Finance & Investment

Asset Managers Shooting Down Nature Resolutions, Despite Soaring Investor Concern

Investors filed a record number of shareholder resolutions relating to biodiversity in 2024, but none passed — because asset managers aren’t seeing the forest for the trees.

Published 1 day ago | About a 6 minute read

Image: Joe Plenio

Investors filed a record number of biodiversity resolutions in 2024, a new Global Witness analysis reveals — yet none passed*, and all received low levels of support overall.

This is largely thanks to the “Big Three” US-based asset managers — BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street Global Advisors (SSGA) — which were found to have opposed most of the biodiversity- and deforestation-related resolutions put forward by other shareholders.

Forest for the trees

The findings come amid growing concern for nature and biodiversity — with increased understanding of nature’s critical role in both the global economy (More than half of global GDP is moderately to highly dependent on nature) and successfully addressing our most pressing global crises. Scientists now say human activity has pushed the world into the danger zone in seven of eight indicators of planetary safety; and at COP16 in October, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned: “This is what an existential crisis looks like."

While ESG resolutions have emerged as a powerful tool for shareholders to wield to influence corporate sustainability practices, the new findings reflect a broader trend showcasing how investors are failing to use their leverage with the companies they invest in to reduce deforestation and other harms to biodiversity.

Sadly, the analysis shows a swing back in the direction of shorter-term financial KPIs that show a lack of understanding of the interrelated issues that will determine long-term financial (and societal) health and success: As the IPBES recently outlined, the five ‘nexus’ issues of biodiversity loss, water and food insecurity, health risks and climate change all interact, cascade and compound each other in ways that make separate efforts to address them ineffective and counterproductive. Addressing them strategically and concurrently will create trillions in economic benefits and help ensure our long-term survival, while the costs of delaying action even a decade will be insurmountable. Continued short-sighted action from the world’s largest asset managers makes the latter a self-fulfilling prophecy, and ensures the success of the business world is as finite as our natural resources.

The methodology

For the research, Global Witness analyzed public filings logged in Ceres’ and the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI)’s shareholder resolution databases — filtering for terms including "biodiversity," “land use” and "deforestation.” It also analyzed how individual asset managers voted on three key resolutions this year — one at Tyson Foods, demanding the company accelerate its efforts to eliminate deforestation from its supply chain; and two demanding that PepsiCo and Home Depot conduct biodiversity impact assessments. They received 3 percent, 18 percent and 16 percent support, respectively.

In total, the analysis found that 18 biodiversity- and deforestation-related shareholder resolutions were publicly filed in 2024 — compared with 12 in 2023 and 9 in 2022. This includes resolutions focused on issues such as supply chain deforestation, deep sea mining, water use, and the use of pesticides in agricultural supply chains.

"Investors increasingly say they are interested in ending the nature crisis; but their actions in the boardroom tell a different story, as they continue to vote against resolutions needed to safeguard ecosystems from threats like preventable deforestation in the supply chains of the companies they finance,” said Alexandria Reid, Forests campaign lead at Global Witness. “We cannot count on bankers to forgo the profits of deforestation voluntarily. Every day that governments continue to delay the laws needed to stop the financing of deforestation pushes our planet to the brink."

Included among those rejecting these resolutions were asset managers with public commitments on net zero and deforestation, via the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative or the Finance Sector Deforestation Action (FSDA) group.

Overall, the analysis found that support for deforestation- and biodiversity-focused resolutions going to vote has dropped dramatically in recent years — averaging just 13 percent in 2024 and 10 percent in 2023; down from 59 percent and 50 percent in 2022 and 2021, respectively.

Votes from major asset managers significantly influence the outcome of ESG proposals — and their reversal in support in recent years comes as no surprise in the wake of anti-ESG backlash, particularly in the US. The Big Three collectively hold substantial stakes in major companies that operate in sectors at high risk of fueling deforestation — including agriculture, mining and fossil fuel extraction — and often wield enough voting power to tip the scales on shareholder resolutions. However, each of them voted against the three resolutions analyzed — despite occasionally supporting deforestation-related resolutions in the past.

Overall, Global Witness found that US-based asset managers are notably more reluctant to support biodiversity resolutions compared to those in the EU and UK.

"This report paints a worrying picture of leading US financiers’ lackluster approach to biodiversity loss,” said Ashley Thomson, Senior US Policy Adviser at Global Witness. “There’s a clear disconnect between these asset managers’ rhetoric and actions, which undermines their power to drive real change.

“The failure of leadership from major US financial players is a huge obstacle to addressing the biodiversity crisis," she added. "It's time for them to recognize and use their influence to demand that companies prioritize sustainability and respect our natural world."

The rationale

BlackRock, Vanguard, SSGA, GAM Investments and Lombard Odier Investment Managers (LOIM) were all approached for comment. Vanguard and SSGA declined to comment.

BlackRock also declined to comment; however, a representative for the firm pointed Global Witness to its 2024 Global Voting Spotlight Report, which explained the thinking behind its votes ("In our assessment, the majority of these [proposals] were over-reaching, lacked economic merit, or sought outcomes that were unlikely to promote long-term shareholder value. A significant percentage were focused on business risks that companies already had processes in place to address, making them redundant.") and highlighted the BlackRock Voting Choice program, which in some cases allows clients to engage in the proxy voting process.

A spokesperson from LOIM said that the firm is convinced that nature-related risks remain “underappreciated” — adding that the firm’s recommended voting policy was to vote “for” both biodiversity resolutions highlighted above, resulting in more than 80 percent of its votes being cast in favor of the above resolutions. However, they told us that “a minority share of their votes linked to a specific client that opted to follow a different voting policy” led to a split vote.

A GAM spokesperson detailed the firm’s satisfaction with Home Depot’s existing disclosures, and noted the “positive steps” the company has taken in recent years to address biodiversity concerns and increase its disclosure — which led GAM to conclude that a vote in favor of the above resolution "wasn’t appropriate.” Still, they re-affirmed GAM’s commitment to the FSDA and its goal to eliminate forest-risk agricultural commodity-driven deforestation activities from its financing activities by 2025.

*None of the biodiversity-related resolutions that fell into the scope of the Global Witness analysis passed in 2024.