University shareholder engagement and sustainability-related disclosure

Why University Investments Matter for the Climate

Many people know that universities teach students and do research, but far fewer realize that these institutions also control billions in investment funds. This paper asks a down-to-earth question: can even a relatively small university use its role as a shareholder to nudge companies to be more open about their climate impact, instead of simply selling off their shares? The answer matters for anyone interested in how ordinary investors, not just financial giants, can influence corporate behavior on climate change.

From Campus to Boardroom

The study partnered with the University of Geneva’s endowment fund, which manages about 100 million Swiss francs—tiny compared to typical North American university endowments. The researchers focused on 51 publicly listed firms in Switzerland (and nearby) where the university held very small stakes, on average just 0.002% of each company. These firms either did not measure their greenhouse gas emissions, or measured them but did not clearly report them in their annual reports. The team designed a field experiment that mimics real-world investor action: they sent carefully crafted letters asking companies to measure and disclose their carbon emissions across three standard categories, from direct emissions at their facilities to indirect emissions along their value chains.

Testing Who Speaks for the University

To understand what makes engagement more effective, the researchers randomly varied who signed the letters. Some were signed by the university’s rector (the top academic leader), some by the treasurer in charge of finances, and others by two professors. All letters went to the chair of the company’s board, with copies to investor relations, and were written in the firm’s language. The message was polite but clear: the university, as a shareholder, wanted better carbon information in the company’s main reporting. By randomizing the signatory, the authors could tease out whether it was the university’s formal authority, its financial role, or its academic voice that mattered most for companies’ reactions.

How Companies Responded

The results show that even a small shareholder can get corporate attention. Within twelve weeks, 71% of the targeted firms replied. About one-third of all firms—and nearly half of those that responded—gave positive or partially positive answers, saying they would start measuring emissions they had ignored before or bring existing emissions data into their annual reports. Companies were more likely to respond favorably when the letter came from the rector or the treasurer than from professors, suggesting that firms take signals from top university leadership especially seriously. Geography also mattered: firms located closer to Geneva tended to respond more positively, hinting that shared language, culture, or simply ease of interaction can make climate engagement more persuasive.

Looking Under the Hood

Diving into company characteristics, the study found that firms with stronger profits, measured by return on assets, were more inclined to agree to the requests—perhaps because they have more resources to devote to new reporting efforts. In contrast, the actual size of the university’s shareholding showed little or no positive effect on outcomes, and in some robustness checks, firms with smaller university ownership were slightly more likely to respond positively. The number of alumni from the University of Geneva working at a given firm also did not systematically change the results, suggesting that social ties alone were not a key driver. Instead, the combination of the university’s public standing and physical proximity appeared more important than its financial clout.

Do Promises Turn into Action?

Crucially, the authors checked whether positive replies were just pleasant words or translated into real changes. They followed companies’ reporting into 2022 and 2023, before Swiss rules made carbon reporting mandatory. Firms that had responded positively in 2021 were several times more likely to fully disclose all three categories of emissions later on than firms that replied negatively or not at all. By 2023, roughly one in ten of all targeted companies had reached full disclosure, and this improvement was strongly linked to earlier positive engagement outcomes. This pattern suggests that the letters did more than generate polite correspondence—they helped shift reporting behavior.

What This Means for Climate-Conscious Campuses

Overall, the study concludes that a modest university endowment can push companies toward better climate transparency through direct engagement, even when it owns only a sliver of their shares. The most effective approaches draw on the university’s institutional authority—especially when leaders like the rector or treasurer are visibly involved—and on relationships strengthened by geographic closeness. For students, faculty, and alumni debating whether universities should sell off controversial holdings or stay invested and try to change firms from within, these findings suggest that thoughtful engagement can be a meaningful tool for advancing climate-related disclosure, and potentially broader sustainability goals, alongside or before divestment.

Citation: Jouvenot, V., Caballero Cuevas, Y., Darbellay, A. et al. University shareholder engagement and sustainability-related disclosure. npj Clim. Action 5, 31 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44168-026-00354-6

Keywords: shareholder engagement, university endowments, carbon disclosure, sustainable investing, corporate climate reporting