Sustainability or Tokenism? An Ethical Review of ESG Investment Portfolios in New Zealand Universities

Sustainability or Tokenism? An Ethical Review of ESG Investment Portfolios in New Zealand Universities | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Sustainability or Tokenism? An Ethical Review of ESG Investment Portfolios in New Zealand Universities Abhinav Singh This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6916898/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Universities increasingly adopt sustainability frameworks to align their financial practices with social and environmental values. Among these frameworks, Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investing has emerged as a prominent expression of institutional ethics. This study examines the ESG investment policies of all eight public universities in Aotearoa New Zealand to assess whether these initiatives represent genuine ethical commitment or function primarily as symbolic gestures. Using a qualitative document analysis approach, the research analyses investment policy documents, sustainability strategies, and annual reports to evaluate the extent of transparency, stakeholder involvement, Indigenous inclusion, and policy alignment. The findings reveal that while ESG principles are frequently referenced in institutional rhetoric, they are often weakly implemented, lacking enforceable guidelines, clear reporting mechanisms, or meaningful governance structures. Māori ethical frameworks are notably absent from investment oversight, despite public commitments to the Treaty of Waitangi. Moreover, there is minimal stakeholder engagement, particularly from students and Māori communities, in the development or review of ESG policies. The study concludes that ESG in New Zealand’s university sector remains largely performative and recommends governance reform to embed transparency, bicultural ethics, and participatory accountability. By transitioning from symbolic to substantive ESG practices, universities can enhance the legitimacy of their sustainability commitments and fulfil their responsibilities as public, Treaty-bound institutions. Responsible investing University governance Sustainability ethics Māori perspectives ESG policy implementation Introduction Over the past two decades, universities across the globe have sought to embed sustainability into their institutional missions. Nowhere is this ambition more visible than in the rising adoption of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investment policies. These frameworks enable institutions to allocate their financial resources in a manner that aligns with their stated commitments to social justice, climate responsibility, and ethical governance (Hill, 2020 ). In the context of higher education, such policies extend beyond mere fiscal strategies—they serve as instruments of institutional identity, shaping how universities position themselves in an increasingly sustainability-conscious world (Gary, 2016 ). New Zealand’s universities are no exception to this trend. Several institutions have made public declarations of sustainability intent, such as commitments to carbon neutrality, fossil fuel divestment, and social equity investment principles. This is reflective of broader shifts in Aotearoa New Zealand’s public sector governance, which increasingly integrates Māori ethical concepts such as kaitiakitanga (guardianship) and manaakitanga (care) into institutional discourse (Daugaard & Poyser, 2023 ). However, there is growing scepticism about whether these ESG investment initiatives reflect authentic ethical alignment or amount to performative sustainability — policies that serve symbolic rather than substantive ethical purposes. At the heart of this critique lies the tension between ethical commitment and fiduciary responsibility. Universities, as stewards of public funds and custodians of intergenerational equity, are uniquely positioned to lead sustainable finance initiatives. Yet, a lack of transparent disclosure, absence of stakeholder participation, and limited incorporation of Indigenous perspectives raise concerns that ESG policies are often constructed to satisfy reputational goals rather than moral obligations (Finatto et al., 2024 ; Rekker et al., 2024 ). This disjuncture invites critical examination of the ethical integrity of university ESG portfolios. Moreover, while there is a burgeoning international literature on responsible investment in higher education (Ramani et al., 2024 ), there remains a significant gap in region-specific analysis. Aotearoa’s bicultural governance frameworks, Treaty obligations, and Pacific geopolitical context suggest that global ESG models cannot be uncritically applied. Little empirical attention has been devoted to evaluating whether New Zealand universities’ ESG investment strategies truly integrate these unique ethical and cultural dimensions. Furthermore, the role of students, academic staff, and Māori stakeholders in shaping investment decisions remains largely unexamined in institutional governance literature (Chirapattanakorn, 2018). This article, therefore, undertakes a critical review of ESG investment policies across New Zealand’s public universities to explore whether they demonstrate genuine ethical alignment or serve as instances of institutional tokenism. Specifically, it examines policy documents, investment frameworks, and public disclosures to assess: The transparency and accountability of ESG investments. The integration of Indigenous values and stakeholder input. The consistency between stated sustainability goals and actual investment practices. In doing so, the research not only contributes to debates on ethical finance in higher education but also raises broader questions about the responsibilities of universities as public institutions in a time of ecological crisis, Indigenous resurgence, and ethical scrutiny. ESG and Higher Education Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investing has transitioned from a niche financial approach into a global framework through which institutions—particularly universities—signal ethical responsibility and social awareness. As higher education institutions are increasingly seen not only as centres of knowledge production but also as ethical actors in society, ESG principles have become mechanisms through which universities can enact their moral and civic commitments (Hill, 2020 ; Richardson, 2019). The integration of ESG in universities often originates from student and staff activism, broader public concern regarding climate change, and institutional strategies to bolster reputational capital. For instance, divestment campaigns—especially those targeting fossil fuel industries—have been influential in pushing university endowments towards adopting ESG-aligned investment policies (Gary, 2016 ). Yet, the meaning of ESG remains complex and contested. ESG is not a unified standard but a multi-dimensional framework comprising a range of evaluative metrics across environmental sustainability, social justice, and ethical governance. These criteria are interpreted and weighted differently depending on institutional goals, regional regulations, and cultural values (Boubaker, Cumming, & Nguyen, 2018). In the university context, ESG engagement manifests in various forms: exclusionary screening (e.g., avoiding investments in tobacco or weapons), positive screening (e.g., supporting renewable energy initiatives), or impact investing, where returns are balanced against demonstrable social or ecological outcomes (Singhania & Saini, 2023). However, the diversity of approaches raises critical questions about consistency and ethical coherence. Universities that adopt ESG strategies often do so under ambiguous or self-defined standards, allowing for considerable discretion in how “ethical” investment is operationalised (Zaman, Nadeem, & Carvajal, 2021). Furthermore, ESG adoption in higher education is increasingly tied to institutional governance frameworks. According to Finatto et al. ( 2024 ), universities that integrate ESG into strategic planning tend to reconfigure internal structures, including the establishment of sustainability committees or the revision of investment policies to reflect broader stakeholder input. However, the extent to which such governance structures reflect meaningful participation rather than symbolic compliance remains under-researched, especially in contexts outside North America and Europe. The university's role as a long-term institutional investor also intensifies the ethical imperative. Unlike private entities driven by short-term gains, universities manage endowments and public funds intended to benefit future generations. This intergenerational stewardship aligns conceptually with ESG objectives, particularly in terms of climate risk, social equity, and governance transparency (Hill, 2020 ; Gary, 2016 ). Yet, fiduciary duties can conflict with ethical imperatives, posing dilemmas around risk, return, and responsibility. Some university finance committees, for example, cite fiduciary duty to maximise returns as a reason for resisting full divestment from carbon-intensive industries, despite their ESG commitments (Perera, 2024). Critically, in the higher education landscape, ESG is not merely a financial tool but a symbol of institutional ethics. It intersects with the university’s broader values around academic freedom, equity, and public accountability. The use of ESG frameworks provides a structured way to embed these values in financial governance, yet without transparency and external oversight, ESG can become a vehicle for ethical posturing rather than authentic reform (Zharfpeykan & Bai, 2025 ). In sum, ESG has become both a mechanism and a metric for university ethics in the 21st century. While it holds potential for aligning investment with institutional missions, its adoption is not inherently ethical; rather, it must be critically examined for depth, rigour, and cultural relevance, particularly within region-specific and Indigenous governance contexts such as Aotearoa New Zealand. The New Zealand Context Aotearoa New Zealand presents a unique ethical and political landscape for examining ESG investment in higher education. Unlike jurisdictions where ESG is predominantly shaped by shareholder activism or corporate governance codes, New Zealand’s university sector operates within a bicultural constitutional framework, underpinned by Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi). This dual commitment to Western institutional norms and Indigenous Māori values positions New Zealand universities at a complex ethical intersection—one that challenges conventional models of responsible investment. Bicultural Governance and the Treaty of Waitangi All eight public universities in New Zealand are Crown entities and are legally bound to honour the principles of the Treaty. This implies obligations to incorporate Māori values, voices, and partnership models into decision-making processes, including financial governance (Daugaard & Poyser, 2023). While universities have made strides in embedding te reo Māori , cultural competency, and partnership policies within academic and administrative domains, this ethos is not consistently reflected in their investment frameworks. Despite public declarations of support for Māori advancement, most university ESG investment policies lack any formal reference to kaitiakitanga (guardianship), manaakitanga (care and respect), or rangatiratanga (self-determination)—principles that underpin Indigenous conceptions of sustainability and ethics (Rekker et al., 2024). The ethical disconnect between these values and actual investment strategy raises questions of tokenism and missed opportunity for culturally embedded sustainability practices. National ESG Standards and Sector Policy At the national level, the New Zealand Superannuation Fund has emerged as a global exemplar in responsible investment, adopting rigorous ESG filters and publishing exclusion lists that include fossil fuels, controversial weapons, and tobacco (Onademuren, 2021). However, there is no binding requirement for universities to adopt similar standards. This regulatory gap has produced policy heterogeneity across institutions, with some universities implementing modest ESG screens while others continue to hold opaque portfolios with little sustainability disclosure (Zharfpeykan & Bai, 2025). Although the New Zealand Universities’ Strategic Investment Framework encourages long-term ethical planning, it lacks ESG-specific mandates. In practice, ESG implementation tends to be left to university finance committees or outsourced investment managers, many of whom follow global benchmarks that may not reflect local cultural, social, or ecological priorities (Ramani et al., 2024). Climate Leadership and Divestment Movements Student-led campaigns for fossil fuel divestment have been a powerful force in shaping university ESG engagement in New Zealand. The University of Otago became the first to divest from fossil fuels in 2016, followed by Victoria University of Wellington and the University of Auckland. These actions were heralded as ethical leadership, yet they also exposed the limits of voluntary action. Without sector-wide benchmarks or external audits, universities can claim ESG compliance while continuing indirect investment via pooled funds or passive index strategies (Finatto et al., 2024). Moreover, some universities have resisted divestment, citing fiduciary obligations or financial returns. This reflects a deeper ethical tension between risk aversion and responsibility. In a 2021 stakeholder report, several university administrators expressed concern that excluding entire sectors might compromise financial performance or violate their duty to maximise returns (Perera, 2024). Such arguments suggest a narrow interpretation of fiduciary responsibility—one that risks marginalising ethical obligations to climate justice and intergenerational equity. Indigenous Ethics and ESG Integration Perhaps the most critical omission in New Zealand’s ESG landscape is the lack of Māori-led frameworks for responsible investment. Rekker et al. (2024) argue that sustainable finance must be reimagined through Indigenous perspectives, which emphasise collective wellbeing, ecological stewardship, and spiritual connection to land. Māori investment entities—such as iwi-led trusts—have already pioneered approaches that incorporate whakapapa (genealogy) and tikanga (customary ethics) into financial decisions. Yet, universities have largely failed to engage with these models, perpetuating a monocultural view of sustainability. This omission is ethically significant. Universities cannot claim ESG legitimacy if their investment frameworks do not reflect the bicultural foundations upon which they are built. As Treaty partners, institutions have not only a legal obligation, but also a moral duty to centre Indigenous ethics in their governance of resources. Methodology This study employs a qualitative document analysis methodology to examine the extent to which Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investment policies within New Zealand’s public universities reflect authentic ethical commitments or operate as symbolic gestures. This approach is particularly suitable for evaluating institutional practices where data are embedded within textual artefacts such as policies, reports, and public statements (Bowen, 2009). Document analysis enables the researcher to trace the alignment between institutional narratives and operational frameworks, especially in contexts where ethical intentions are not easily quantifiable. The investigation is grounded in a critical-interpretive paradigm, which views policy texts not merely as administrative records but as social constructions of organisational ethics. Given that ESG investment practices are both performative and strategic, the study seeks to interpret how universities communicate their values and responsibilities through formal documentation and whether those declarations translate into coherent governance practices (Yanow & Schwartz-Shea, 2015). Research Scope and Sampling The research examines all eight public universities in Aotearoa New Zealand, ensuring sectoral representation across regional and institutional scales. These include: University of Auckland University of Otago University of Canterbury Victoria University of Wellington Massey University University of Waikato Lincoln University Auckland University of Technology Universities were selected because of their public mandate, fiduciary responsibilities, and growing involvement in ethical investment discourse. The focus was exclusively on publicly accessible documents sourced from official university websites, institutional repositories, and open government platforms. Data Sources and Collection Document collection was conducted from August to November 2024. The following categories of material were included: ESG or ethical investment policies University investment strategies and policy statements Annual reports (from 2019 to 2023) Climate action plans and sustainability strategy documents Press releases and responses to student or stakeholder activism Council minutes and financial committee reports (where publicly posted) These documents were downloaded in PDF or HTML format and catalogued for thematic analysis. No institutional permissions or private data sources were required, as all content analysed was available in the public domain. Analytical Process Documents were coded and analysed thematically using a hybrid deductive–inductive strategy. Initial codes were developed based on existing ESG literature, including concepts such as “ transparency ”, “ fossil fuel exclusion ”, “ Māori value integration ”, and “ governance structure ”. These were refined through close reading and iterated as new themes emerged. The coding process was managed using NVivo to assist with pattern identification and category tracking across the institutional dataset. Three core analytical dimensions guided the interpretation: Policy Transparency – Are investment objectives and ESG filters clearly articulated? Ethical Coherence – Do stated sustainability or Indigenous commitments align with investment decisions? Governance Participation – Is there evidence of stakeholder involvement in decision-making? Through this framework, the research examined the consistency between policy language and institutional behaviour, with particular attention to the incorporation—or omission—of bicultural and social equity principles. Ensuring Rigour and Validity To enhance the trustworthiness of the findings, triangulation was employed by cross-referencing university documents with external data sources such as the Times Higher Education Impact Rankings, the New Zealand Super Fund exclusion list, and published student union submissions. This enabled the research to identify discrepancies between institutional claims and broader sustainability benchmarks. In addition, institutional data were not evaluated in isolation; rather, comparative patterns were examined across the sector. This cross-case approach supports deeper insight into structural trends and governance norms within New Zealand’s higher education ESG landscape. Findings Lack of Transparency in Investment Disclosure A key finding from the document analysis is the pervasive lack of transparency surrounding how New Zealand universities implement Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investment policies. Despite public statements affirming a commitment to sustainability and ethical responsibility, the degree to which these values are embedded within financial operations is obscured by inconsistent reporting, vague policy language, and limited access to investment portfolio data. Across the eight public universities reviewed, only three—Victoria University of Wellington, University of Otago, and University of Auckland—publish any reference to ESG in their investment strategies. Even within these cases, disclosure is minimal and lacks detail. For example, while the University of Otago's investment policy affirms alignment with “socially responsible investment principles”, it does not include a full list of excluded sectors or detail the screening criteria applied to fund managers. Instead, the language remains broad and aspirational, with limited indicators for measuring compliance or progress. In the case of the University of Auckland, public annual reports mention divestment from fossil fuels, yet the precise extent of this divestment—whether direct holdings, indirect exposures, or pooled funds—is not quantified. Furthermore, no accessible documentation outlines how ESG risks are assessed or who is responsible for overseeing ethical investment compliance. This vagueness raises significant questions about the verifiability and accountability of ESG claims (Finatto et al., 2024). The absence of comprehensive portfolio disclosure is particularly concerning given the increasing international emphasis on financial transparency in higher education. Leading frameworks such as the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment (UNPRI) and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) advocate for regular, granular reporting on ESG performance indicators. While the New Zealand Superannuation Fund sets a domestic benchmark for such transparency—publishing detailed exclusion lists and portfolio updates—none of the universities in this study appear to follow similar standards (Onademuren, 2021). This lack of disclosure has ethical implications. First, it inhibits public scrutiny and weakens the ability of stakeholders—particularly students and staff—to hold institutions accountable for their sustainability claims. Second, it allows universities to selectively present ESG credentials without exposing the actual content or ethics of their investments. As Zharfpeykan and Bai (2025) argue, institutions that promote ESG values without providing data risk engaging in “green window-dressing”—a form of reputational management that lacks substantive ethical depth. Furthermore, the opacity surrounding ESG investment decisions appears to reflect a broader trend of financial gatekeeping in university governance. In most cases, decision-making around investment strategy is delegated to external fund managers or financial committees, with little input from wider university constituencies. This lack of participatory governance compounds the transparency deficit and raises concerns about the alignment of financial decision-making with institutional ethics and Treaty obligations (Ramani et al., 2024). From a methodological standpoint, the inability to access investment portfolios constrained the extent to which this study could evaluate ethical alignment quantitatively. The documents available frequently referred to ESG “principles” or “commitments” without establishing whether these translated into enforceable action. For example, only one university made reference to active monitoring mechanisms, and none disclosed whether ESG metrics were embedded into key performance indicators for financial officers or fund managers. In summary, the analysis reveals that while references to ESG are increasingly common in university rhetoric, transparency in investment disclosure remains limited and inconsistent. This lack of clarity undermines institutional credibility and restricts the ability of external stakeholders to assess the ethical substance of ESG initiatives. Without a move toward detailed, standardised, and publicly accessible reporting, universities risk substituting ethical intent for ethical performance—a hallmark of institutional tokenism. Inconsistent Alignment with Sustainability Goals A central finding of this study is the significant inconsistency between the sustainability commitments of New Zealand universities and their operational investment practices. While most institutions articulate ambitious climate and social equity goals—such as net-zero emissions targets, environmental leadership frameworks, or alignment with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)—their actual financial portfolios often fall short of these declarations. This disconnect suggests that sustainability is, at times, embraced rhetorically without the structural mechanisms required to embed it into financial governance. All eight public universities in New Zealand publicly support sustainability through various strategic documents. For instance, the University of Canterbury and the University of Waikato both highlight alignment with the SDGs and declare institutional commitments to reduce carbon footprints by 2030. Similarly, the University of Auckland has positioned itself as a global leader in sustainability, consistently ranking highly in the Times Higher Education Impact Rankings. However, when these commitments are examined against ESG investment practices, a more fragmented picture emerges. A key issue is the persistence of indirect exposure to fossil fuels and carbon-intensive sectors, often through passive investment vehicles or multi-asset funds that are not screened for ESG compliance. While some universities, such as Otago and Victoria University of Wellington, have made public announcements regarding fossil fuel divestment, these declarations frequently apply only to direct holdings, excluding managed portfolios where transparency is minimal. As a result, institutions may maintain financial links to sectors they claim to have disengaged from, raising questions about the integrity and robustness of their sustainability claims (Finatto et al., 2024). This problem is compounded by the absence of binding investment frameworks that codify how sustainability is operationalised. Across the universities reviewed, very few have adopted formal ESG performance indicators within their investment policies. In cases where ESG is mentioned, it is often described in general terms, such as a commitment to “consider environmental and social factors”—without detailing how these considerations influence asset selection, risk modelling, or fund manager evaluation. Such ambiguity leaves room for inconsistent interpretation and undermines the development of institutional accountability mechanisms (Ramani et al., 2024). The mismatch between goals and investment behaviours also has a reputational dimension. Institutions that declare climate neutrality yet continue to benefit from carbon-linked investments risk losing credibility among students, staff, and the wider public. The ethical dissonance here is particularly acute for universities that promote their leadership in climate science or sustainability education while failing to divest from extractive industries or align with emissions reduction trajectories recommended by climate experts (Perera, 2024). A related issue is the siloed nature of sustainability governance in many universities. In practice, environmental commitments tend to be managed by sustainability offices or strategic planning units, while investment decisions are handled by separate finance teams or outsourced to external asset managers. This structural separation often prevents the full integration of sustainability objectives into core institutional processes. It also contributes to the persistence of investment decisions that conflict with the values promoted in other parts of the university (Rekker et al., 2024). In several cases, strategic plans make reference to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and express commitment to bicultural environmental stewardship. However, the investment policies reviewed rarely, if ever, include specific mechanisms to incorporate Māori ethical perspectives into investment decision-making. This disconnect reveals not only a gap between sustainability and finance but also between institutional commitments to Indigenous partnership and operational governance. Taken together, these findings suggest that while sustainability language is increasingly embedded in university rhetoric, the substantive alignment with financial practices remains inconsistent and incomplete. Without formal frameworks, clearer indicators, and cross-departmental governance integration, universities risk undermining the legitimacy of their sustainability goals and falling into a pattern of ethical incoherence. Māori Ethical Frameworks Marginalised Despite the widespread invocation of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Māori partnership principles across strategic plans and mission statements of New Zealand’s universities, the analysis reveals a striking absence of Indigenous ethical frameworks within ESG investment policies. While sustainability rhetoric increasingly references Māori terms such as kaitiakitanga (environmental guardianship), whanaungatanga (relational accountability), and manaakitanga (care and reciprocity), these values are rarely translated into the operational language of investment governance. This pattern of omission suggests a superficial engagement with bicultural obligations—one that risks reducing Māori concepts to symbolic tokens rather than embedded ethical guides. In most cases, Māori ethical principles appear in sustainability strategy documents, but not in financial or investment policies. For example, universities such as Auckland and Waikato refer to kaitiakitanga as a guiding value in environmental leadership but do not provide evidence of how this principle informs their asset allocation, investment exclusions, or portfolio review processes. Similarly, references to Treaty partnership commitments are widespread across annual reports but are absent from core policy documents governing endowment management and capital investment. This disconnect reflects what Rekker et al. (2024) term “Indigenous value silos”, whereby cultural frameworks are embraced in domains such as curriculum or community engagement, but remain excluded from economic and governance systems. In the context of ESG investing, this means that while universities may claim to act in alignment with Māori values, the financial decisions they make are still largely governed by Western models of utility, risk, and return—models that do not necessarily prioritise intergenerational wellbeing or collective responsibility. The marginalisation of Māori ethics in investment governance is particularly problematic given the long-standing presence of Indigenous economic philosophies in Aotearoa’s broader financial landscape. Iwi (tribal) investment entities, such as Ngāi Tahu Holdings and Tainui Group Holdings, have demonstrated how Māori values can shape financial practice. These organisations often adopt investment models that centre on whakapapa (genealogical connection), mauri (life force), and tikanga (customary practices), balancing economic growth with social cohesion and environmental stewardship (Daugaard & Poyser, 2023). Their success challenges the assumption that ethical investing must conform to Western fiduciary norms. Moreover, the exclusion of Māori frameworks undermines the legal and moral obligations universities have as public institutions and Treaty partners. Section 181 of the Education and Training Act 2020 specifies that university councils must reflect Treaty principles in their governance. While this legal duty is often interpreted in terms of representation or curriculum, it reasonably extends to financial governance, particularly when university investments materially impact Indigenous lands, communities, or climate outcomes. The ethical implications of this marginalisation are manifold. First, it signals a failure to engage in genuine co-governance—a cornerstone of bicultural accountability. Second, it contributes to epistemic injustice by privileging Western ethical frameworks over Indigenous ones in institutional decision-making (Smith, 2012). Third, it weakens the credibility of ESG policies by omitting values that are foundational to the country’s social contract. Importantly, no evidence was found across the sample universities of formalised consultation processes with Māori stakeholders regarding investment governance. There were no references to Māori financial advisory bodies, no investment criteria grounded in tikanga Māori , and no disclosure of Māori-led ESG performance reviews. This absence suggests that Māori perspectives are not only structurally excluded but also institutionally marginalised in ways that erode the legitimacy of ethical investing within the university sector. To address this deficit, universities must move beyond the ceremonial use of Māori language and incorporate Māori epistemologies into the decision-making architectures of their ESG frameworks. This includes creating kaupapa Māori investment models, appointing Māori representatives to governance bodies, and developing ESG screening tools that reflect Indigenous definitions of value, harm, and sustainability. Without such changes, the risk persists that Māori ethics will continue to be invoked as ornamental rather than operational, reinforcing the very tokenism that ESG frameworks seek to eliminate. Lack of Stakeholder Governance in ESG Oversight A recurring theme in the analysis of New Zealand universities’ Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investment practices is the limited role of stakeholders in the governance of these financial decisions. Despite the growing emphasis on ethical transparency and participatory governance in higher education, ESG investment oversight remains largely centralised, technocratic, and exclusive to internal financial or managerial elites. This undermines claims of institutional accountability and raises concerns about the democratic legitimacy of sustainability frameworks within the university sector. The documents reviewed across all eight public universities in Aotearoa New Zealand indicate that investment decisions are typically governed by senior finance officers, university councils, or external investment consultants. In only one instance—at Victoria University of Wellington—was there reference to a sustainability or investment subcommittee that included academic representation. However, even in this case, student or Māori voices were absent from the documented structure, and the committee’s actual influence over asset allocation remained unclear. Where committees exist, they function primarily as advisory bodies rather than decision-making organs with enforceable oversight (Ramani et al., 2024). This exclusion is particularly problematic given the central role that students and staff have played in advancing ESG-related activism within New Zealand universities. Over the past decade, numerous divestment campaigns have been led by student associations, academic unions, and Māori collectives calling for ethical disinvestment from fossil fuels, private prisons, and arms manufacturing. Yet, none of the institutions reviewed offered formal mechanisms by which these stakeholders could participate in investment governance, nor did they report on consultation processes related to ESG policy design (Perera, 2024). The absence of participatory governance contradicts international best practice. The United Nations-supported Principles for Responsible Investment (UNPRI) emphasise stakeholder engagement as a key dimension of ethical investing, recommending that institutional investors actively involve affected parties in policy development and review. Similarly, the Times Higher Education Impact Rankings, which many New Zealand universities cite as benchmarks, assign value to transparency and community engagement in ESG governance. The failure to include these practices in institutional investment processes suggests a disconnect between aspirational sustainability frameworks and actual governance structures (Finatto et al., 2024). Beyond international standards, the lack of stakeholder engagement also has specific ethical implications within the context of New Zealand’s bicultural constitutional landscape. The absence of Māori representation in ESG governance not only limits the integration of Indigenous values but also contravenes the universities’ obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi . Financial governance that excludes Māori voices risks perpetuating the marginalisation of Indigenous worldviews and undermining Treaty-based co-governance principles (Daugaard & Poyser, 2023). Moreover, this governance gap limits institutional learning and adaptive capacity. As ethical investment landscapes evolve—particularly in response to climate risks and social inequality—stakeholder input becomes increasingly important for identifying emerging issues, anticipating reputational risks, and shaping resilient governance models. The current siloed structure of ESG oversight constrains such reflexivity and reduces the robustness of ethical decision-making. In addition to governance exclusion, a number of universities were found to have no published procedures for reviewing or updating ESG policies based on stakeholder feedback. Without cyclical evaluation or formal channels for dissent, there is little opportunity for students, staff, or the broader community to challenge or improve investment frameworks. This lack of responsiveness further entrenches a top-down governance model, at odds with the participatory ideals often associated with sustainability discourse. In sum, the findings reveal that ESG investment governance in New Zealand universities is characterised by insularity, opacity, and limited stakeholder participation. This governance configuration undermines both the ethical foundations of ESG and the democratic ethos of public universities. Without the inclusion of diverse voices—especially those of students, Indigenous communities, and academic staff—ESG investment will remain vulnerable to institutional tokenism and reputational management, rather than functioning as a tool for ethical transformation. Discussion Symbolic Versus Substantive ESG The findings of this study highlight a persistent tension in the implementation of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles within New Zealand universities: the contrast between symbolic ESG practices, often adopted for reputational gain, and substantive ESG integration, which reflects meaningful ethical commitment. While universities across the country increasingly adopt the language of sustainability and ethical investing, the structural and operational underpinnings required to realise these principles remain underdeveloped. This section explores the implications of this symbolic–substantive divide and situates it within broader discussions on institutional ethics and governance. Symbolic ESG refers to practices that signal ethical responsibility without enacting deep institutional change. Such practices often rely on public-facing commitments, such as declarations of fossil fuel divestment, participation in international rankings, or vague policy statements referencing ESG filters. These gestures, while important in shaping public perception, can function as “ethical window dressing” if they are not matched by transparent, measurable, and enforceable actions (Zharfpeykan & Bai, 2025). In contrast, substantive ESG reflects a deliberate restructuring of financial governance, stakeholder engagement, and ethical criteria in ways that are consistent, traceable, and embedded in institutional culture (Hill, 2020). This study found that the vast majority of ESG frameworks in New Zealand universities align more closely with the symbolic end of the spectrum. For example, investment policies frequently mention responsible investing but lack specific screening mechanisms or enforcement protocols. References to Indigenous values such as kaitiakitanga are common in sustainability strategies, yet these values are almost entirely absent from investment governance procedures. Similarly, fossil fuel divestment is often claimed without full disclosure of indirect investments or pooled fund holdings, allowing institutions to maintain carbon exposure while preserving the appearance of ethical alignment (Finatto et al., 2024). Such discrepancies raise concerns about institutional credibility and ethical legitimacy. The symbolic adoption of ESG frameworks may achieve short-term reputational objectives—such as improved rankings or stakeholder appeasement—but fails to address the systemic and long-term challenges posed by climate change, social inequity, or Indigenous exclusion. As Gary (2016) argues, ethical investment cannot be reduced to brand management; it must function as a mechanism for aligning institutional values with real-world impacts. When ESG is adopted performatively, it undermines both ethical purpose and public trust. Moreover, symbolic ESG practices tend to be top-down and managerial, further disconnecting governance from the communities they serve. The lack of stakeholder input—especially from students, Māori collectives, and academic staff—consolidates ESG within technocratic silos, detached from broader democratic processes. This centralisation reinforces a narrow definition of ethics rooted in financial risk management rather than distributive justice or cultural accountability (Ramani et al., 2024). In contrast, substantive ESG implementation requires more than surface-level adjustments. It demands the creation of institutional accountability mechanisms, such as clear reporting standards, ESG metrics embedded into investment reviews, and ongoing stakeholder participation. It also requires universities to reimagine fiduciary responsibility not simply as a duty to maximise financial returns, but as a multidimensional obligation that includes intergenerational equity, social justice, and Indigenous rights (Daugaard & Poyser, 2023). One notable example of substantive ESG practice—though still rare—is the move by some overseas universities to publish complete investment holdings and submit to third-party ESG audits. These actions not only increase transparency but signal a willingness to subject institutional claims to external validation. In New Zealand, however, such practices remain the exception, not the norm. The symbolic–substantive distinction is not binary but exists on a spectrum, and institutions may shift along this continuum depending on internal pressures, external scrutiny, and leadership priorities. Nevertheless, the current ESG landscape in New Zealand universities is heavily weighted towards symbolism over substance. As such, the risk of ethical dilution remains high unless significant reforms are enacted to close the gap between institutional rhetoric and financial reality. Ultimately, the symbolic appropriation of ESG language, without robust systems to support ethical governance, undermines the potential of sustainability to serve as a transformative force within the academy. If universities are to live up to their public mission and Treaty obligations, ESG must evolve from a performative gesture to a structural ethic—embedded in governance, co-designed with communities, and subject to critical evaluation. Ethical Imperatives of Biculturalism New Zealand’s university sector operates within a bicultural constitutional framework founded upon Te Tiriti o Waitangi , the foundational agreement between the Crown and Māori as tangata whenua (people of the land). This framework imposes not only legal obligations but also deep ethical responsibilities on universities to embed Māori values, perspectives, and governance principles into all aspects of institutional life—including financial decision-making. In the context of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) investing, the failure to honour these obligations represents not just a policy oversight but an ethical breach. The concept of biculturalism in Aotearoa New Zealand extends beyond inclusion or representation. It is grounded in the idea of partnership, where Māori and Pākehā (non-Māori) share decision-making authority, and where Māori knowledge systems ( mātauranga Māori ) are accorded equal standing with Western frameworks. As Rekker et al. (2024) observe, this ethical imperative requires that universities “do with, not for” Māori communities—meaning that Māori values should not be referenced as static cultural tokens, but instead inform the governance structures and investment philosophies that shape university decision-making. Despite this, the findings of this study reveal a systemic failure to integrate biculturalism into ESG governance. No university in the sample has adopted an investment framework that reflects tikanga Māori (customary ethics), nor do policies reference Māori-led ESG indicators or co-governance protocols. This absence points to a disconnect between institutional rhetoric and operational reality. While kaitiakitanga (guardianship) is frequently cited in environmental strategies, it is not operationalised in ESG criteria, nor does it appear to inform how risks and impacts are assessed in investment portfolios (Daugaard & Poyser, 2023). This omission has profound ethical implications. First, it violates the spirit of Treaty-based partnership, particularly in matters that materially affect Māori interests, such as investments in industries linked to land exploitation, environmental degradation, or social harm. Second, it perpetuates what Smith (2012) terms “epistemic exclusion”, in which Māori worldviews are acknowledged rhetorically but excluded from systems of institutional power. Third, it undermines the credibility of university ESG commitments by failing to reflect the distinct cultural and moral context in which New Zealand universities operate. Furthermore, the absence of bicultural engagement in ESG governance erodes trust and accountability. Māori communities have consistently advocated for ethical approaches to land, water, and social justice, rooted in holistic and intergenerational perspectives. These values align closely with the principles of ESG investing—but only if they are recognised and given operational weight. When Māori voices are excluded from investment governance, universities lose access to ethical insights that could strengthen the substance and legitimacy of their ESG strategies (Rekker et al., 2024). There is also a broader public ethics dimension to this issue. Universities are not private entities; they are Crown agencies tasked with serving the public good. This includes advancing Māori wellbeing and supporting decolonisation through structural change. As highlighted in government education strategies, such as Ka Hikitia and Tau Mai Te Reo , Māori engagement must extend beyond symbolic inclusion to structural participation in governance, planning, and resource allocation. Yet, in the case of ESG, no evidence was found of Māori advisory boards, consultative processes, or performance indicators embedded in financial governance. The ethical imperative of biculturalism, therefore, demands a fundamental transformation of how universities conceptualise and execute ESG investing. This includes co-designing investment strategies with Māori stakeholders, adopting kaupapa Māori investment models, and integrating Māori ethical principles—such as utu (balance and reciprocity), whanaungatanga (relational accountability), and manaakitanga (care and hospitality)—into decision-making tools. These are not supplementary add-ons but central tenets of ethical governance in a bicultural society. Without this transformation, ESG investing risks becoming another domain in which Treaty obligations are ignored and Indigenous rights sidelined. Universities must recognise that biculturalism is not only a legal framework but an ethical mandate—a commitment to shared authority, mutual respect, and culturally grounded justice. Embedding biculturalism in ESG practices is not merely an enhancement of ethical rigour; it is a precondition for ethical legitimacy in Aotearoa New Zealand’s university sector. The Need for Governance Reform The inconsistencies and omissions revealed throughout this study make one conclusion unavoidable: if New Zealand universities are to implement Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investment practices that are ethically credible, governance reform is essential. The current institutional model—centralised, opaque, and often disengaged from the very values ESG purports to uphold—fails to meet the demands of accountability, stakeholder inclusion, or bicultural responsibility. Reform is therefore not a matter of efficiency or public relations; it is a moral imperative. At present, the governance of ESG investing in New Zealand’s university sector is largely situated within finance offices, vice-chancellor portfolios, or outsourced investment managers. While these actors bring financial expertise, the absence of formalised ethical oversight bodies—let alone structures that integrate Māori worldviews or student representation—creates a narrow and technocratic regime of ESG decision-making. Such a regime is fundamentally misaligned with the multidimensional nature of ESG, which demands responsiveness to climate, social justice, cultural equity, and intergenerational impact (Ramani et al., 2024). One of the most pressing areas for reform is the establishment of inclusive ESG governance committees. These committees should not operate as advisory afterthoughts but as deliberative, decision-making entities composed of a diverse range of stakeholders: Māori representatives, student leaders, academic staff, environmental specialists, and finance professionals. Their remit should include reviewing investment decisions, setting exclusion criteria, overseeing reporting standards, and recommending policy updates. Crucially, they must be granted both authority and visibility within the institution’s broader governance architecture (Finatto et al., 2024). Reform also requires a shift away from passive or delegated investment strategies. While outsourcing financial management may provide technical efficiencies, it also distances institutions from the ethical consequences of their portfolios. Universities must reassert strategic control over ESG mandates given to fund managers and ensure that contracts include binding expectations for transparency, social responsibility, and Treaty compliance. This means moving from “outsourcing responsibility” to “embedding accountability” within internal structures (Gary, 2016). Transparency is another domain in urgent need of an overhaul. As documented in earlier sections, current ESG reporting is highly uneven across universities, with few disclosing actual holdings or performance metrics. Governance reform must institutionalise regular and standardised disclosure mechanisms, such as annual ESG investment reports, third-party audits, and detailed listings of screened and excluded assets. These disclosures should be made accessible to all stakeholders and subject to open review processes. Transparency is not merely procedural—it is the foundation upon which ethical legitimacy is built (Zharfpeykan & Bai, 2025). Importantly, governance reform must be situated within a bicultural framework, recognising Te Tiriti o Waitangi not only as a historic treaty but as a living ethical compass. This involves adopting governance practices that reflect mana whakahaere (authority) and whakawhanaungatanga (relationship-building), and creating space for kaupapa Māori approaches to investment. Māori involvement in ESG governance should be grounded in co-governance principles, not limited to consultation or symbolic inclusion (Daugaard & Poyser, 2023). The reform agenda also extends to performance evaluation. Institutions must develop key performance indicators (KPIs) that measure progress not only in financial returns but in ESG impact, bicultural integration, and participatory governance. These indicators should be integrated into strategic plans and subject to annual review, ensuring that sustainability remains a live and accountable agenda item. Finally, reform must challenge the prevailing conception of fiduciary duty. Traditionally interpreted as the obligation to maximise financial returns, fiduciary duty in the public university context must evolve to include ethical stewardship, ecological responsibility, and Treaty partnership obligations. As Hill (2020) and Gary (2016) argue, institutional investors—especially public universities—have a broader duty to their communities and future generations that cannot be reduced to risk-return calculations alone. In conclusion, governance reform is not ancillary to ESG implementation—it is its very foundation. Without robust, inclusive, transparent, and biculturally informed governance, ESG investment frameworks in New Zealand universities will remain vulnerable to symbolic enactment and ethical dilution. Reform offers a pathway to restore integrity, ensure accountability, and align financial practice with the transformative values universities claim to embody. Conclusion This study set out to critically examine whether the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investment practices of New Zealand universities represent substantive ethical commitment or operate predominantly as symbolic gestures. Drawing on publicly available institutional documents and policy statements, the analysis uncovered substantial inconsistencies between rhetorical commitments to sustainability and the actual governance, transparency, and ethical integration underpinning university investment portfolios. The evidence suggests that while ESG language has become increasingly prominent in university strategies—particularly in relation to climate leadership and social responsibility—its implementation is often fragmented, opaque, and performative. Across the eight universities reviewed, few provided comprehensive disclosure of investment holdings or screening criteria; fewer still demonstrated clear alignment between their sustainability objectives and actual financial behaviours. This pattern indicates a structural disconnect between institutional values and investment governance. Central to this disconnect is the limited inclusion of stakeholders in ESG oversight, particularly Māori communities, students, and academic staff. Despite widespread reference to Te Tiriti o Waitangi , none of the universities analysed had incorporated tikanga Māori or kaupapa Māori principles into their investment frameworks in any meaningful or operational way. This omission is ethically significant in a bicultural society, where Treaty obligations extend beyond symbolic acknowledgement to shared governance and culturally grounded decision-making (Daugaard & Poyser, 2023 ; Rekker et al., 2024 ). Moreover, the findings reveal that ESG practices in the sector are largely managerial and technocratic, with investment decisions confined to finance offices or outsourced fund managers. This centralisation weakens ethical scrutiny, discourages accountability, and reinforces a narrow interpretation of fiduciary duty that prioritises financial returns over environmental and social impacts. As scholars such as Gary ( 2016 ) and Hill ( 2020 ) argue, the ethical integrity of ESG frameworks depends not only on where capital is invested but on how those decisions are made, by whom, and with whose values in mind. The discussion has highlighted the urgent need for governance reform. For ESG to be meaningful rather than tokenistic, universities must embed transparency, participatory oversight, and bicultural ethics into their investment structures. This includes the establishment of inclusive ESG committees, co-design with Māori stakeholders, and the adoption of robust reporting systems. Crucially, it also requires a redefinition of fiduciary responsibility—one that includes not only the economic health of institutions but their environmental sustainability, social justice commitments, and Treaty partnerships. In sum, the study concludes that the ESG investment practices of New Zealand universities, as currently constituted, fall short of their ethical and public mandates. Without deliberate, transparent, and culturally grounded reform, ESG risks being reduced to institutional branding rather than a vehicle for structural change. However, the findings also point to a clear path forward: by shifting from symbolic to substantive engagement, universities can reclaim ESG as a powerful instrument of ethical leadership and public accountability in the 21st century. Declarations Competing Interests The author declares that there are no competing financial or non-financial interests that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. The research was conducted independently, with no financial support from commercial entities, non-governmental organisations, or political bodies. References Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9 (2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027 Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. Daugaard, D., & Poyser, A. (2023). Indigenous sustainable finance as a research field: A systematic literature review on indigenising ESG, sustainability and indigenous community practices. Accounting & Finance . https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.13062 Finatto, C. P., Fuchs, P. G., Dutra, A. R. A., Beuren, I. M., Bornia, A. C., & Macagnan, C. B. (2024). Environmental, social, governance and sustainable development goals: Promoting sustainability in universities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 25 (1), 45–67. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-11-2022-0361 Gary, S. N. (2016). Values and value: University endowments, fiduciary duties, and ESG investing. Journal of College and University Law, 42 , 247–296. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/jcolunly42&i=257 Hill, J. (2020). Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing: A balanced analysis of the theory and practice of a sustainable portfolio . Academic Press. Onademuren, A. A. (2021). Climate change: A review and analysis of globally adopted ESG reporting and rating methods applied to New Zealand organisations [Master’s thesis, Unitec Institute of Technology]. ResearchBank NZ. https://www.researchbank.ac.nz/handle/10652/5375 Ramani, S., Henne, D., Kotsopoulos, D., & Dickson, B. (2024). A comparative analysis of university investment policies and procedures related to responsible investing. Higher Education Policy . https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-023-00306-3 Rekker, S., Humphrey, J., & Gilbert, A. (2024). Indigenous values shaping sustainable investment: A case study of Māori. In Sustainable finance . Council of Australian University Librarians. https://oercollective.caul.edu.au/sustainable-finance/chapter/indigenous-values-shaping-sustainable-investment-a-case-study-of-maori/ Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples (2nd ed.). Zed Books. Yanow, D., & Schwartz-Shea, P. (2015). Interpretive research design: Concepts and processes . Routledge. Zharfpeykan, R., & Bai, Y. (2025). Board gender diversity and corporate ESG performance: Evidence from New Zealand listed firms. Pacific Accounting Review . https://doi.org/10.1108/PAR-01-2024-0011 Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6916898","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":472710153,"identity":"b50fd718-da65-4d6e-9a8e-b5ad975bf349","order_by":0,"name":"Abhinav Singh","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0009-0003-9089-3518","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Abhinav","middleName":"","lastName":"Singh","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-06-17 18:33:10","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6916898/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6916898/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":84964148,"identity":"9f4260bd-2367-43ef-a49e-ab8f2f1ae23e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-19 09:34:28","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":669819,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6916898/v1/7bd62d54-1ec9-4ea7-9af4-5fd20dc7289d.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eSustainability or Tokenism? An Ethical Review of ESG Investment Portfolios in New Zealand Universities\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eOver the past two decades, universities across the globe have sought to embed sustainability into their institutional missions. Nowhere is this ambition more visible than in the rising adoption of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investment policies. These frameworks enable institutions to allocate their financial resources in a manner that aligns with their stated commitments to social justice, climate responsibility, and ethical governance (Hill, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). In the context of higher education, such policies extend beyond mere fiscal strategies\u0026mdash;they serve as instruments of institutional identity, shaping how universities position themselves in an increasingly sustainability-conscious world (Gary, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNew Zealand\u0026rsquo;s universities are no exception to this trend. Several institutions have made public declarations of sustainability intent, such as commitments to carbon neutrality, fossil fuel divestment, and social equity investment principles. This is reflective of broader shifts in Aotearoa New Zealand\u0026rsquo;s public sector governance, which increasingly integrates Māori ethical concepts such as \u003cem\u003ekaitiakitanga\u003c/em\u003e (guardianship) and \u003cem\u003emanaakitanga\u003c/em\u003e (care) into institutional discourse (Daugaard \u0026amp; Poyser, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). However, there is growing scepticism about whether these ESG investment initiatives reflect authentic ethical alignment or amount to performative sustainability \u0026mdash; policies that serve symbolic rather than substantive ethical purposes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the heart of this critique lies the tension between ethical commitment and fiduciary responsibility. Universities, as stewards of public funds and custodians of intergenerational equity, are uniquely positioned to lead sustainable finance initiatives. Yet, a lack of transparent disclosure, absence of stakeholder participation, and limited incorporation of Indigenous perspectives raise concerns that ESG policies are often constructed to satisfy reputational goals rather than moral obligations (Finatto et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Rekker et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). This disjuncture invites critical examination of the ethical integrity of university ESG portfolios.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, while there is a burgeoning international literature on responsible investment in higher education (Ramani et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), there remains a significant gap in region-specific analysis. Aotearoa\u0026rsquo;s bicultural governance frameworks, Treaty obligations, and Pacific geopolitical context suggest that global ESG models cannot be uncritically applied. Little empirical attention has been devoted to evaluating whether New Zealand universities\u0026rsquo; ESG investment strategies truly integrate these unique ethical and cultural dimensions. Furthermore, the role of students, academic staff, and Māori stakeholders in shaping investment decisions remains largely unexamined in institutional governance literature (Chirapattanakorn, 2018).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis article, therefore, undertakes a critical review of ESG investment policies across New Zealand\u0026rsquo;s public universities to explore whether they demonstrate genuine ethical alignment or serve as instances of institutional tokenism. Specifically, it examines policy documents, investment frameworks, and public disclosures to assess:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe transparency and accountability of ESG investments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe integration of Indigenous values and stakeholder input.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe consistency between stated sustainability goals and actual investment practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn doing so, the research not only contributes to debates on ethical finance in higher education but also raises broader questions about the responsibilities of universities as public institutions in a time of ecological crisis, Indigenous resurgence, and ethical scrutiny.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eESG and Higher Education\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEnvironmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investing has transitioned from a niche financial approach into a global framework through which institutions\u0026mdash;particularly universities\u0026mdash;signal ethical responsibility and social awareness. As higher education institutions are increasingly seen not only as centres of knowledge production but also as ethical actors in society, ESG principles have become mechanisms through which universities can enact their moral and civic commitments (Hill, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Richardson, 2019).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe integration of ESG in universities often originates from student and staff activism, broader public concern regarding climate change, and institutional strategies to bolster reputational capital. For instance, divestment campaigns\u0026mdash;especially those targeting fossil fuel industries\u0026mdash;have been influential in pushing university endowments towards adopting ESG-aligned investment policies (Gary, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Yet, the meaning of ESG remains complex and contested. ESG is not a unified standard but a multi-dimensional framework comprising a range of evaluative metrics across environmental sustainability, social justice, and ethical governance. These criteria are interpreted and weighted differently depending on institutional goals, regional regulations, and cultural values (Boubaker, Cumming, \u0026amp; Nguyen, 2018).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the university context, ESG engagement manifests in various forms: exclusionary screening (e.g., avoiding investments in tobacco or weapons), positive screening (e.g., supporting renewable energy initiatives), or impact investing, where returns are balanced against demonstrable social or ecological outcomes (Singhania \u0026amp; Saini, 2023). However, the diversity of approaches raises critical questions about consistency and ethical coherence. Universities that adopt ESG strategies often do so under ambiguous or self-defined standards, allowing for considerable discretion in how \u0026ldquo;ethical\u0026rdquo; investment is operationalised (Zaman, Nadeem, \u0026amp; Carvajal, 2021).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, ESG adoption in higher education is increasingly tied to institutional governance frameworks. According to Finatto et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), universities that integrate ESG into strategic planning tend to reconfigure internal structures, including the establishment of sustainability committees or the revision of investment policies to reflect broader stakeholder input. However, the extent to which such governance structures reflect \u003cem\u003emeaningful participation\u003c/em\u003e rather than symbolic compliance remains under-researched, especially in contexts outside North America and Europe.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe university's role as a long-term institutional investor also intensifies the ethical imperative. Unlike private entities driven by short-term gains, universities manage endowments and public funds intended to benefit future generations. This intergenerational stewardship aligns conceptually with ESG objectives, particularly in terms of climate risk, social equity, and governance transparency (Hill, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Gary, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Yet, fiduciary duties can conflict with ethical imperatives, posing dilemmas around risk, return, and responsibility. Some university finance committees, for example, cite fiduciary duty to maximise returns as a reason for resisting full divestment from carbon-intensive industries, despite their ESG commitments (Perera, 2024).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCritically, in the higher education landscape, ESG is not merely a financial tool but a symbol of institutional ethics. It intersects with the university\u0026rsquo;s broader values around academic freedom, equity, and public accountability. The use of ESG frameworks provides a structured way to embed these values in financial governance, yet without transparency and external oversight, ESG can become a vehicle for ethical posturing rather than authentic reform (Zharfpeykan \u0026amp; Bai, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn sum, ESG has become both a mechanism and a metric for university ethics in the 21st century. While it holds potential for aligning investment with institutional missions, its adoption is not inherently ethical; rather, it must be critically examined for depth, rigour, and cultural relevance, particularly within region-specific and Indigenous governance contexts such as Aotearoa New Zealand.\u003c/p\u003e \n\u003ch3\u003eThe New Zealand Context\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAotearoa New Zealand presents a unique ethical and political landscape for examining ESG investment in higher education. Unlike jurisdictions where ESG is predominantly shaped by shareholder activism or corporate governance codes, New Zealand\u0026rsquo;s university sector operates within a bicultural constitutional framework, underpinned by \u003cem\u003eTe Tiriti o Waitangi\u003c/em\u003e (Treaty of Waitangi). This dual commitment to Western institutional norms and Indigenous Māori values positions New Zealand universities at a complex ethical intersection\u0026mdash;one that challenges conventional models of responsible investment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eBicultural Governance and the Treaty of Waitangi\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll eight public universities in New Zealand are Crown entities and are legally bound to honour the principles of the Treaty. This implies obligations to incorporate Māori values, voices, and partnership models into decision-making processes, including financial governance (Daugaard \u0026amp; Poyser, 2023). While universities have made strides in embedding \u003cem\u003ete reo Māori\u003c/em\u003e, cultural competency, and partnership policies within academic and administrative domains, this ethos is not consistently reflected in their investment frameworks.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite public declarations of support for Māori advancement, most university ESG investment policies lack any formal reference to \u003cem\u003ekaitiakitanga\u003c/em\u003e (guardianship), \u003cem\u003emanaakitanga\u003c/em\u003e (care and respect), or \u003cem\u003erangatiratanga\u003c/em\u003e (self-determination)\u0026mdash;principles that underpin Indigenous conceptions of sustainability and ethics (Rekker et al., 2024). The ethical disconnect between these values and actual investment strategy raises questions of tokenism and missed opportunity for culturally embedded sustainability practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eNational ESG Standards and Sector Policy\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the national level, the New Zealand Superannuation Fund has emerged as a global exemplar in responsible investment, adopting rigorous ESG filters and publishing exclusion lists that include fossil fuels, controversial weapons, and tobacco (Onademuren, 2021). However, there is no binding requirement for universities to adopt similar standards. This regulatory gap has produced policy heterogeneity across institutions, with some universities implementing modest ESG screens while others continue to hold opaque portfolios with little sustainability disclosure (Zharfpeykan \u0026amp; Bai, 2025).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough the New Zealand Universities\u0026rsquo; Strategic Investment Framework encourages long-term ethical planning, it lacks ESG-specific mandates. In practice, ESG implementation tends to be left to university finance committees or outsourced investment managers, many of whom follow global benchmarks that may not reflect local cultural, social, or ecological priorities (Ramani et al., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eClimate Leadership and Divestment Movements\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudent-led campaigns for fossil fuel divestment have been a powerful force in shaping university ESG engagement in New Zealand. The University of Otago became the first to divest from fossil fuels in 2016, followed by Victoria University of Wellington and the University of Auckland. These actions were heralded as ethical leadership, yet they also exposed the limits of voluntary action. Without sector-wide benchmarks or external audits, universities can claim ESG compliance while continuing indirect investment via pooled funds or passive index strategies (Finatto et al., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMoreover, some universities have resisted divestment, citing fiduciary obligations or financial returns. This reflects a deeper ethical tension between risk aversion and responsibility. In a 2021 stakeholder report, several university administrators expressed concern that excluding entire sectors might compromise financial performance or violate their duty to maximise returns (Perera, 2024). Such arguments suggest a narrow interpretation of fiduciary responsibility\u0026mdash;one that risks marginalising ethical obligations to climate justice and intergenerational equity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eIndigenous Ethics and ESG Integration\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePerhaps the most critical omission in New Zealand\u0026rsquo;s ESG landscape is the lack of Māori-led frameworks for responsible investment. Rekker et al. (2024) argue that sustainable finance must be reimagined through Indigenous perspectives, which emphasise collective wellbeing, ecological stewardship, and spiritual connection to land. Māori investment entities\u0026mdash;such as iwi-led trusts\u0026mdash;have already pioneered approaches that incorporate \u003cem\u003ewhakapapa\u003c/em\u003e (genealogy) and \u003cem\u003etikanga\u003c/em\u003e (customary ethics) into financial decisions. Yet, universities have largely failed to engage with these models, perpetuating a monocultural view of sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis omission is ethically significant. Universities cannot claim ESG legitimacy if their investment frameworks do not reflect the bicultural foundations upon which they are built. As Treaty partners, institutions have not only a legal obligation, but also a moral duty to centre Indigenous ethics in their governance of resources.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study employs a qualitative document analysis methodology to examine the extent to which Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investment policies within New Zealand\u0026rsquo;s public universities reflect authentic ethical commitments or operate as symbolic gestures. This approach is particularly suitable for evaluating institutional practices where data are embedded within textual artefacts such as policies, reports, and public statements (Bowen, 2009). Document analysis enables the researcher to trace the alignment between institutional narratives and operational frameworks, especially in contexts where ethical intentions are not easily quantifiable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe investigation is grounded in a critical-interpretive paradigm, which views policy texts not merely as administrative records but as social constructions of organisational ethics. Given that ESG investment practices are both performative and strategic, the study seeks to interpret how universities communicate their values and responsibilities through formal documentation and whether those declarations translate into coherent governance practices (Yanow \u0026amp; Schwartz-Shea, 2015).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eResearch Scope and Sampling\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe research examines all eight public universities in Aotearoa New Zealand, ensuring sectoral representation across regional and institutional scales. These include:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col start=\"1\" type=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUniversity of Auckland\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUniversity of Otago\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUniversity of Canterbury\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVictoria University of Wellington\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMassey University\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUniversity of Waikato\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLincoln University\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAuckland University of Technology\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUniversities were selected because of their public mandate, fiduciary responsibilities, and growing involvement in ethical investment discourse. The focus was exclusively on publicly accessible documents sourced from official university websites, institutional repositories, and open government platforms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eData Sources and Collection\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDocument collection was conducted from August to November 2024. The following categories of material were included:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col start=\"1\" type=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eESG or ethical investment policies\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUniversity investment strategies and policy statements\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAnnual reports (from 2019 to 2023)\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eClimate action plans and sustainability strategy documents\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePress releases and responses to student or stakeholder activism\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCouncil minutes and financial committee reports (where publicly posted)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese documents were downloaded in PDF or HTML format and catalogued for thematic analysis. No institutional permissions or private data sources were required, as all content analysed was available in the public domain.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAnalytical Process\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDocuments were coded and analysed thematically using a hybrid deductive\u0026ndash;inductive strategy. Initial codes were developed based on existing ESG literature, including concepts such as \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003etransparency\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003efossil fuel exclusion\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eMāori value integration\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;, and \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003egovernance structure\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;. These were refined through close reading and iterated as new themes emerged. The coding process was managed using NVivo to assist with pattern identification and category tracking across the institutional dataset.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThree core analytical dimensions guided the interpretation:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col start=\"1\" type=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePolicy Transparency \u0026ndash; Are investment objectives and ESG filters clearly articulated?\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEthical Coherence \u0026ndash; Do stated sustainability or Indigenous commitments align with investment decisions?\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGovernance Participation \u0026ndash; Is there evidence of stakeholder involvement in decision-making?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThrough this framework, the research examined the consistency between policy language and institutional behaviour, with particular attention to the incorporation\u0026mdash;or omission\u0026mdash;of bicultural and social equity principles.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eEnsuring Rigour and Validity\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo enhance the trustworthiness of the findings, triangulation was employed by cross-referencing university documents with external data sources such as the Times Higher Education Impact Rankings, the New Zealand Super Fund exclusion list, and published student union submissions. This enabled the research to identify discrepancies between institutional claims and broader sustainability benchmarks.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, institutional data were not evaluated in isolation; rather, comparative patterns were examined across the sector. This cross-case approach supports deeper insight into structural trends and governance norms within New Zealand\u0026rsquo;s higher education ESG landscape.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Findings","content":"\u003ch2\u003eLack of Transparency in Investment Disclosure\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA key finding from the document analysis is the pervasive lack of transparency surrounding how New Zealand universities implement Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investment policies. Despite public statements affirming a commitment to sustainability and ethical responsibility, the degree to which these values are embedded within financial operations is obscured by inconsistent reporting, vague policy language, and limited access to investment portfolio data.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcross the eight public universities reviewed, only three\u0026mdash;Victoria University of Wellington, University of Otago, and University of Auckland\u0026mdash;publish any reference to ESG in their investment strategies. Even within these cases, disclosure is minimal and lacks detail. For example, while the University of Otago\u0026apos;s investment policy affirms alignment with \u0026ldquo;socially responsible investment principles\u0026rdquo;, it does not include a full list of excluded sectors or detail the screening criteria applied to fund managers. Instead, the language remains broad and aspirational, with limited indicators for measuring compliance or progress.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the case of the University of Auckland, public annual reports mention divestment from fossil fuels, yet the precise extent of this divestment\u0026mdash;whether direct holdings, indirect exposures, or pooled funds\u0026mdash;is not quantified. Furthermore, no accessible documentation outlines how ESG risks are assessed or who is responsible for overseeing ethical investment compliance. This vagueness raises significant questions about the verifiability and accountability of ESG claims (Finatto et al., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe absence of comprehensive portfolio disclosure is particularly concerning given the increasing international emphasis on financial transparency in higher education. Leading frameworks such as the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment (UNPRI) and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) advocate for regular, granular reporting on ESG performance indicators. While the New Zealand Superannuation Fund sets a domestic benchmark for such transparency\u0026mdash;publishing detailed exclusion lists and portfolio updates\u0026mdash;none of the universities in this study appear to follow similar standards (Onademuren, 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis lack of disclosure has ethical implications. First, it inhibits public scrutiny and weakens the ability of stakeholders\u0026mdash;particularly students and staff\u0026mdash;to hold institutions accountable for their sustainability claims. Second, it allows universities to selectively present ESG credentials without exposing the actual content or ethics of their investments. As Zharfpeykan and Bai (2025) argue, institutions that promote ESG values without providing data risk engaging in \u0026ldquo;green window-dressing\u0026rdquo;\u0026mdash;a form of reputational management that lacks substantive ethical depth.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the opacity surrounding ESG investment decisions appears to reflect a broader trend of financial gatekeeping in university governance. In most cases, decision-making around investment strategy is delegated to external fund managers or financial committees, with little input from wider university constituencies. This lack of participatory governance compounds the transparency deficit and raises concerns about the alignment of financial decision-making with institutional ethics and Treaty obligations (Ramani et al., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom a methodological standpoint, the inability to access investment portfolios constrained the extent to which this study could evaluate ethical alignment quantitatively. The documents available frequently referred to ESG \u0026ldquo;principles\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;commitments\u0026rdquo; without establishing whether these translated into enforceable action. For example, only one university made reference to active monitoring mechanisms, and none disclosed whether ESG metrics were embedded into key performance indicators for financial officers or fund managers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn summary, the analysis reveals that while references to ESG are increasingly common in university rhetoric, transparency in investment disclosure remains limited and inconsistent. This lack of clarity undermines institutional credibility and restricts the ability of external stakeholders to assess the ethical substance of ESG initiatives. Without a move toward detailed, standardised, and publicly accessible reporting, universities risk substituting ethical intent for ethical performance\u0026mdash;a hallmark of institutional tokenism.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eInconsistent Alignment with Sustainability Goals\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA central finding of this study is the significant inconsistency between the sustainability commitments of New Zealand universities and their operational investment practices. While most institutions articulate ambitious climate and social equity goals\u0026mdash;such as net-zero emissions targets, environmental leadership frameworks, or alignment with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)\u0026mdash;their actual financial portfolios often fall short of these declarations. This disconnect suggests that sustainability is, at times, embraced rhetorically without the structural mechanisms required to embed it into financial governance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll eight public universities in New Zealand publicly support sustainability through various strategic documents. For instance, the University of Canterbury and the University of Waikato both highlight alignment with the SDGs and declare institutional commitments to reduce carbon footprints by 2030. Similarly, the University of Auckland has positioned itself as a global leader in sustainability, consistently ranking highly in the Times Higher Education Impact Rankings. However, when these commitments are examined against ESG investment practices, a more fragmented picture emerges.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA key issue is the persistence of indirect exposure to fossil fuels and carbon-intensive sectors, often through passive investment vehicles or multi-asset funds that are not screened for ESG compliance. While some universities, such as Otago and Victoria University of Wellington, have made public announcements regarding fossil fuel divestment, these declarations frequently apply only to direct holdings, excluding managed portfolios where transparency is minimal. As a result, institutions may maintain financial links to sectors they claim to have disengaged from, raising questions about the integrity and robustness of their sustainability claims (Finatto et al., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis problem is compounded by the absence of binding investment frameworks that codify how sustainability is operationalised. Across the universities reviewed, very few have adopted formal ESG performance indicators within their investment policies. In cases where ESG is mentioned, it is often described in general terms, such as a commitment to \u0026ldquo;consider environmental and social factors\u0026rdquo;\u0026mdash;without detailing how these considerations influence asset selection, risk modelling, or fund manager evaluation. Such ambiguity leaves room for inconsistent interpretation and undermines the development of institutional accountability mechanisms (Ramani et al., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe mismatch between goals and investment behaviours also has a reputational dimension. Institutions that declare climate neutrality yet continue to benefit from carbon-linked investments risk losing credibility among students, staff, and the wider public. The ethical dissonance here is particularly acute for universities that promote their leadership in climate science or sustainability education while failing to divest from extractive industries or align with emissions reduction trajectories recommended by climate experts (Perera, 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA related issue is the siloed nature of sustainability governance in many universities. In practice, environmental commitments tend to be managed by sustainability offices or strategic planning units, while investment decisions are handled by separate finance teams or outsourced to external asset managers. This structural separation often prevents the full integration of sustainability objectives into core institutional processes. It also contributes to the persistence of investment decisions that conflict with the values promoted in other parts of the university (Rekker et al., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn several cases, strategic plans make reference to \u003cem\u003eTe Tiriti o Waitangi\u003c/em\u003e and express commitment to bicultural environmental stewardship. However, the investment policies reviewed rarely, if ever, include specific mechanisms to incorporate Māori ethical perspectives into investment decision-making. This disconnect reveals not only a gap between sustainability and finance but also between institutional commitments to Indigenous partnership and operational governance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTaken together, these findings suggest that while sustainability language is increasingly embedded in university rhetoric, the substantive alignment with financial practices remains inconsistent and incomplete. Without formal frameworks, clearer indicators, and cross-departmental governance integration, universities risk undermining the legitimacy of their sustainability goals and falling into a pattern of ethical incoherence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eMāori Ethical Frameworks Marginalised\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite the widespread invocation of \u003cem\u003eTe Tiriti o Waitangi\u003c/em\u003e and Māori partnership principles across strategic plans and mission statements of New Zealand\u0026rsquo;s universities, the analysis reveals a striking absence of Indigenous ethical frameworks within ESG investment policies. While sustainability rhetoric increasingly references Māori terms such as \u003cem\u003ekaitiakitanga\u003c/em\u003e (environmental guardianship), \u003cem\u003ewhanaungatanga\u003c/em\u003e (relational accountability), and \u003cem\u003emanaakitanga\u003c/em\u003e (care and reciprocity), these values are rarely translated into the operational language of investment governance. This pattern of omission suggests a superficial engagement with bicultural obligations\u0026mdash;one that risks reducing Māori concepts to symbolic tokens rather than embedded ethical guides.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn most cases, Māori ethical principles appear in sustainability strategy documents, but not in financial or investment policies. For example, universities such as Auckland and Waikato refer to \u003cem\u003ekaitiakitanga\u003c/em\u003e as a guiding value in environmental leadership but do not provide evidence of how this principle informs their asset allocation, investment exclusions, or portfolio review processes. Similarly, references to Treaty partnership commitments are widespread across annual reports but are absent from core policy documents governing endowment management and capital investment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis disconnect reflects what Rekker et al. (2024) term \u0026ldquo;Indigenous value silos\u0026rdquo;, whereby cultural frameworks are embraced in domains such as curriculum or community engagement, but remain excluded from economic and governance systems. In the context of ESG investing, this means that while universities may claim to act in alignment with Māori values, the financial decisions they make are still largely governed by Western models of utility, risk, and return\u0026mdash;models that do not necessarily prioritise intergenerational wellbeing or collective responsibility.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe marginalisation of Māori ethics in investment governance is particularly problematic given the long-standing presence of Indigenous economic philosophies in Aotearoa\u0026rsquo;s broader financial landscape. Iwi (tribal) investment entities, such as Ngāi Tahu Holdings and Tainui Group Holdings, have demonstrated how Māori values can shape financial practice. These organisations often adopt investment models that centre on \u003cem\u003ewhakapapa\u003c/em\u003e (genealogical connection), \u003cem\u003emauri\u003c/em\u003e (life force), and \u003cem\u003etikanga\u003c/em\u003e (customary practices), balancing economic growth with social cohesion and environmental stewardship (Daugaard \u0026amp; Poyser, 2023). Their success challenges the assumption that ethical investing must conform to Western fiduciary norms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMoreover, the exclusion of Māori frameworks undermines the legal and moral obligations universities have as public institutions and Treaty partners. Section 181 of the Education and Training Act 2020 specifies that university councils must reflect Treaty principles in their governance. While this legal duty is often interpreted in terms of representation or curriculum, it reasonably extends to financial governance, particularly when university investments materially impact Indigenous lands, communities, or climate outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe ethical implications of this marginalisation are manifold. First, it signals a failure to engage in genuine co-governance\u0026mdash;a cornerstone of bicultural accountability. Second, it contributes to epistemic injustice by privileging Western ethical frameworks over Indigenous ones in institutional decision-making (Smith, 2012). Third, it weakens the credibility of ESG policies by omitting values that are foundational to the country\u0026rsquo;s social contract.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eImportantly, no evidence was found across the sample universities of formalised consultation processes with Māori stakeholders regarding investment governance. There were no references to Māori financial advisory bodies, no investment criteria grounded in \u003cem\u003etikanga Māori\u003c/em\u003e, and no disclosure of Māori-led ESG performance reviews. This absence suggests that Māori perspectives are not only structurally excluded but also institutionally marginalised in ways that erode the legitimacy of ethical investing within the university sector.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo address this deficit, universities must move beyond the ceremonial use of Māori language and incorporate Māori epistemologies into the decision-making architectures of their ESG frameworks. This includes creating kaupapa Māori investment models, appointing Māori representatives to governance bodies, and developing ESG screening tools that reflect Indigenous definitions of value, harm, and sustainability. Without such changes, the risk persists that Māori ethics will continue to be invoked as ornamental rather than operational, reinforcing the very tokenism that ESG frameworks seek to eliminate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eLack of Stakeholder Governance in ESG Oversight\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA recurring theme in the analysis of New Zealand universities\u0026rsquo; Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investment practices is the limited role of stakeholders in the governance of these financial decisions. Despite the growing emphasis on ethical transparency and participatory governance in higher education, ESG investment oversight remains largely centralised, technocratic, and exclusive to internal financial or managerial elites. This undermines claims of institutional accountability and raises concerns about the democratic legitimacy of sustainability frameworks within the university sector.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe documents reviewed across all eight public universities in Aotearoa New Zealand indicate that investment decisions are typically governed by senior finance officers, university councils, or external investment consultants. In only one instance\u0026mdash;at Victoria University of Wellington\u0026mdash;was there reference to a sustainability or investment subcommittee that included academic representation. However, even in this case, student or Māori voices were absent from the documented structure, and the committee\u0026rsquo;s actual influence over asset allocation remained unclear. Where committees exist, they function primarily as advisory bodies rather than decision-making organs with enforceable oversight (Ramani et al., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis exclusion is particularly problematic given the central role that students and staff have played in advancing ESG-related activism within New Zealand universities. Over the past decade, numerous divestment campaigns have been led by student associations, academic unions, and Māori collectives calling for ethical disinvestment from fossil fuels, private prisons, and arms manufacturing. Yet, none of the institutions reviewed offered formal mechanisms by which these stakeholders could participate in investment governance, nor did they report on consultation processes related to ESG policy design (Perera, 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe absence of participatory governance contradicts international best practice. The United Nations-supported Principles for Responsible Investment (UNPRI) emphasise stakeholder engagement as a key dimension of ethical investing, recommending that institutional investors actively involve affected parties in policy development and review. Similarly, the Times Higher Education Impact Rankings, which many New Zealand universities cite as benchmarks, assign value to transparency and community engagement in ESG governance. The failure to include these practices in institutional investment processes suggests a disconnect between aspirational sustainability frameworks and actual governance structures (Finatto et al., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBeyond international standards, the lack of stakeholder engagement also has specific ethical implications within the context of New Zealand\u0026rsquo;s bicultural constitutional landscape. The absence of Māori representation in ESG governance not only limits the integration of Indigenous values but also contravenes the universities\u0026rsquo; obligations under \u003cem\u003eTe Tiriti o Waitangi\u003c/em\u003e. Financial governance that excludes Māori voices risks perpetuating the marginalisation of Indigenous worldviews and undermining Treaty-based co-governance principles (Daugaard \u0026amp; Poyser, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMoreover, this governance gap limits institutional learning and adaptive capacity. As ethical investment landscapes evolve\u0026mdash;particularly in response to climate risks and social inequality\u0026mdash;stakeholder input becomes increasingly important for identifying emerging issues, anticipating reputational risks, and shaping resilient governance models. The current siloed structure of ESG oversight constrains such reflexivity and reduces the robustness of ethical decision-making.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to governance exclusion, a number of universities were found to have no published procedures for reviewing or updating ESG policies based on stakeholder feedback. Without cyclical evaluation or formal channels for dissent, there is little opportunity for students, staff, or the broader community to challenge or improve investment frameworks. This lack of responsiveness further entrenches a top-down governance model, at odds with the participatory ideals often associated with sustainability discourse.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn sum, the findings reveal that ESG investment governance in New Zealand universities is characterised by insularity, opacity, and limited stakeholder participation. This governance configuration undermines both the ethical foundations of ESG and the democratic ethos of public universities. Without the inclusion of diverse voices\u0026mdash;especially those of students, Indigenous communities, and academic staff\u0026mdash;ESG investment will remain vulnerable to institutional tokenism and reputational management, rather than functioning as a tool for ethical transformation.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003ch2\u003eSymbolic Versus Substantive ESG\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study highlight a persistent tension in the implementation of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles within New Zealand universities: the contrast between symbolic ESG practices, often adopted for reputational gain, and substantive ESG integration, which reflects meaningful ethical commitment. While universities across the country increasingly adopt the language of sustainability and ethical investing, the structural and operational underpinnings required to realise these principles remain underdeveloped. This section explores the implications of this symbolic\u0026ndash;substantive divide and situates it within broader discussions on institutional ethics and governance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSymbolic ESG refers to practices that signal ethical responsibility without enacting deep institutional change. Such practices often rely on public-facing commitments, such as declarations of fossil fuel divestment, participation in international rankings, or vague policy statements referencing ESG filters. These gestures, while important in shaping public perception, can function as \u0026ldquo;ethical window dressing\u0026rdquo; if they are not matched by transparent, measurable, and enforceable actions (Zharfpeykan \u0026amp; Bai, 2025). In contrast, substantive ESG reflects a deliberate restructuring of financial governance, stakeholder engagement, and ethical criteria in ways that are consistent, traceable, and embedded in institutional culture (Hill, 2020).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study found that the vast majority of ESG frameworks in New Zealand universities align more closely with the symbolic end of the spectrum. For example, investment policies frequently mention responsible investing but lack specific screening mechanisms or enforcement protocols. References to Indigenous values such as \u003cem\u003ekaitiakitanga\u003c/em\u003e are common in sustainability strategies, yet these values are almost entirely absent from investment governance procedures. Similarly, fossil fuel divestment is often claimed without full disclosure of indirect investments or pooled fund holdings, allowing institutions to maintain carbon exposure while preserving the appearance of ethical alignment (Finatto et al., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuch discrepancies raise concerns about institutional credibility and ethical legitimacy. The symbolic adoption of ESG frameworks may achieve short-term reputational objectives\u0026mdash;such as improved rankings or stakeholder appeasement\u0026mdash;but fails to address the systemic and long-term challenges posed by climate change, social inequity, or Indigenous exclusion. As Gary (2016) argues, ethical investment cannot be reduced to brand management; it must function as a mechanism for aligning institutional values with real-world impacts. When ESG is adopted performatively, it undermines both ethical purpose and public trust.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMoreover, symbolic ESG practices tend to be top-down and managerial, further disconnecting governance from the communities they serve. The lack of stakeholder input\u0026mdash;especially from students, Māori collectives, and academic staff\u0026mdash;consolidates ESG within technocratic silos, detached from broader democratic processes. This centralisation reinforces a narrow definition of ethics rooted in financial risk management rather than distributive justice or cultural accountability (Ramani et al., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn contrast, substantive ESG implementation requires more than surface-level adjustments. It demands the creation of institutional accountability mechanisms, such as clear reporting standards, ESG metrics embedded into investment reviews, and ongoing stakeholder participation. It also requires universities to reimagine fiduciary responsibility not simply as a duty to maximise financial returns, but as a multidimensional obligation that includes intergenerational equity, social justice, and Indigenous rights (Daugaard \u0026amp; Poyser, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOne notable example of substantive ESG practice\u0026mdash;though still rare\u0026mdash;is the move by some overseas universities to publish complete investment holdings and submit to third-party ESG audits. These actions not only increase transparency but signal a willingness to subject institutional claims to external validation. In New Zealand, however, such practices remain the exception, not the norm.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe symbolic\u0026ndash;substantive distinction is not binary but exists on a spectrum, and institutions may shift along this continuum depending on internal pressures, external scrutiny, and leadership priorities. Nevertheless, the current ESG landscape in New Zealand universities is heavily weighted towards symbolism over substance. As such, the risk of ethical dilution remains high unless significant reforms are enacted to close the gap between institutional rhetoric and financial reality.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUltimately, the symbolic appropriation of ESG language, without robust systems to support ethical governance, undermines the potential of sustainability to serve as a transformative force within the academy. If universities are to live up to their public mission and Treaty obligations, ESG must evolve from a performative gesture to a structural ethic\u0026mdash;embedded in governance, co-designed with communities, and subject to critical evaluation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eEthical Imperatives of Biculturalism\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNew Zealand\u0026rsquo;s university sector operates within a bicultural constitutional framework founded upon \u003cem\u003eTe Tiriti o Waitangi\u003c/em\u003e, the foundational agreement between the Crown and Māori as tangata whenua (people of the land). This framework imposes not only legal obligations but also deep ethical responsibilities on universities to embed Māori values, perspectives, and governance principles into all aspects of institutional life\u0026mdash;including financial decision-making. In the context of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) investing, the failure to honour these obligations represents not just a policy oversight but an ethical breach.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe concept of biculturalism in Aotearoa New Zealand extends beyond inclusion or representation. It is grounded in the idea of partnership, where Māori and Pākehā (non-Māori) share decision-making authority, and where Māori knowledge systems (\u003cem\u003emātauranga Māori\u003c/em\u003e) are accorded equal standing with Western frameworks. As Rekker et al. (2024) observe, this ethical imperative requires that universities \u0026ldquo;do with, not for\u0026rdquo; Māori communities\u0026mdash;meaning that Māori values should not be referenced as static cultural tokens, but instead inform the governance structures and investment philosophies that shape university decision-making.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite this, the findings of this study reveal a systemic failure to integrate biculturalism into ESG governance. No university in the sample has adopted an investment framework that reflects tikanga Māori (customary ethics), nor do policies reference Māori-led ESG indicators or co-governance protocols. This absence points to a disconnect between institutional rhetoric and operational reality. While \u003cem\u003ekaitiakitanga\u003c/em\u003e (guardianship) is frequently cited in environmental strategies, it is not operationalised in ESG criteria, nor does it appear to inform how risks and impacts are assessed in investment portfolios (Daugaard \u0026amp; Poyser, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis omission has profound ethical implications. First, it violates the spirit of Treaty-based partnership, particularly in matters that materially affect Māori interests, such as investments in industries linked to land exploitation, environmental degradation, or social harm. Second, it perpetuates what Smith (2012) terms \u0026ldquo;epistemic exclusion\u0026rdquo;, in which Māori worldviews are acknowledged rhetorically but excluded from systems of institutional power. Third, it undermines the credibility of university ESG commitments by failing to reflect the distinct cultural and moral context in which New Zealand universities operate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the absence of bicultural engagement in ESG governance erodes trust and accountability. Māori communities have consistently advocated for ethical approaches to land, water, and social justice, rooted in holistic and intergenerational perspectives. These values align closely with the principles of ESG investing\u0026mdash;but only if they are recognised and given operational weight. When Māori voices are excluded from investment governance, universities lose access to ethical insights that could strengthen the substance and legitimacy of their ESG strategies (Rekker et al., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere is also a broader public ethics dimension to this issue. Universities are not private entities; they are Crown agencies tasked with serving the public good. This includes advancing Māori wellbeing and supporting decolonisation through structural change. As highlighted in government education strategies, such as \u003cem\u003eKa Hikitia\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eTau Mai Te Reo\u003c/em\u003e, Māori engagement must extend beyond symbolic inclusion to structural participation in governance, planning, and resource allocation. Yet, in the case of ESG, no evidence was found of Māori advisory boards, consultative processes, or performance indicators embedded in financial governance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe ethical imperative of biculturalism, therefore, demands a fundamental transformation of how universities conceptualise and execute ESG investing. This includes co-designing investment strategies with Māori stakeholders, adopting kaupapa Māori investment models, and integrating Māori ethical principles\u0026mdash;such as \u003cem\u003eutu\u003c/em\u003e (balance and reciprocity), \u003cem\u003ewhanaungatanga\u003c/em\u003e (relational accountability), and \u003cem\u003emanaakitanga\u003c/em\u003e (care and hospitality)\u0026mdash;into decision-making tools. These are not supplementary add-ons but central tenets of ethical governance in a bicultural society.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWithout this transformation, ESG investing risks becoming another domain in which Treaty obligations are ignored and Indigenous rights sidelined. Universities must recognise that biculturalism is not only a legal framework but an ethical mandate\u0026mdash;a commitment to shared authority, mutual respect, and culturally grounded justice. Embedding biculturalism in ESG practices is not merely an enhancement of ethical rigour; it is a precondition for ethical legitimacy in Aotearoa New Zealand\u0026rsquo;s university sector.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eThe Need for Governance Reform\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe inconsistencies and omissions revealed throughout this study make one conclusion unavoidable: if New Zealand universities are to implement Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investment practices that are ethically credible, governance reform is essential. The current institutional model\u0026mdash;centralised, opaque, and often disengaged from the very values ESG purports to uphold\u0026mdash;fails to meet the demands of accountability, stakeholder inclusion, or bicultural responsibility. Reform is therefore not a matter of efficiency or public relations; it is a moral imperative.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt present, the governance of ESG investing in New Zealand\u0026rsquo;s university sector is largely situated within finance offices, vice-chancellor portfolios, or outsourced investment managers. While these actors bring financial expertise, the absence of formalised ethical oversight bodies\u0026mdash;let alone structures that integrate Māori worldviews or student representation\u0026mdash;creates a narrow and technocratic regime of ESG decision-making. Such a regime is fundamentally misaligned with the multidimensional nature of ESG, which demands responsiveness to climate, social justice, cultural equity, and intergenerational impact (Ramani et al., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOne of the most pressing areas for reform is the establishment of inclusive ESG governance committees. These committees should not operate as advisory afterthoughts but as deliberative, decision-making entities composed of a diverse range of stakeholders: Māori representatives, student leaders, academic staff, environmental specialists, and finance professionals. Their remit should include reviewing investment decisions, setting exclusion criteria, overseeing reporting standards, and recommending policy updates. Crucially, they must be granted both authority and visibility within the institution\u0026rsquo;s broader governance architecture (Finatto et al., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eReform also requires a shift away from passive or delegated investment strategies. While outsourcing financial management may provide technical efficiencies, it also distances institutions from the ethical consequences of their portfolios. Universities must reassert strategic control over ESG mandates given to fund managers and ensure that contracts include binding expectations for transparency, social responsibility, and Treaty compliance. This means moving from \u0026ldquo;outsourcing responsibility\u0026rdquo; to \u0026ldquo;embedding accountability\u0026rdquo; within internal structures (Gary, 2016).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTransparency is another domain in urgent need of an overhaul. As documented in earlier sections, current ESG reporting is highly uneven across universities, with few disclosing actual holdings or performance metrics. Governance reform must institutionalise regular and standardised disclosure mechanisms, such as annual ESG investment reports, third-party audits, and detailed listings of screened and excluded assets. These disclosures should be made accessible to all stakeholders and subject to open review processes. Transparency is not merely procedural\u0026mdash;it is the foundation upon which ethical legitimacy is built (Zharfpeykan \u0026amp; Bai, 2025).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eImportantly, governance reform must be situated within a bicultural framework, recognising \u003cem\u003eTe Tiriti o Waitangi\u003c/em\u003e not only as a historic treaty but as a living ethical compass. This involves adopting governance practices that reflect \u003cem\u003emana whakahaere\u003c/em\u003e (authority) and \u003cem\u003ewhakawhanaungatanga\u003c/em\u003e (relationship-building), and creating space for kaupapa Māori approaches to investment. Māori involvement in ESG governance should be grounded in co-governance principles, not limited to consultation or symbolic inclusion (Daugaard \u0026amp; Poyser, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe reform agenda also extends to performance evaluation. Institutions must develop key performance indicators (KPIs) that measure progress not only in financial returns but in ESG impact, bicultural integration, and participatory governance. These indicators should be integrated into strategic plans and subject to annual review, ensuring that sustainability remains a live and accountable agenda item.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, reform must challenge the prevailing conception of fiduciary duty. Traditionally interpreted as the obligation to maximise financial returns, fiduciary duty in the public university context must evolve to include ethical stewardship, ecological responsibility, and Treaty partnership obligations. As Hill (2020) and Gary (2016) argue, institutional investors\u0026mdash;especially public universities\u0026mdash;have a broader duty to their communities and future generations that cannot be reduced to risk-return calculations alone.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, governance reform is not ancillary to ESG implementation\u0026mdash;it is its very foundation. Without robust, inclusive, transparent, and biculturally informed governance, ESG investment frameworks in New Zealand universities will remain vulnerable to symbolic enactment and ethical dilution. Reform offers a pathway to restore integrity, ensure accountability, and align financial practice with the transformative values universities claim to embody.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study set out to critically examine whether the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investment practices of New Zealand universities represent substantive ethical commitment or operate predominantly as symbolic gestures. Drawing on publicly available institutional documents and policy statements, the analysis uncovered substantial inconsistencies between rhetorical commitments to sustainability and the actual governance, transparency, and ethical integration underpinning university investment portfolios.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe evidence suggests that while ESG language has become increasingly prominent in university strategies\u0026mdash;particularly in relation to climate leadership and social responsibility\u0026mdash;its implementation is often fragmented, opaque, and performative. Across the eight universities reviewed, few provided comprehensive disclosure of investment holdings or screening criteria; fewer still demonstrated clear alignment between their sustainability objectives and actual financial behaviours. This pattern indicates a structural disconnect between institutional values and investment governance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCentral to this disconnect is the limited inclusion of stakeholders in ESG oversight, particularly Māori communities, students, and academic staff. Despite widespread reference to \u003cem\u003eTe Tiriti o Waitangi\u003c/em\u003e, none of the universities analysed had incorporated tikanga Māori or kaupapa Māori principles into their investment frameworks in any meaningful or operational way. This omission is ethically significant in a bicultural society, where Treaty obligations extend beyond symbolic acknowledgement to shared governance and culturally grounded decision-making (Daugaard \u0026amp; Poyser, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Rekker et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, the findings reveal that ESG practices in the sector are largely managerial and technocratic, with investment decisions confined to finance offices or outsourced fund managers. This centralisation weakens ethical scrutiny, discourages accountability, and reinforces a narrow interpretation of fiduciary duty that prioritises financial returns over environmental and social impacts. As scholars such as Gary (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) and Hill (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) argue, the ethical integrity of ESG frameworks depends not only on where capital is invested but on how those decisions are made, by whom, and with whose values in mind.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe discussion has highlighted the urgent need for governance reform. For ESG to be meaningful rather than tokenistic, universities must embed transparency, participatory oversight, and bicultural ethics into their investment structures. This includes the establishment of inclusive ESG committees, co-design with Māori stakeholders, and the adoption of robust reporting systems. Crucially, it also requires a redefinition of fiduciary responsibility\u0026mdash;one that includes not only the economic health of institutions but their environmental sustainability, social justice commitments, and Treaty partnerships.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn sum, the study concludes that the ESG investment practices of New Zealand universities, as currently constituted, fall short of their ethical and public mandates. Without deliberate, transparent, and culturally grounded reform, ESG risks being reduced to institutional branding rather than a vehicle for structural change. However, the findings also point to a clear path forward: by shifting from symbolic to substantive engagement, universities can reclaim ESG as a powerful instrument of ethical leadership and public accountability in the 21st century.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe author declares that there are no competing financial or non-financial interests that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. The research was conducted independently, with no financial support from commercial entities, non-governmental organisations, or political bodies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. \u003cem\u003eQualitative Research Journal, 9\u003c/em\u003e(2), 27\u0026ndash;40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCreswell, J. W., \u0026amp; Poth, C. N. (2018). \u003cem\u003eQualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches\u003c/em\u003e (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDaugaard, D., \u0026amp; Poyser, A. (2023). Indigenous sustainable finance as a research field: A systematic literature review on indigenising ESG, sustainability and indigenous community practices. \u003cem\u003eAccounting \u0026amp; Finance\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.13062\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFinatto, C. P., Fuchs, P. G., Dutra, A. R. A., Beuren, I. M., Bornia, A. C., \u0026amp; Macagnan, C. B. (2024). Environmental, social, governance and sustainable development goals: Promoting sustainability in universities. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 25\u003c/em\u003e(1), 45\u0026ndash;67. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-11-2022-0361\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGary, S. N. (2016). Values and value: University endowments, fiduciary duties, and ESG investing. \u003cem\u003eJournal of College and University Law, 42\u003c/em\u003e, 247\u0026ndash;296. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/jcolunly42\u0026amp;i=257\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHill, J. (2020). \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing: A balanced analysis of the theory and practice of a sustainable portfolio\u003c/em\u003e. Academic Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOnademuren, A. A. (2021). \u003cem\u003eClimate change: A review and analysis of globally adopted ESG reporting and rating methods applied to New Zealand organisations\u003c/em\u003e [Master\u0026rsquo;s thesis, Unitec Institute of Technology]. ResearchBank NZ. https://www.researchbank.ac.nz/handle/10652/5375\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRamani, S., Henne, D., Kotsopoulos, D., \u0026amp; Dickson, B. (2024). A comparative analysis of university investment policies and procedures related to responsible investing. \u003cem\u003eHigher Education Policy\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-023-00306-3\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRekker, S., Humphrey, J., \u0026amp; Gilbert, A. (2024). Indigenous values shaping sustainable investment: A case study of Māori. In \u003cem\u003eSustainable finance\u003c/em\u003e. Council of Australian University Librarians.\u003ca href=\"https://oercollective.caul.edu.au/sustainable-finance/chapter/indigenous-values-shaping-sustainable-investment-a-case-study-of-maori/\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/a\u003ehttps://oercollective.caul.edu.au/sustainable-finance/chapter/indigenous-values-shaping-sustainable-investment-a-case-study-of-maori/\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSmith, L. T. (2012). \u003cem\u003eDecolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples\u003c/em\u003e (2nd ed.). Zed Books.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYanow, D., \u0026amp; Schwartz-Shea, P. (2015). \u003cem\u003eInterpretive research design: Concepts and processes\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZharfpeykan, R., \u0026amp; Bai, Y. (2025). Board gender diversity and corporate ESG performance: Evidence from New Zealand listed firms. \u003cem\u003ePacific Accounting Review\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1108/PAR-01-2024-0011\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Responsible investing, University governance, Sustainability ethics, Māori perspectives, ESG policy implementation","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6916898/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6916898/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eUniversities increasingly adopt sustainability frameworks to align their financial practices with social and environmental values. Among these frameworks, Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investing has emerged as a prominent expression of institutional ethics. This study examines the ESG investment policies of all eight public universities in Aotearoa New Zealand to assess whether these initiatives represent genuine ethical commitment or function primarily as symbolic gestures. Using a qualitative document analysis approach, the research analyses investment policy documents, sustainability strategies, and annual reports to evaluate the extent of transparency, stakeholder involvement, Indigenous inclusion, and policy alignment. The findings reveal that while ESG principles are frequently referenced in institutional rhetoric, they are often weakly implemented, lacking enforceable guidelines, clear reporting mechanisms, or meaningful governance structures. Māori ethical frameworks are notably absent from investment oversight, despite public commitments to the Treaty of Waitangi. Moreover, there is minimal stakeholder engagement, particularly from students and Māori communities, in the development or review of ESG policies. The study concludes that ESG in New Zealand\u0026rsquo;s university sector remains largely performative and recommends governance reform to embed transparency, bicultural ethics, and participatory accountability. By transitioning from symbolic to substantive ESG practices, universities can enhance the legitimacy of their sustainability commitments and fulfil their responsibilities as public, Treaty-bound institutions.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Sustainability or Tokenism? An Ethical Review of ESG Investment Portfolios in New Zealand Universities","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-06-19 09:18:23","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6916898/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"9fb7d124-3ed9-4d15-b901-91609b2332b0","owner":[],"postedDate":"June 19th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-06-19T09:18:23+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-06-19 09:18:23","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6916898","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6916898","identity":"rs-6916898","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}