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

The investment model for asset owners: is there a best-practice version?

In the last of a series of articles exclusively for conexust1f.flywheelstaging.com, Roger Urwin, head of global content at Towers Watson examines the asset owner investment models that are recognised as best practice, questioning whether there are patterns to the models of success. The best-practice investing model could either involve how you do it or what

PFZW reformulates investment principles

PFZW, the €150 billion ($205 billion) Dutch pension fund for the health care industry, has created a new investment framework which is the result of an 18-month soul-searching journey under a project called “The White Sheet of Paper”. The framework will translate into policy and implementation steps starting from 2015. Jaap van Dam, PGGM´s chief

Risk parity – the benefits of a conditional approach

Risk parity is a meaningful and robust approach for building well-diversified portfolios, but it relies on historical volatility estimates, which penalises upside risk as well as downside risk and leads to a massive overweighting of bonds versus equities, even in a low yield environment. The authors from EDHEC Risk-Institute build the case for an alternative

The in-house investment team: right people, roles, rewards

Good people are at the core of any successful organisation, and that is true for asset owners. Global chief investment officer of Towers Watson, Craig Baker discusses how designing and implementing structures that attract the right people in the right roles can unlock long-term sustainable advantages that the right investment team can offer.   It

Ubiquitous and adaptive investing – the aspiration of a truly global fund

Large pension funds might be invested on a truly global basis but their operating models are rarely global structures. Towers Watson argues that asset owners can benefit from a business model that can deliver organisational performance, manages talent and aligns with core missions from multiple operating locations. Over the last decade, large pension funds and

Evolution in risk reporting for sophisticated institutional investors

Risk reporting is increasingly regarded by sophisticated investors as an important ingredient in their decision-making process, authors from EDHEC argue that  the effective number of (uncorrelated) bets could be a useful risk indicator to be added to risk reports for equity and policy portfolios. Risk reporting is increasingly regarded by sophisticated investors as an important

Previous