Investment firms withdrawing sponsorship for biodiversity-focused initiatives
In 2024, a campaign group's analysis revealed a concerning trend among US-based asset managers, including BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street. The report, titled "Asset Managers' Voting Against Biodiversity and Deforestation Resolutions," highlighted these firms' decreased support for nature-related shareholder resolutions, despite growing investor interest.
The report, published in 2024, was based on an analysis of public filings in databases provided by the Principles for Responsible Investment and Ceres. The analysis used relevant search terms to identify voting patterns on biodiversity and deforestation-related resolutions.
In 2024, shareholders filed a record 18 nature-related resolutions. However, no nature-related resolutions passed in 2024 due to opposition from major shareholders, according to the report.
JBS, a Brazilian meatpacker, and Tyson Foods, a major player in the US beef market, are among the listed companies at the center of investor battles over deforestation. The report also revealed that US-based asset managers voted against key biodiversity resolutions at higher rates than their European or UK counterparts.
BlackRock, one of the asset managers highlighted in the report, declined to comment on the findings but referred to its voting choice program, which allows investors to adopt different stances at AGMs. Vanguard and State Street did not respond to requests for comment.
Ashley Thomson, senior US Policy Adviser at Global Witness, expressed concern about the lack of action by leading US financiers towards biodiversity loss. Thomson stated, "Investors have a crucial role to play in driving change and protecting the natural world, but it's concerning to see leading US financiers not taking this responsibility seriously."
Support for biodiversity and deforestation-related resolutions from asset managers dropped from 59% in 2022 to 13% in 2024, according to the report. This dynamic has been criticized as the "real power behind Big Oil's climate retreat," indicating that these funds' voting behavior at shareholder meetings often favors incumbents and existing corporate strategies over more aggressive environmental actions.
The key reasons for this behavior include concerns about financial risks, regulatory uncertainties, and potentially limiting investment flexibility. The asset managers may also be responding to the complexities of biodiversity issues, which often have less clear metrics and immediate financial impacts compared to climate change policies, making them more challenging to implement at scale within portfolios.
In summary, the report highlights that BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street maintain influence by often voting against or withholding support on biodiversity and deforestation-related proposals despite broader investor enthusiasm for these issues. Their position reflects fiduciary caution, industry entanglements (especially with fossil fuels), and challenges in quantifying biodiversity risks in financial terms. This behavior persists even as global environmental concerns rise, partly due to their dominant shareholdings and their prioritization of financially conservative strategies.
The report revealed that US-based asset managers, such as BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street, have decreased their support for environmental-science resolutions related to biodiversity and deforestation, despite growing investor interest in combating climate-change and desiring a more sustainable environment. This finance-driven approach aligns with their business decisions, prioritizing financially conservative strategies over more aggressive environmental actions.
Recent debates involving companies like JBS and Tyson Foods highlight the ongoing investor battles over deforestation, with US-based asset managers showing higher rates of opposition to key biodiversity resolutions compared to their European and UK counterparts. This behavior, while potentially limiting investment flexibility and addressing financial risks, has been critiqued for hindering progress in environmental-science and preserving the natural world.
