From passive owners to planet savers? Asset managers, carbon majors and the limits of sustainable finance

IF 3 2区 社会学 Q2 BUSINESS Competition & Change Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI:10.1177/10245294221130432
Joseph Baines, S. Hager
{"title":"From passive owners to planet savers? Asset managers, carbon majors and the limits of sustainable finance","authors":"Joseph Baines, S. Hager","doi":"10.1177/10245294221130432","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the role of the Big Three asset management firms – BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street – in corporate environmental governance. Specifically, it investigates the Big Three’s relationships with the publicly listed Carbon Majors: a small group of fossil fuels, cement and mining companies responsible for the bulk of industrial greenhouse gas emissions. Engaging with the corporate governance concepts of ownership and control, and exit and voice, it charts the rise to prominence of the Big Three, including their environmental, social and governance (ESG) funds, in the ownership of the Carbon Majors. Having established their status as key sources of permanent capital that are unlikely to exit from their investment positions in the world’s most polluting publicly listed corporations, the article examines how control may be exercised through voice by analysing the Big Three’s proxy voting record at Carbon Major annual general meetings. It finds that they more frequently oppose rather than support shareholder resolutions aimed at improving environmental governance and that their voting is more likely to lead to the failure than to the success of these resolutions. Remarkably, there is little to distinguish the proxy voting of the Big Three’s ESG funds from their non-ESG funds. Regardless of whether these resolutions succeeded or failed, they also tend to be narrow in scope and piecemeal in nature. Overall, the article raises serious doubts about the Big Three’s credentials as environmental stewards and argues instead that they are little more than stewards of the status quo of shareholder value maximization.","PeriodicalId":46999,"journal":{"name":"Competition & Change","volume":"27 1","pages":"449 - 471"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Competition & Change","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10245294221130432","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

This article examines the role of the Big Three asset management firms – BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street – in corporate environmental governance. Specifically, it investigates the Big Three’s relationships with the publicly listed Carbon Majors: a small group of fossil fuels, cement and mining companies responsible for the bulk of industrial greenhouse gas emissions. Engaging with the corporate governance concepts of ownership and control, and exit and voice, it charts the rise to prominence of the Big Three, including their environmental, social and governance (ESG) funds, in the ownership of the Carbon Majors. Having established their status as key sources of permanent capital that are unlikely to exit from their investment positions in the world’s most polluting publicly listed corporations, the article examines how control may be exercised through voice by analysing the Big Three’s proxy voting record at Carbon Major annual general meetings. It finds that they more frequently oppose rather than support shareholder resolutions aimed at improving environmental governance and that their voting is more likely to lead to the failure than to the success of these resolutions. Remarkably, there is little to distinguish the proxy voting of the Big Three’s ESG funds from their non-ESG funds. Regardless of whether these resolutions succeeded or failed, they also tend to be narrow in scope and piecemeal in nature. Overall, the article raises serious doubts about the Big Three’s credentials as environmental stewards and argues instead that they are little more than stewards of the status quo of shareholder value maximization.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从被动所有者到地球保护者?资产管理公司、碳排放巨头和可持续金融的局限性
本文考察了三大资产管理公司——贝莱德、先锋和道富——在企业环境治理中的作用。具体而言,它调查了三大巨头与公开上市的碳巨头的关系:这是一小群化石燃料、水泥和矿业公司,负责大部分工业温室气体排放。结合所有权和控制权、退出和发言权的公司治理概念,它描绘了三大公司,包括其环境、社会和治理(ESG)基金,在碳大国的所有权中的地位上升。在确立了它们作为永久资本的关键来源的地位后,不太可能退出它们在世界上污染最严重的上市公司的投资头寸,本文通过分析三巨头在Carbon Major年度股东大会上的代理投票记录,探讨了如何通过声音行使控制权。研究发现,他们更经常反对而不是支持旨在改善环境治理的股东决议,他们的投票更有可能导致这些决议的失败,而不是成功。值得注意的是,三大ESG基金的代理投票与其非ESG基金几乎没有区别。不管这些决议是成功还是失败,它们的范围也往往很窄,而且是零散的。总的来说,这篇文章对三巨头作为环境管理者的资格提出了严重质疑,并认为他们只不过是股东价值最大化现状的管理者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
7.70%
发文量
37
期刊最新文献
Making “strategic autonomy” rhyme with “fiscal austerity?” Unresolved conflicts of (geo)economic ideas in EU infrastructure policy Erratum to “An international interface: Democratic planning in a global context” The regulator’s trilemma: On the limits of technocratic governance in digital markets The invisible leverage of the rich. Absentee debtors and their hedge funds Partial organization and economic coordination: The gradual re-organization of Finnish corporatism
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1