A study examining how often asset managers vote in accordance with climate goals has singled out BlackRock Inc. and State Street Corp. for consistently blocking green resolutions.
BlackRock, the world’s largest investment manager, supported just two of 20 climate resolutions in 2023 that were analyzed by ShareAction, the London-based nonprofit, which is due to publish its full report on the subject on Thursday, told Bloomberg. State Street, the third-biggest asset manager, backed less than half the green measures proposed at shareholder meetings, the study found.
The analysis zeroed in on the largest signatories of Climate Action 100+, an alliance of more than 700 investors overseeing a combined $68 trillion of assets. Members promote shareholder engagement over divestment as a means to achieve green goals, with shareholder voting often seen as the most powerful tool.
“Voting on shareholder resolutions is a key lever for institutional investors to hold companies to account on their commitments,” Felix Nagrawala, research manager at ShareAction, said in an interview. “Yet the very largest asset managers aren’t pulling their weight.”
ShareAction’s documented lack of support for climate resolutions from key asset managers comes as the planet endures the hottest temperatures on record amid rising CO2 emissions. The International Energy Agency has said there’s no room for investment in new fossil-fuel projects if the goal of limiting the average temperature rise to 1.5C is to be achieved.
A spokesperson for BlackRock said the firm analyzes every resolution and votes — where authorized — to advance its clients’ long-term financial interests. Last year, BlackRock deemed many proposals to be “over-reaching, lacking economic merit, or simply redundant” and therefore “unlikely” to achieve that goal, the spokesperson said.
A spokesperson for State Street said the investor supports proposals it thinks makes sense for a company, as long as they aren’t overly prescriptive or dictate how the company is run.
Signatories are independent fiduciaries responsible for their own investment and voting decisions, a spokesperson for CA100+ said in a statement. The alliance maintains a set of minimum requirements for members and has a clear delisting process when these aren’t met, they said.
In the US, political backlash against investments targeting environmental, social and governance goals has become a major headwind for CA100+ and alliances like it. House Republicans have accused CA100+ of seeming to operate like a cartel, and in July three US attorneys general sent formal demands to money managers for their communications with the group. Tennessee sued BlackRock in December, citing its membership of CA100+ as one of the grounds for the suit.
BlackRock has previously said it makes investment and shareholder-voting decisions independently of CA100+, a point reiterated by CA100+ for all its members.
There are now “real concerns about whether these asset managers are truly prepared to move to address climate change,” Nagrawala said. Major signatories are “not only freeloading off CA100+ and brandishing the label, but they’re actively blocking progress on its goals,” he said.