People’s University 4 Gaza vs University of British Columbia

Allegations

On 5 December 2024, People’s University 4 Gaza filed a complaint against the University of British Columbia at the Canadian NCP. The complaint concerns UBC’s investments through the UBC endowment fund, managed by its wholly owned subsidiary UBC Investment Management Incorporated (UBCIM), and its academic partnership agreements with three Israeli universities.

The complainants allege that UBC, “via pooled funds”, invests in companies identified by UN experts as “sending weapons, parts, components and ammunition to Israeli forces” as well as in companies “operating in and/or maintaining illegal Israeli settlements in the Occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem”. The complaint claims that these investments represented a direct link between UBC’s operations, products or services to adverse human rights impacts caused or contributed to by the investee companies. The complaint also alleges that UBC lacked a human rights policy commitment. The complaint further alleges that academic partnership agreements between UBC and Israeli universities represented a similar direct link between UBC and impacts caused or contributed to by the universities, as the universities “promote and facilitate the occupation and annexation of Palestine”.

The complainants asked the NCP to offer its good offices to “facilitate respect for the Guidelines and clarify UBC’s due diligence responsibilities.”

Relevant OECD Guidelines

• Chapter IV
• Chapter IV Paragraph 4
• Chapter IV Paragraph 5
• Chapter IX
• Chapter IX Paragraph 5

Outcome

In September 2026, the Canadian NCP published its Initial Assessment. The Canadian NCP accepted for further consideration only the issue of UBC’s human rights policy commitment and its approach to human rights due diligence overall in its capacity as an institutional investor. The NCP found that UBC “appears to be engaged in commercial activities in its capacity as an institutional investor”, as UBCIM is stated to manage UBC’s endowment fund with the “goal of maximizing net real returns”. The NCP concluded that the issue of whether an institutional investor carries out human rights due diligence on its business relationships with investee companies was material to the Guidelines. The NCP further noted although UBC did appear to have a general policy commitment to respect human rights relating to its investments, It was unclear how UBC’s current policies identify, address and communicate about human rights risks in accordance with the Guidelines.

The NCP did not accept the rest of the complaint. On academic partnerships, the NCP noted that the applicability of the Guidelines depends on the “commercial form, purpose, or activities” of an entity. It found that the agreements focused on advancing UBC’s non-commercial purposes and activities, being the advancement of education and scholarship.

On the allegations on UBC’s investments in companies linked to settlements in occupied territories, the NCP recognised that the context presents heightened human rights risks, but found that operating in a high-risk context does not by itself mean an enterprise contributes to adverse impacts. The NCP concluded that while the information provided in the complaint identified settlement-related risks related to the investee companies, it did not show how UBC, through its investments, was directly linked to particular adverse impacts.

The NCP offered good offices to the parties in the form of a single one-hour facilitated session of dialogue on UBC’s approach to responsible investment and human rights and on the relevance of the Guidelines on UBC’s future investments.

More details

Documents

• Partially accept

  5 October 2026

  Initial assessment

  NCP