustainability reporting. Sustainability reporting isn't regulated or very lightly. So which means that companies essentially disclose what they want, when they want and how they want. And as you can imagine, they largely disclose what makes them look good when it makes them look good, you know, when it's convenient, and they're not putting out other fires. This makes it really hard for investors to compare that information between companies, which really is how investors make decisions, right? They say, Okay, well, we can own a, we want exposure to the financial sector, we're looking at consumer finance, let's look at these four companies that have relatively similar business models. But I can't compare them on this one issue because they all disclose one of them discloses things on a two year cycle and the other set targets for years ago, but hasn't updated anything or told us how they've done on their targets. And the last one doesn't disclose anything. So it makes it really hard to really make an informed decision based on that kind of data. And I'd say that the big environmental, social and governance data providers have largely built their business on the fact that there wasn't a clear formal standard understanding of what issues which should matter to which companies, I'll just put a little plug in here for an organization called SASB, which is the sustainability Accounting Standards Board. And they really jumped into this yawning gap that existed, I think, back in 2011, which is when the organization was formed, and modeled themselves after the FASB, all right, well, investors say they care about these issues, but companies aren't disclosing them. Well, companies say none of our investors care, or if they do, they're all asking for different things. And we can't disclose everything, please be more directive or more specific about the information you want to see. Issue experts and other stakeholders are generally disappointed with the quality of disclosure or companies are putting out really beautiful reports that aren't made for investors, they're made for their community, maybe their regulator, often they're made for their employees. And they're, they're more story based than database, which again, is an investor would want to see data and stories are great, but only to inform and give a little color on the data. So it says we did was spent four or five years, working closely with big investors, you know, Vanguard, Wells, capital, State Street groups like that big companies that were engaged and interested in working on these issues and a number of subject matter experts. So accountants, securities lawyers, folks who knew the environmental social issues really well, and came up with a set of standards of how sustainability issues should be disclosed. And they came up with very technical disclosure saying, you should disclose this particular metric normalized by sales on a quarterly basis. And here's an example, size, he's been working on this really hard, they finally put out their first set of the first final standards in q3 or q4 2018. So this year, we'll really see whether whether companies step up to the plate and say, Okay, well, now we have the standards that we've been asking about for a long time. Let's see what the numbers look like, let's see if they if they actually use them, of course, this is, it's not mandatory, it's not regulated, yet, for companies to disclose any of this. And under this sec, it's unlikely to be regulated, but companies now have have the tools that they need, they may need a year to set up controls in order to really disclose the data properly. But I think 2020 will be really interesting to see which companies actually use the tools that have now been created for them to disclose sustainable, there's

Dave Karlsgodt 45:53

a lot of parallels to the higher ed world, a lot of the reporting, there has also been a challenge. A lot of our work tends to be just cleaning up their reporting data so that we can start talking about what to do about it. You know, there's a lot of just filling in the gaps. But yeah, I mean, how is it? So it sounds like it's getting better? And is it? I mean, could we expect that from every level of company? Or is it just the large companies that will be able to disclose that information? What can we expect?

Claire Veuthey 46:17

Hmm, um, so I've been lucky to work in a couple of regions around the world. I was based in Singapore for a couple of years, and in Amsterdam, Switzerland. And I'd say there's definitely a regional bend. So by and large, Western Europe is very good at this kind of disclosure. And I think it's at least in part because big investors there have been pushing for longer. The US is, is picking up especially the really big companies, but really the defining factor of which companies are, do a good job disclosing environmental, social governance issues or which companies compete at a global level. So you'll have companies like Wipro, in India, or Taiwan, semi based in in Taiwan. So companies firmly based in emerging markets, they compete again at a global scale, and they know that their clients, to some extent, their suppliers, and certainly their investors are interested in these issues. So to answer your question, it's mostly larger companies, though, increasingly, we're seeing it go down the market cap, and smaller companies are kind of getting the picture and realize that they need to have somewhat better answers. To be fair to small companies, often they're already doing some work on the side, they just don't disclose it publicly. So they're, maybe they're new to being listed or smaller companies just get less scrutiny, because they're not generally as widely owned as really big companies. But most of them are sort of getting the memo and realizing that they need to be a little bit more public about what they do on the environmental and social side. Yeah.

Dave Karlsgodt 47:42

And I guess we're talking about publicly traded companies here, not necessarily just companies in general, because the private company doesn't have to do any of this. They don't want to right. I mean, there's no,

Claire Veuthey 47:50

very little That's right. Yeah, that's right, though, again, you'll have some great private companies that will, will disclose but that's strictly because they choose to not because they're required to got it.

Dave Karlsgodt 48:00

Okay. All right. So one other after seeing all of their hearing about all of the tools and and mechanics of this, how big of a stick Do I really have as an investor? It sounds like there are different ways I can engage. But I guess coming back to an institutional investor, so somebody that's involved with, like, like, Mike is with that as a board of trustee. How big of an impact could I or how big of a stick do I have?

Mike Fiorio 48:25

My take on this is we live in an economic democracy. And by that, I mean, both how we spend our money collectively, and how we invest our money speaks to what we're talking about today. And well, perhaps individually as, as individual investors or institutions, we don't have a ton of clout. collectively we do. And in this day and age, with the advent of Facebook and social media, you can getting lots of people on the same page, at the same time, witness various commentators on various networks, losing advertisers, because of what they've said, The same holds true in investing. Every day, what we spend our money on and what we invest our money yen ultimately, has an effect on the direction of what what's important to we the people.

Dave Karlsgodt 49:28

So in other words, from a public relations perspective, there's an outsized impact. So if you can get enough people on board saying the same message to the same company, they'll change their ways. Is that good summary?

Mike Fiorio 49:40

Absolutely. That's Adam Smith.

Dave Karlsgodt 49:43

So Claire, what about logistically, I'm like, if I really want to get a meeting with the CEO, and I am involved with the university pension fund or something like that. I mean, how does that work is I don't imagine that person charged with managing the money directly is, you know, having lunch dates with the CEO, a company they're investing in, but how can they engage? What does that look like?

Claire Veuthey 50:04

There's a couple of interesting ways that investor can make a difference. And we touched a little bit earlier on shareholder engagement, which I think can be very effective, though, to be fair, it's often quite slow. But there are lots of there are lots of other ways. And I think part of the point we're trying to make at open invest in something I really firmly believe in personally is that consumers have a lot of power to, and employees have a lot of power. So if you work for an organization that isn't, you know, really meeting the bar of what you think it should be doing on sustainability, I think you probably have more power than you think, again, going back to your point of all of us being capitalist, I think what you buy also makes a big difference. And that includes in your investment portfolio, I think we've gotten to the point where it's more normal for folks to think about their purchasing decisions, like what they eat, what they were, what they drive or don't drive. But it's a little bit less common for folks to think about that in their investment portfolio, even though it might be you know, one of the biggest parts of their personal net worth or you know, some of the biggest assets they have, they're often just sitting on the shelf in something really standard instead of a little bit more, a little more oriented to how the how the individual sees, sees the future and wants to

Dave Karlsgodt 51:16

In other words, we spend a lot of time thinking about what kind of straw we do or don't use. But meanwhile, we have most of our network tied up in the investments that are really driving the world.

Claire Veuthey 51:26

I think so yeah, I think we have more power than we think in that space. And there's, again, part of what open investors trying to change is activate all of that. Because if you stop someone on the street and ask them, would you if there were no financial trade off? Would you want your assets invested in line with your values in the way that you see the future and the world that you want to exist? I'd like to think most people would say yes. And we can do that. Now. It didn't always used to be the case many of these products were and continue to be really expensive. But increasingly, again, a bit of a plug for my employer. But there's there's other ways to do this. You can get investment products that are standard from the financial point of view and very aligned from an environmental, social and governance point of view.

Dave Karlsgodt 52:09

No, that's good news. Well, let me turn it back to students for a second. I know that a lot of institutions, unlike Northland college, the efforts to pursue divestment in particular have fallen flat. Are there other ways students can get involved? Or you know, Mike, now that you've guys have kind of achieved that? Where are your students getting involved?

Mike Fiorio 52:29

Northland, just recently, some urging from me, the north on college faculty and staff and students just started a fund, they call it the northern college resiliency fund. And it actually, for governance reasons, is just a part of the main downer, but it's a separately managed part of it, they are funding it with some of the fees from students and staff, every reduction, faculty and staff, you know, their goal is to help the college affect change in the world. I'm interested to see how they grapple with the question of making money attempting to make money so that they can fund their desired goals from the spending of some of the income from the fun with the realities of being a fiduciary and all that goes into that. But I can see this small college and its students and faculty, learning about social justice and how they might affect change through, you know, shareholder proxy votes. And I'm just very curious to see how that works. But, you know, I think they're going to make some noise and ultimately, you know, through collective wisdom of all kinds of investors, and consumers out there, you can affect change, you know, companies Listen, and if you're not doing your job, someone else will do it for you.

Dave Karlsgodt 54:02

Okay, well, shifting gears, then, if people listening to this young professionals are interested in getting into this space, what does this look like for them today? What are the different ways they might get involved? And I would say, maybe ranging from, you know, the very business-centric side, maybe the investing side, but also from the activism side, what are some of the opportunities for them, Mike, go ahead first and all that clear, filling?

Mike Fiorio 54:24

Sure, just a basic comment first, and then maybe some advice. I have a son who attends a university, and he's in the sciences. But essentially, what we're talking about here is being well rounded, and leaving your options open. Well, he's a scientist, his minor, is in entrepreneurial ship, and recently had a great conversation with him about a course he took called the business of science. And essentially, a liberal arts background. never heard anybody, whether you're a scientist and mathematician, or what have you, ever, the ability to communicate well is never a bad thing. With respect to maybe some advice on making money saving the world. And I gave my son recently, some advice, who was a senior, and it was draw a Venn diagram, three circles in each circle, right, a question. The first question is, what do you do best? The second question is, What gives you the most joy? And the third question is, how can you best serve? And where those three questions intersect on that Venn diagram is where your career lies. And if you do those things, there's a place for you in this industry, if that's your desire, and your passion.

Claire Veuthey 55:53

So if you're interested in sustainable investing, as a career, I think there's lots of ways to get into it. Right? what I've seen is before looks either come in from the environmental, social and governance side, or from the traditional investment side, and they will parlay the experience they have in one or the other to move into this hybrid space. But to be fair, I did most of my training 10 or 15 years ago, and things have changed. There's a lot more curriculum focused on sustainable business. And there was before and I think folks can come out of higher ed, much better equipped than I was to really contribute productively in the space immediately. I started my career with research providers, I think it was close to my my grad work since I was a kind of a social sciences major. And a lot of the qualitative research I was doing there was very similar to the work that I did in my first job where I rated publicly listed companies on environmental, social and governance issues. You can also start as an investment analyst, and either on your own time or hopefully, with the blessing of your employer, really learn more about sustainability issues and how they might show up in the companies you're analyzing. As we mentioned earlier, there are lots of other roles here. So I know some folks, especially after business school, but not sometimes before business will will go work for an investment consultant. Some like Cambridge associates, will work directly with mission driven organizations and will help them pick asset managers. And that can be a great way to understand the field. There are also other avenues into this world. So one of the co founders of the company I work for now, Josh Levin, spent six years at the WWE on the sustainable finance team, and then met up with some old friends of his and co founder, the company I work with. So there's lots of different avenues. I think you have to be directive, it's not going to happen by accident. But if you have your eye on the ball, you can move into the space.

Dave Karlsgodt 57:45

All right, well, final question. Just to wrap this up. It sounds like there's a lot of change going on in this space. It sounds like it's come a long ways from where it started thinking 1020 years out? What's your vision for what this might look like? Mike, you want to give us our first pass at that

Mike Fiorio 58:01

I looking in the rear view mirror of my career, or the past 30 plus years, I've seen tons of change in this industry. And I see no reason why going forward into the future, the pace of change won't easily equal it or exceed. And I look forward to what might come up.

Dave Karlsgodt 58:22

Great. Claire, last word goes to you.

Claire Veuthey 58:24

So if we do really well, as an industry, if we continue to do well, and frankly, I've seen amazing growth just in the last 10 or 15 years. I think that investing and sustainable investing will essentially be the same thing, at least long term investing. If you're a day trader or a corporate raider and really thinking very short term. I'm not sure ESG issues will matter because they often play out a little bit more slowly. Not always. And there's been some pretty notable examples of that. But hopefully, my ambition would be those two things to be the same and for environmental, social and governance issues just to be part of part of regular investing.

Dave Karlsgodt 59:06

Excellent. Well, I want to thank you both for taking the time today and and digging through the weeds of some of these conversations, as well as some of the higher level background and perspectives that you both bring. So thank you very much for your time. And thanks for coming on the podcast.

Mike Fiorio 59:20

Thanks for having us

Claire Veuthey 59:21

Thanks for having us Dave.

Dave Karlsgodt 59:22

That's it for this episode. I did want to give a big shout out to the staff the intentional endowments network that helped connect me with today's guests. You can learn more about IEN at intentionalendowments.org. To learn more about today's episode or any of our shows. You can visit our website at Campus energy podcast. com. You can follow us on Twitter, we are @energypodcast. If you'd like to support the show, please consider leaving a rating or review on iTunes or sending a link to a friend. As always, thanks for listening.

Episode 17: Designing a Sustainable Future: Intersections of Energy, Buildings & Engagement at the University of Washington

Devin Kleiner (left), Chris Meek (right) Kyle McDermott (left), Chris Hellstern (right)

Devin Kleiner (left), Chris Meek (right)
Kyle McDermott (left), Chris Hellstern (right)

Devin Kleiner

Senior Project Architect, Senior Associate

Chris Meek
Associate Professor of Architecture
University of Washington

Kyle McDermott
Campus Sustainability Fund Coordinator
University of Washington

Chris Hellstern
Living Building Challenge Services Director
The Miller Hull Partnership

Host: Dave Karlsgodt
Principal, Fovea, LLC

In this episode you will hear a live recording made during the 2019 Washington Oregon Higher Education Sustainability conference on the campus of the University of Washington. The session was entitled: “Building a Sustainable Future: Intersections of Energy, Infrastructure, Student and Community Engagement in Campus Design with Global Reach.” We discuss two new cutting-edge buildings on the University of Washington campus. We also talk about how students were able to affect the design and sustainability features incorporated into these buildings through engagement and through funding provided by the Campus Sustainability Fund, a program funded through student fees.

University of Washington, Life Sciences Building Photo by Kevin Scott

University of Washington, Life Sciences Building
Photo by Kevin Scott

University of Washington, Population Health Building The Miller Hull Partnership

University of Washington, Population Health Building
The Miller Hull Partnership