AMHERST — A University of Massachusetts campus organization pushing for more socially responsible investments by the UMass Foundation, manager of the university’s endowment, is claiming a small win after the nonprofit organization made a commitment to invest in fossil fuel-free funds.

Yet members of Move Our Money, a committee of the Environmental and Social Action Movement at UMass, are criticizing the UMass Foundation and the university for not moving fast enough to withdraw from investments in fossil fuels and weapons makers used to support the $1.31 billion endowment, a cause for concern due to both the growing impacts of climate change and the support the incoming Trump administration is likely to provide for oil and gas companies.

“Now more than ever, it is time for UMass Amherst to step up as the flagship campus and pave the way for carbon neutrality for the other UMass campuses and other universities around the world,” Amelia Rogers, an undergraduate and member of Move Our Money, said in a statement. Rogers called for UMass to live up its slogan and “be revolutionary.”

“Carbon zero is not only something that the administration has promised, but it is something that we desperately need,” Rogers said.

“As a research institution, and the public institution with the largest carbon footprint in Massachusetts, UMass must set an example for the rest of the country by moving away from fossil fuels,” said undergraduate student Adriana Smith, also a member of Move Our Money.

The committee recently observed that the UMass Foundation agreed to offer donors two sustainable investment options it recommended. Those featured options are an Impact small growth fund and a Parnassus mid-cap growth fund, both of which are among the top fossil fuel-free funds listed in the As You Sow database, a nonprofit foundation chartered to promote corporate social responsibility. Neither of those funds invests in military weapons, civilian firearms or tobacco. The Foundation also agreed to discontinue use of another fund that had been improperly labeled as environmentally sustainable.

But those adjustments fall short of the ethical and sustainable investment standards that community members demanded, with no similar withdrawal from the multiple non-sustainable investment funds the UMass Foundation uses.

Last April, Move Our Money made a so-called “request for review” to the UMass Foundation’s Socially Responsible Investment Advisory Committee. That was signed by 20 campus leaders from UMass, including representatives of labor unions and student government bodies.

It included a 2,000-word brief on why the UMass Foundation should withdraw from funds that invest in fossil fuels and weapons makers: “This request for review highlights two such contradictions: the continued indirect investment of endowment funds in the fossil-fuel sector and the UMass system’s use of financial institutions that enable that sector. These practices mean that UMass is still contributing to climate destruction.”

That brief also included a petition, signed by over 1,100 UMass community members, that urged UMass trustees to end the university’s relationships with Bank of America, Citi, WellsFargo, JP Morgan Chase, AIG, W.R. Berkley, and other financial institutions that allegedly enable damage to the climate through investments and underwriting.

A July response, though, told Move Our Money that the advisory committee would respectfully deny the request. That email referred additional questions to the Paul C. Dawley, the general counsel for the UMass Foundation.

Kevin A. Young, an associate professor of history, wrote to Dawley that it was disrespectful that advisory committees members did not see fit to offer any rationale for their decision.

“A respectful reply would have included a point-by-point explanation commensurate with the many hours of research, discussion, writing, and signature-gathering reflected in the request for review,” Young wrote. “The terseness of the response is insulting.”

But Dawley said a thorough examination of the appeal had been made.

Young also requested to publicly identify the members of the advisory committee, which Dawley declined to do because the UMass Foundation is a private entity.

Efforts to reach the foundation by email were unsuccessful on Tuesday.

Advocates noted that in 2016, in response to a student divestment campaign, the UMass Foundation and board of trustees committed to divest from fossil fuel companies, even as they have continued to maintain large indirect investments in coal, oil and gas.

Scott Merzbach can be reached at smerzbach@gazettenet.com.