japanja
Asset managers are yet to truly embrace sustainability

Asset managers are yet to truly embrace sustainability

24-02-2021 | リサーチ
Proxy voting is a powerful tool for shareholders to steer corporate agendas towards sustainability-focused decision making. Despite the increased attention to the integration of sustainability in investment solutions, asset managers generally vote against environmental and social proposals. This trend is more pronounced among large and passive players.
  • Wilma de Groot, PhD
    Wilma
    de Groot, PhD
    Head of Core Quant Equities and Co-head of the Quant Equity Portfolio Management team
  • Jan de Koning
    Jan
    de Koning
    Portfolio Manager

Speed read

  • Asset managers vote against most environmental and social proposals
  • Asset owners can play a leading role in shaping voting behaviors 
  • Regulatory initiatives may compel more favorable voting patterns 
Climate investing: from urgency to solutions
Climate investing: from urgency to solutions
Read more

Sustainable investing has gathered momentum in recent years. This is illustrated by the significant rise in assets invested in sustainable equity strategies, which have tripled from USD 200 billion to USD 600 billion over the last decade. According to PwC, these assets will outpace those in regular investment strategies by 2025, in Europe.1  

By investing in funds that integrate environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria, asset owners aim to contribute to a better world. In turn, asset managers are tasked with constructing portfolios to meet these requirements, but their duties do not end there. They can also cast their vote at shareholder meetings and steer the corporate agenda towards sustainability-focused decision making.

However, our research – covering a decade of US shareholder voting by the largest 50 asset managers – reveals that the number of submissions brought forward on environmental and social issues has remained consistently low, less than 1% of all proposals. This contradicts the increased interest in sustainable investing over the last decade.

By investing in funds that integrate ESG criteria, asset owners aim to contribute to a better world

Moreover, asset managers generally vote against most environmental and social proposals. This is even more pronounced among large and passive players as Figure 1 and 2 show. Access to larger voting teams, compared to their smaller peers, did not yield more positive voting trends for large asset managers. For passive counterparts, cost pressures have led to standardization across engagement and voting operations in a bid to minimize expense ratios.

Figure 1 | US asset managers voting in favor of environmental proposals (sorted on AuM)

Source: Groot, de, W., Koning, de, J. and Winkel, van, S., February 2021, “Sustainable voting behavior of asset managers: Do they walk the walk?”, working paper.

Figure 2 | US asset managers voting in favor of social proposals (sorted on AuM)

Source: Groot, de, W., Koning, de, J. and Winkel, van, S., February 2021, “Sustainable voting behavior of asset managers: Do they walk the walk?”, working paper.

In addition, signatories of the United Nations-supported Principles for Responsible Investment (UN PRI) initiative have unfortunately not made a tangible difference. These managers did not vote more in favor of sustainability-related proposals than those outside of the network. This is despite the ESG-focused guiding principles they ascribe to when they join the organization.

Actively exercising our stewardship responsibilities is an integral part of Robeco’s sustainable investing approach. By making active use of our voting rights on behalf of our clients, we can encourage companies to increase the quality of their management teams and to improve their sustainability profile. We expect this to contribute to shareholder value creation in the long term.

Robeco’s voting track record on environmental and social issues demonstrates our commitment to change the corporate agenda. Figure 3 illustrates Robeco’s high share of votes in favor of ESG proposals, while Figure 4 depicts the positive evolution of this trend. It is important, however, to acknowledge that no asset manager can always vote in favor of all proposals, as some are not deemed to be realistic or reasonable. 

Figure 3 | Asset managers voting in favor of ESG proposals (2018)

Source: Robeco and Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) - obtained through Wharton Research Data Services (WRDS). Data is based on over 500,000 fund-votes cast on ESG proposals by the ‘big three’ passive managers and Robeco in the first half of 2018.

Figure 4 | Asset managers voting in favor of environmental and social proposals

Source: Robeco and Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) - obtained through Wharton Research Data Services (WRDS). Data is based on over 100,000 fund-votes cast on environmental and social proposals by the ‘big three’ passive managers and Robeco in the sample period (January 2012 through June 2018).

In order to ‘walk the walk’ instead of ‘talking the talk’, asset owners can encourage their managers to increase the number of proposals filed on environmental and social topics. This may be an important first step as the currently low figures could be sending a negative signal to directors about the importance of these issues. Asset owners can also make the assessment of sustainable voting practices an integral part of their manager selection, due diligence and monitoring.

To be sure, filing numerous shareholder proposals is a daunting task for asset managers, given the sheer number of listed companies and the vast amount of work involved. But we believe these obstacles can be addressed if asset managers join forces and mutually coordinate the steering of corporate agendas. Such coordination may even lower the costs of these activities for each manager, while increasing the impact on corporate decision making.2 

Finally, regulators can make the central filing of voting records mandatory for asset managers and owners. This information may then be made publicly available. Such a transparent system is already in place for funds domiciled in the US (N-PX database). If voting records are disclosed, the beneficial owners (e.g., pensioners, etc.) will be able to see to if their asset managers are truly deploying their money in a sustainable manner.

1Financial Times, November 2020, “ESG funds forecast to outnumber conventional funds by 2025”, https://www.ft.com/content/5cd6e923-81e0-4557-8cff-a02fb5e01d42
2Dimson, E., Karakaş, O., and Li, X., November 2020, “Coordinated Engagements”, European Corporate Governance Institute – Finance Working Paper No. 721/2021.

Leave your details and download the full white paper

ディスクレーマー

個人情報は、細心の注意をもって適切に取り扱います。事前の同意なしに第三者に提供することはありません。

Stay informed on our latest insights with monthly mail updates
Stay informed on our latest insights with monthly mail updates
Subscribe

重要事項

当資料は情報提供を目的として、Robeco Institutional Asset Management B.V.が作成した英文資料、もしくはその英文資料をロベコ・ジャパン株式会社が翻訳したものです。資料中の個別の金融商品の売買の勧誘や推奨等を目的とするものではありません。記載された情報は十分信頼できるものであると考えておりますが、その正確性、完全性を保証するものではありません。意見や見通しはあくまで作成日における弊社の判断に基づくものであり、今後予告なしに変更されることがあります。運用状況、市場動向、意見等は、過去の一時点あるいは過去の一定期間についてのものであり、過去の実績は将来の運用成果を保証または示唆するものではありません。また、記載された投資方針・戦略等は全ての投資家の皆様に適合するとは限りません。当資料は法律、税務、会計面での助言の提供を意図するものではありません。

ご契約に際しては、必要に応じ専門家にご相談の上、最終的なご判断はお客様ご自身でなさるようお願い致します。

運用を行う資産の評価額は、組入有価証券等の価格、金融市場の相場や金利等の変動、及び組入有価証券の発行体の財務状況による信用力等の影響を受けて変動します。また、外貨建資産に投資する場合は為替変動の影響も受けます。運用によって生じた損益は、全て投資家の皆様に帰属します。したがって投資元本や一定の運用成果が保証されているものではなく、投資元本を上回る損失を被ることがあります。弊社が行う金融商品取引業に係る手数料または報酬は、締結される契約の種類や契約資産額により異なるため、当資料において記載せず別途ご提示させて頂く場合があります。具体的な手数料または報酬の金額・計算方法につきましては弊社担当者へお問合せください。

当資料及び記載されている情報、商品に関する権利は弊社に帰属します。したがって、弊社の書面による同意なくしてその全部もしくは一部を複製またはその他の方法で配布することはご遠慮ください。

商号等: ロベコ・ジャパン株式会社  金融商品取引業者 関東財務局長(金商)第2780号

加入協会: 一般社団法人 日本投資顧問業協会