At the start of this term, Varsity published the findings of a three-month long investigation into the investment practices of the University of Cambridge that was undertaken in tandem with the Cambridge University Sustainable and Responsible Investment Coalition (CUSRIC).

Our investigation found that many colleges have morally questionable investment practices, often in contravention of standard codes of ethical investment. The University, unlike UCL, St. Andrews and many other top universities, does not have an explicit ethical investment policy.

On Tuesday 29th October, Daniel Macmillen from CUSRIC, who led the campaign, and student journalist Josh Simons, gave a presentation at St John’s College on the investigation’s findings. The presentation was organised in conjunction with the Cambridge University Russell Society, a focus group established last year “for Cambridge students interested in conflict-resolution, peacekeeping and the causes of and alternatives to political violence.”

Macmillen and Simons started their presentation by explaining the endowment structure of the University of Cambridge. Cambridge is Europe’s wealthiest university – it has an endowment of £5 billion, of which £3.2 billion is tied directly to the colleges.

However, according to Macmillen and Simons, very few people actually know what is in the University’s own £1.7 billion endowment, as nearly all of it is delegated to fund managers.

When approached by the CURSIC, the University declined to reveal details of its investments, arguing that it would harm their competitive interests as smaller organisations would mimic their investment practices. However, Simon’s claimed that a recent paper, published by MIT and Harvard, has proved that exact argument is actually false.

Furthermore, Trinity College, which has an endowment of £900 million (meaning that if it was an independent university, it would be the third richest in the UK), was far more forthcoming in revealing its investment portfolio.

However, as Simons and Macmillen went on to discuss, transparency from colleges does not relieve them of their moral duties. Nearly all the colleges of the University of Cambridge have direct and indirect investments in arms manufacturers and, more worringly according to Macmillen, extractive companies that destroy communities in their mining operations.

Macmillen gave a particularly shocking example of the mining company Rio Tinto’s role in the Bougainville Civil War, which he described as being one of “the world’s most forgotten conflicts.”

Bougainville is a small island off the coast of Papua New Guinea. The Bougainville Civil War, which was provoked by the continued water contamination and environmental destruction of Rio Tinto’s mining operations, killed 15 per cent of Bougainville’s population. Rio Tinto is one of the most popular companies on the list of colleges’ unethical investments.

But what can students do to change the investment practices of their colleges? Simons emphasised the plurality of methods available. For example, the Peterhouse investment policy explicitly states that it excludes investments that are “likely to alienate a sizeable proportion of the members or benefactors of the College.”

Therefore, Simons argued, Peterhouse students hold the power in their hands. If they want to enact change, they just need to prove that they feel alienated by their college investing in companies that provoke conflict, such as Rio Tinto, in order to oblige the college to divest from the company. Similar campaigns would be possible and are necessary at other colleges, Macmillen stressed.

This is not the first time that the University and the colleges have come under pressure to review their ethical investment practices. However both Simons and Macmillen, as well as members of the audience, stressed the importance of gaining and maintaining momentum in any such campaign to ensure that the University and colleges do not just “wait it out”, for the current dissatisfied cohort to graduate.