Divestment from fossil fuels could negatively impact the financial returns for universities, according to a new report from an economic consulting company.

The study, released by Compass Lexecon and sponsored by the Independent Petroleum Association of America, highlighted the negative impacts of university divestment from fossil fuels, branding divestment a “bad idea” for the uncertainty it causes.

“The costs to investors of fossil fuel divestiture are highly likely and substantial, while the potential benefits — to the extent there are any — are ill-defined and uncertain at best,” Compass Lexecon President and Chairman Daniel Fischel, the principal author of the study, wrote in the report.

The study created stock indices, compared their returns and found that those without investments in the energy sector underperformed by up to 0.7 percent.

In the context of universities, the study also found that divesting from fossil fuels could cut funding for underprivileged students.

The study estimates that the cost to university endowments, which total $456 billion around the United States, would be $3 billion a year.

Despite these negative findings, representatives from Compass Lexecon maintained that the study does not explicitly advocate against fossil fuel divestment.

Senior Vice President Alex Rinaudo explained that the findings in the paper should be taken objectively and stressed that Compass Lexecon does not take an official stance on divestment.

“The point of the paper is not to say that divestment is or is not an option. I think it’s a very complex issue which could have benefits, but which also could have costs,” Rinaudo said. “The real point of the paper was to point out from a purely financial perspective, in terms of maximising assets, our analysis shows that divestment is highly likely to lead to a reduction, and from that perspective divestment comes with a very real financial cost.”

Universities have responded in various ways to the question of divestment. While The New School in New York City decided to divest from all fossil fuel investments in February and focus increasingly on climate change in its curriculum, Harvard University dismissed its students’ attempts to divest. University President Drew Faust said that divestment was neither “warranted nor wise” in an Oct. 2013 statement.

Rinaudo added that the decision of whether or not to divest from fossil fuels should be made on a case-by-case basis.

“Ultimately that’s up to the individual, and Georgetown, like every other institution, will have to make that choice,” Rinaudo said.

According to The New York Times, the report contradicts two previous studies on divestment. One by Northstar Asset Management predicted that divestment would reduce returns by 0.15 percent, while another by the Aperio Group said that divestment from 15 stocks specifically targeted by activists would have no real impact.

The issue remains contested at Georgetown.

The Committee on Investments and Social Responsibility previously rejected student organization GU Fossil Free’s calls for total divestment from 200 companies over the next three years, issuing alternative recommendations for strategic divestment and targeted engagement with energy companies to increase pressure on the companies to develop alternative sources of energy.

The board of directors is in the process of considering CISR’s proposal, as the issue of fossil fuel divestment is still an ongoing question among university officials, according to Director of Media Relations Rachel Pugh.

“The working group of the board of directors will be reviewing the divestment question carefully in the coming weeks and will want to hear from key stakeholders on a range of issues,” Pugh said.

Fossil Free members, who continue to campaign for divestment, criticized Compass Lexecon’s study.

“The report completely fails to understand the issues. It implies that climate science and the social costs of carbon are still very much up in the air, despite the fact that an overwhelming scientific consensus suggests otherwise,” Fossil Free member Graham Willard (SFS ’18) said in a statement on behalf of the organization.

Willard specifically pointed to the role of the Independent Petroleum Association of America in the study as an additional cause for concern.

“Any study commissioned by people who have a direct stake in its results should not be taken too seriously,” Willard said.

Correction: This article previously identified the IPAA as the International Petroleum Association of America. It has been updated to reflect its actual name, the Independent Petroleum Association of America.