By: Heidi Kwok, Staff Writer

Every June, SFU’s marketing team paces restlessly in front of their computers in anticipation of the green light. Then, right on cue, they begin preaching about the university’s position as a world leader in sustainability and climate action. There’s no escaping the self-congratulatory press releases that echo the same sentiment, year after year. However, while SFU celebrates its sustainable accomplishments, the university’s environmental progress is consistently undercut by its contradictory investment practices, revealing a troubling case of greenwashing.  

Over the years, SFU has made some strides in committing to its targets for fossil-fuel divestments and reducing the campus’s operational greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; however, these achievements cannot be taken at face value without examining the hidden fine print behind them. SFU’s 2022–2025 Strategic Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (SEMP) concludes this year, which provides an opportunity to critically assess the university’s public commitments to sustainability and climate action against its actual practices.

In November 2021, after years of pressure from student groups like SFU350 and the DivestSFU coalition, SFU finally acquiesced and committed to a full divestment and decarbonization of its investment portfolio to become fossil-fuel-free by the end of 2025 (also listed under Goal 5 of the SEMP). They simultaneously pledged to reduce the carbon footprint of the public equity portion of SFU’s investment portfolio by 60% below the reported 2016 baseline by 2025. The reduction target was then changed to 45% somewhere along the way. Did they keep their promises? Well, according to SFU’s Investment Portfolio Carbon Footprint, the university achieved a 74% carbon footprint reduction in early 2024.

This figure appears impressive — and SFU definitely markets it as such — but the number distracts from what really matters: where the university continues to invest. What the university fails to mention is that they continue to hold equity in fossil-fuel-related corporations (mining and pipelines). Including the likes of Pembina Pipeline Corporation, Teck Resources, and Agnico Eagle Mines Limited — the latter two of whom have been publicly condemned for polluting natural habitats and threatening endangered wildlife. SFU’s investment portfolio also includes stakes in fast-fashion companies like Aritzia and serial-polluter Nestlé.

Perhaps even more egregious is SFU’s investment in establishments that harm beyond the environmental and labour sectors. Despite being a signatory of the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment, in addition to emphasizing investment practices that align with the environmental, social, and corporate framework, SFU continues to hold investments in the defence and military arms production industries. These assets include holdings in Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation, CAE Incorporated, and Mitsubishi Corporation.

Nevertheless, that is not to discredit all of their accomplishments. In 2022, SFU surpassed its pledge to reduce operational GHG emissions by 50% from 2007. They have also actively transitioned away from fossil-fuel-derived energy in favour of carbon-neutral alternatives like the campus’s Corix biomass plant. Their commitment to carbon reduction is applaudable. SFU also joined the UN’s Race to Zero campaign to reach an 85% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030 and achieve net-zero by mid-century.

Nonetheless, SFU’s operational wins don’t erase the harms caused by their financial portfolio. In fact, the tension between their climate leadership on campus and their complicity in harmful industries is precisely what makes their greenwashing so damaging. 

This type of performative sustainability reveals SFU’s pattern. The university’s climate achievements are consistently undermined by practices that contradict the values it claims to hold.

It is insincere of SFU to flaunt themselves as a leader in sustainability and climate action when the university continues to financially benefit from fossil-fuel and war-adjacent industries despite ongoing protests from student advocacy groups.

This is antithetical to an educational institute that aspires to preserve the world for future generations.

SFU’s lack of transparency and deliberate failure to forefront the small print behind their greenwashed investment practices speaks to their concern for their brand image’s well-being — rather than for the climate crisis itself. If the university wants to genuinely lead by example, they must put their money where their mouth is. Instead of using deceiving numbers to mislead and distract from reality, they need to hold themself accountable for their harms. This can be done by publicly acknowledging their shortcomings and welcoming dialogue from the university’s community on areas to improve.