Morningstar
Special Report

Sustainability: who walks the talk?

We examine the proxy voting patterns of 16 Canadian asset managers and find that some are much more likely to support climate-related shareholder initiatives than others

Ruth Saldanha 20 August, 2019 | 12:52PM Jackie Cook
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn
Font-Size

For Earth Day, we examined how 16 Canadian asset managers voted in the 2018 proxy season on climate-related shareholder resolutions. We found that for the period spanning July 2017 to June 2018, BMO Global Asset Management, Desjardins Global Asset Management, HSBC Global Asset Management Canada and TD Asset Management consistently voted in favour of transparency on issues like greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets, environmental impact and board oversight of climate risk. We found that Dynamic Funds, Franklin Templeton Investments and Invesco were least supportive.

It is important to point out that this research is based on Canadian funds voting mostly on U.S.-companies in the 2018 proxy voting season. Canadian funds’ proxy voting records can be found on asset managers’ websites.

As a starting point, we found that during 2018, 14 shareholder resolutions addressing climate change earned more than 40% shareholder support. These resolutions are listed in the table below.

8935

Technically, none of the proposed measures would be binding on management given the advisory status of shareholder resolutions. However, 40% support reflects broad shareholder sentiment considering that many investors routinely vote in line with management’s recommendations and against such resolutions.

Voting against management is rare in part because many traditional fund companies say that they prefer to “engage” with the company, lobbying for change as shareholders. Dedicated ESG firms also use engagement with companies to help effect change, but they are significantly more willing to use their votes to make their voices heard.

Here’s a look at the Canadian fund houses that voted most in favour of climate-related shareholder measures.

8943
 

8944

While climate-related resolutions are less frequently voted at Canadian companies, on April 24th, shareholders of Canadian energy company Cenovus Energy (CVE), will vote on a resolution filed by Fonds de Solidarité des Travailleurs du Québec (FTQ) which asks that the company prepare and publish “…science-based greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets that are aligned with the goal of the Paris Agreement1 to limit global average temperature increase to well below 2 degrees Celsius relative to pre-industrial levels. These targets should cover the direct and indirect methane and other GHG emissions of Cenovus’ operations over medium and long-term time horizons. Such targets should be quantitative, subject to regular review, and progress against such targets should be reported to shareholders on an annual basis.”

This resolution has important similarities with those included in our survey of 2018 resolutions and is consistent with disclosure recommendations of the Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). Increasingly, asset managers and public pension funds are making reference to TCFD disclosure recommendations in their proxy voting guidelines. For instance, RBC Asset Management Group’s 2019 guidelines state that: “We will … generally support proposals requesting…That a company disclose information on the risks it faces related to climate change on its operations and investments, or on how the company identifies, measures, and manages such risks. Risks include Transition Risks (Policy and Legal, Technology, Market, and Reputation) and Physical Risks (Acute and Chronic), as defined by the TCFD.”

The fact is that an increasing number of funds are choosing engagement with companies to effect positive change, and when engagement doesn’t work, shareholders have levers of power beyond talk – proxy voting and shareholder proposals – to drive change. ESG investing (or divesting) is often a personal choice. Savvy investors have the choice to invest with managers who walk the talk with ESG – and may well avoid the ones that don’t!

 

TAGS
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn
Font-Size

About Author

Ruth Saldanha

Ruth Saldanha  is Editorial Manager at Morningstar.ca. Follow her on Twitter @KarishmaRuth.

 
 
 

© Copyright 2023 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Terms of Use        Privacy Policy       Disclosures        Accessibility

The Morningstar Star Rating for Stocks is assigned based on an analyst's estimate of a stocks fair value. It is projection/opinion and not a statement of fact. Morningstar assigns star ratings based on an analyst’s estimate of a stock's fair value. Four components drive the Star Rating: (1) our assessment of the firm’s economic moat, (2) our estimate of the stock’s fair value, (3) our uncertainty around that fair value estimate and (4) the current market price. This process culminates in a single-point star rating that is updated daily. A 5-star represents a belief that the stock is a good value at its current price; a 1-star stock isn't. If our base-case assumptions are true the market price will converge on our fair value estimate over time, generally within three years. Investments in securities are subject to market and other risks. Past performance of a security may or may not be sustained in future and is no indication of future performance. For detail information about the Morningstar Star Rating for Stocks, please visit here

Quantitative Fair Value Estimate represents Morningstar’s estimate of the per share dollar amount that a company’s equity is worth today. The Quantitative Fair Value Estimate is based on a statistical model derived from the Fair Value Estimate Morningstar’s equity analysts assign to companies which includes a financial forecast of the company. The Quantitative Fair Value Estimate is calculated daily. It is a projection/opinion and not a statement of fact. Investments in securities are subject to market and other risks. Past performance of a security may or may not be sustained in future and is no indication of future performance. For detail information about the Quantiative Fair Value Estimate, please visit here

The Morningstar Medalist Rating is the summary expression of Morningstar’s forward-looking analysis of investment strategies as offered via specific vehicles using a rating scale of Gold, Silver, Bronze, Neutral, and Negative. The Medalist Ratings indicate which investments Morningstar believes are likely to outperform a relevant index or peer group average on a risk-adjusted basis over time. Investment products are evaluated on three key pillars (People, Parent, and Process) which, when coupled with a fee assessment, forms the basis for Morningstar’s conviction in those products’ investment merits and determines the Medalist Rating they’re assigned. Pillar ratings take the form of Low, Below Average, Average, Above Average, and High. Pillars may be evaluated via an analyst’s qualitative assessment (either directly to a vehicle the analyst covers or indirectly when the pillar ratings of a covered vehicle are mapped to a related uncovered vehicle) or using algorithmic techniques. Vehicles are sorted by their expected performance into rating groups defined by their Morningstar Category and their active or passive status. When analysts directly cover a vehicle, they assign the three pillar ratings based on their qualitative assessment, subject to the oversight of the Analyst Rating Committee, and monitor and reevaluate them at least every 14 months. When the vehicles are covered either indirectly by analysts or by algorithm, the ratings are assigned monthly. For more detailed information about these ratings, including their methodology, please go to here

The Morningstar Medalist Ratings are not statements of fact, nor are they credit or risk ratings. The Morningstar Medalist Rating (i) should not be used as the sole basis in evaluating an investment product, (ii) involves unknown risks and uncertainties which may cause expectations not to occur or to differ significantly from what was expected, (iii) are not guaranteed to be based on complete or accurate assumptions or models when determined algorithmically, (iv) involve the risk that the return target will not be met due to such things as unforeseen changes in changes in management, technology, economic development, interest rate development, operating and/or material costs, competitive pressure, supervisory law, exchange rate, tax rates, exchange rate changes, and/or changes in political and social conditions, and (v) should not be considered an offer or solicitation to buy or sell the investment product. A change in the fundamental factors underlying the Morningstar Medalist Rating can mean that the rating is subsequently no longer accurate.

For information on the historical Morningstar Medalist Rating for any managed investment Morningstar covers, please contact your local Morningstar office.

For more detailed information about conflicts of interest, including EU MAR disclosures, please see the “Morningstar Medalist Rating Analyst Conflict of Interest & Other Disclosures for EMEA”here

Select Your Site Edition To make sure the site is relevant to you, we need to know if you’re an individual investor or a financial professional.