Asset managers can’t have it both ways on sustainability

Hugues Letourneau.

US-headquartered global managers — the largest in the world by assets, with a global client base — have recently been trying to show that they could cater to all sides, from asset owners that have spent years integrating sustainability into their investment strategies to anti-ESG elected officials in states like Texas.

It’s not working. Global asset managers can’t have it both ways.

Asset owners — a category that includes pension funds, sovereign wealth funds and foundations — are expressing concern as some managers appear to waver under political pressure. These investors have spent much of the last decade refining how they manage material risks and they’re taking notice when managers compromise those principles.

At a recent meeting convened by the Global Unions’ Committee on Workers’ Capital (CWC), asset owners from around the globe met with BlackRock, and cautioned that corporate engagement should not be reduced to inconsequential exchanges of information. The asset owners made their client expectations clear: they want meaningful and effective stewardship, not fence sitting.

Asset owners around the world are getting fed up with their providers who appear more focused on placating anti-ESG politicians than protecting long-term value. The NYC Comptroller and the Netherlands’ PME, have placed some managers on notice. Some asset owners have downsized (e.g., People’s Partnership in the UK) and even ended (e.g., AkademikerPension in Denmark and PGGM in the Netherlands) mandates with some US global managers that were underperforming on stewardship.

So BlackRock might’ve recently regained favour in Texas — at least enough to be removed from the state’s blacklist for the time being — but the broader question remains, will they win back Texas only to lose the rest of the world?

Sponsored Content

Asset managers don’t need to lose clients — they could be winning them.

Analysts at JP Morgan estimate that global demand for sustainable investing represents a $7.3 trillion opportunity.

But there’s a precondition. Seizing this opportunity will require managers to demonstrate that their stewardship activities — dialogues with companies, voting at annual general meetings, etc — are genuinely encouraging companies to mitigate sustainability risks and achieve goals that are in line with the values of their asset owner clients.

As much as some politicians and asset managers would like to pretend that climate and social risks aren’t real, investors continue to be exposed to company and portfolio level risks that emanate from being on a course for temperature increases of up to 3.1 degrees, according to 2024 UN estimates, and a sharp escalation in violations of fundamental labour rights around the globe, according to the Global Rights Index.

Whether investors treat those matters through an impact, a financial materiality, or a systemic risk lens, a growing number of asset owners are concluding that “information sharing” conversations between investors and companies is not a good way for managers to steward their assets.

While some US managers have created sustainability-focused products for specific client segments, most of their assets continue to be behind their weaker “benchmark” policies. The CWC estimates that (merely) 3 per cent of BlackRock’s public equity assets are captured by its sustainability guidelines – with the remaining 97 per cent of assets being subject to its benchmark policy.

US managers who have adopted a twin-track approach to stewardship could thus engage with the same company using two different outlooks on sustainability risks. One type of engagement, backed by a larger asset base, can consist in “information sharing” dialogues with a company on climate risk, while the other, backed by a smaller asset base, can ask the same company to decarbonise its operations by 2050.

The sustainability opportunity — as identified by JP Morgan — lies with managers who adopt well-defined, organisation-wide (entity-level) commitments to stewardship, as opposed to a product-by-product approach that caters to different client segments.

Innovative asset owners have spent a decade developing comprehensive risk and opportunity analyses that help them navigate serious portfolio and systemic risks. Global asset managers aren’t going to hold on to their business by weakening their stewardship even further.

Hugues Létourneau is the director of investor leadership at SHARE, a collaborative team of changemakers working to facilitate meaningful transformations across capital markets.

Leave a Comment

The future belongs to investors who can adapt

The future belongs to investors who can adapt

Canada's HOOPP has officially adopted the total portfolio approach since the start of 2026. Unpacking the move, the fund's managing director and head of total portfolio group Jacky Lee writes that while the approach doesn't magically make the return better, the fact that it frees the investment team from outdated processes and gives investment leaders the flexibility to act is what gives it an edge.

Sort content by

Beyond backtests: considering the robustness of smart beta

Systematic equity investment strategies – so-called smart beta strategies – are usually marketed on the basis of outperformance. However, it is important to recognise that performance analysis is typically conducted on backtests that apply the smart beta methodology to historical stock returns. Concerning actual investment decisions, a relevant question, therefore, is how robust the outperformance

Big owners should act like big owners

One of the key ways that institutional investors can promote a long-term orientation in the companies they invest, is by rejecting a company’s compensation plan if it puts too much emphasis on short-term results, says Bob Pozen, visiting senior lecturer at the MIT Sloan School of Management. Writing in the Financial Analysts Journal, he says

Capturing true geographic exposures in risk reporting

New research by EDHEC-Risk Institute questions the usefulness of analysing geographic equities exposures based on the stock’s place of listing, incorporation or headquarters. Head of applied research, Felix Goltz, suggests that in a globalised marketplace, a more meaningful analysis of geographic risk exposures, and performance attribution, comes from looking at geographic segmentation data including total sales

G7 agreement shows benefits of engaging policymakers

Fiona Reynolds, managing director at the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) discusses why it’s in everyone’s interests for more investor voices to be heard between now and November before the world’s nations converge at COP21 in Paris.   The announcement that the G7 leading industrial nations have agreed to cut greenhouse gases by phasing out the use of

Fiduciary duty: great power, great responsibility

As the landscape for investment changes rapidly, so too does the notion of fiduciary duty. Fiona Reynolds, managing director of PRI, argues that using the status quo as a reason not to adapt to changing perceptions and new demands from investors is no longer possible or acceptable. The PRI will publish a fiduciary duty roadmap

2015 could be watershed year for ESG issues

2015 is poised to be the turning point as a number of key issues relating to environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues take centre stage says Fiona Reynolds, managing director of the Principles for Responsible Investment.   First and foremost is climate change. With the Paris talks scheduled for December 2015, it’s an issue that

Previous