Engaging for Action: Clarity and Shared Insight
After our CTAF analysis has helped identify the key facts and where a company stands on its trajectory, we’re better equipped for the next step: engaging with company management.
Recent engagements include firms across the aerospace and defense, oil and gas, and energy utilities sectors. Dialogues have typically been productive for both sides: using our CTAF approach, we’ve been clear about progress we’d like to see in companies’ management of material climate-related transition risks and opportunities. Management teams have been informative, keen to understand our expectations and receptive to our feedback.
For example, we recently engaged the management team of a US energy company involved in hydrocarbon exploration to gain greater clarity on their plans to reach their stated target of achieving net zero by 2040. The company shared details on their interim target-setting for Scopes 1 and 2 emissions, their exploration of various emissions reduction strategies, and their readiness for expected climate regulatory reporting requirements; we suggested potential starting points for Scope 3 emissions target setting.
That collaborative style of engagement is a far cry from the adversarial approach some might imagine. But in reality, it’s important that these occasions enable an exchange of views. Two-way engagement gives investment teams a clearer understanding of the nuances of each company’s situation—and helps them put the facts into context. This can go a long way toward highlighting risks and opportunities that can be material to a company’s business and performance.
Disclosures are a good example. Investors value meaningful climate-related disclosures both as the basis for making more informed decisions about risks and returns and as proof that corporate management can measure and manage the associated hazards and opportunities. Although companies may be willing to provide the requisite data, these might be problematic to compile, either because of regulatory uncertainties or difficulties in establishing a consistent, robust methodology.
Companies aren’t cut from the same mold, so it’s also important to consider each firm’s specific circumstances, account for its particular industry background and understand its competitive positioning relative to peers. As investors, we want to ensure that companies have a sustainable future—and managing climate risks is part of achieving that future.
We prefer that management makes climate-related changes thoughtfully and achievably in the interests of the business, so our engagements aren’t about idealistic target-setting but about managing material risks and opportunities that can stem from decarbonization.
Voting with Purpose: Will a Proposal Enhance Shareholder Value?
Voting at shareholder meetings puts considerable influence in the hands of investors, so it’s important that we cast our votes responsibly and constructively. Our touchstone is whether a proposal can enhance shareholder value through better management of business risks and opportunities.
To help gauge its likely impact, we evaluate each proposal’s materiality, transparency and prescriptiveness. For issuers that fall under the CTAF, we apply insights and knowledge from our own assessments and engagements to balance the importance of the issues with the regulatory and disclosure constraints companies face.
It’s a considered approach that results in a variety of voting outcomes, as these example voting decisions from 2024 highlight.
Vote in Favor—Encouraging Better Disclosure and Accountability: A US utilities firm received a shareholder proposal to report on the feasibility of integrating targets to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions into executive compensation. We believed that supporting the proposal would encourage greater disclosure and accountability from management, which in our view had provided substandard environmental reporting disclosure on these material topics.
Vote Against—Unnecessary Emissions-Reduction Targets: Conversely, at another US utility meeting, we voted against a shareholder proposal asking the company to adopt GHG emissions-reduction targets across its full value chain in alignment with the Paris Agreement. Considering the company’s existing comprehensive emissions commitments, backed by state regulators, we believed additional targets were unnecessary.
Abstain—Providing More Time for Progress. A European integrated oil and gas company proposed a commitment to achieving net zero Scopes 1 and 2 GHG emissions by 2050—but omitted about half its overall Scope 3 emissions in its “Scopes 1, 2 and 3” target. We expressed our concerns to company management; however, when it came to the vote, we concluded that shareholders’ interests were best served by giving the company extra time to address the issue.
The 2024 proxy season saw a prominent focus on shareholder proposals related to Scope 3 emissions disclosure and reductions. We generally abstained on Scope 3-related company meeting proposals for the companies we evaluated using CTAF, reflecting the same attempt to balance the importance of comprehensive emissions disclosures with an acknowledgement of regulatory uncertainty and the challenges of measuring and managing such emissions, which take time and resources to address.
Moving Forward
Implementing the CTAF is a multiyear, ongoing assessment process for us. Over time, we’ll apply it to continue monitoring and benchmarking companies’ progress in mitigating material climate transition risk—and to inform our voting intentions.
Of course, we’ll continue to consider the nuances of each individual situation and proposal. But ultimately, we need the companies we invest in to be well prepared for the risks and opportunities of a low-carbon economy.
Additional Contributors: Cole Moore - Investment Stewardship Associate
