By: Lucaiah Smith-Miodownik, News Writer

SFU’s Responsible Investment Policy has become a serious topic of discussion in recent years.

Specifically, SFU community members have raised ongoing concerns regarding the university’s investment in companies embedded in the military industrial complex. In March 2024, SFU’s Faculty for Palestine (F4P) released a petition asking SFU to divest from the arms industry, featuring over 1,300 signatures. In response to these community pressures, SFU committed to reevaluating its investment policy on May 30, 2024. On June 7, the SFU Faculty Association passed two motions that were proposed to them by F4P, one of which further pressured SFU to divest from military arms producers. 

For many, the most recent draft policy has left much to be desired. The Peak corresponded with F4P, as well as the university, for more information on the decision making processes behind the policy, and the future of the university’s investments.

F4P released a letter on April 2, 2026 expressing concerns regarding proposed changes to the outline. “As documented in the Custodial Statement of Endowment Investments, SFU holds or has held shares” in BAE Systems, Booz Allen Hamilton, and CAE. F4P notes they are “corporations that derive the vast majority of their revenue from military equipment and  services.

“The weapons and services of these corporations have collectively facilitated the killing, maiming, or displacement of tens of millions of individuals, primarily in the Global South. These are not abstractions — they are lived realities.” They specified, “Many SFU students are here in Canada because of war.”

The faculty group noted that the revisions include “no reference to military arms production, no screening criteria applicable to weapons manufacturers, and no process for evaluating or acting on the community’s democratically expressed position.” The Peak could not access SFU’s draft policy.

“SFU has committed to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, including reducing poverty and gender inequality, promoting environmental sustainability, and  promoting peace,” the letter continued. “The university’s own strategic plan declares it a community working to ‘make a difference in the world’ and ‘address humanity’s most complex problems.’ Investments in arms production and other military services are fundamentally incompatible with these commitments.”

Since the letter, “there has been no reply from the Board,” F4P told The Peak.

“After two years of waiting, they produced a draft policy that not only disregarded the concerns of a great many faculty, students, staff, and alumni, but they are poised to hollow out whatever matters in the current investment policy” 

— SFU Faculty for Palestine 

When The Peak asked about investments in weapons manufacturers, SFU stated that “the defence sector is multifaceted, encompassing companies that support national security, peacekeeping, disaster response, and technological innovation,” adding that “SFU’s investment managers assess companies for human rights risks, political instability, and social issue related concerns.” The university also explicitly stated that it “does not have any investments in arms manufacturers.”

The university’s 2025 endowment investment report features both Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Company and CAE. While not a producer of tanks, Booz Allen Hamilton develops military engineering and technology used for weapons. Similarly, CAE provides military services through training and simulations. SFU has not released their investment report for 2026.

“[SFU] may have traded out of a couple of these recently, but the SFU admin is completely disingenuous in this regard. If not, why not ban these investments in the so-called responsible investment policy?” 

“SFU’s Responsible Investment Policy should include a clear and enforceable screen excluding corporations that derive significant revenue from military arms production and military services,” reads the April letter. “This commitment should be anchored in the policy itself — not left to administrative discretion — and should be accompanied by a transparent timeline for  implementation. 

“It is long past time for the Board to act on these democratically expressed positions.”