利益攸关方和股东之间:可持续发展时代的养老基金和劳工团结

IF 1.1 Q2 LAW European Labour Law Journal Pub Date : 2022-12-14 DOI:10.1177/20319525221140422
P. Tomassetti
{"title":"利益攸关方和股东之间:可持续发展时代的养老基金和劳工团结","authors":"P. Tomassetti","doi":"10.1177/20319525221140422","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article investigates the contribution of pension funds in harnessing the power of finance to achieve social and environmental objectives. After reviewing and discussing the potential and main hurdles to pension fund engagement in Socially Responsible Investment (SRI), the common law approach to shareholder activism is contrasted with the EU law on pension funds and on sustainability-related disclosures and taxonomies. Unlike the US and other common law jurisdictions, where the duties regarding retirement institutions are derived from trust law, EU rules on pension funds governance and investment policies are generally grounded on the more relaxed duties of corporate and financial law. On the one hand, this makes it easier for pension funds to consider the potential impact of environmental, social and governance factors (ESG) on investment decisions. On the other, social and environmental concerns are functionalised for economic purposes, thus reducing the possibilities for a more critical and strategical use of pension funds’ financial power by activists. This also explains why, despite being often participated in by trade unions, the existing governance of pension funds in Europe tends to outsource the management of investment policies to financial operators. While this takes responsibility away from the governing boards of pension funds in terms of their legal duties, the combination of decentralisation and the outsourcing of investment management undermines the possibility for unions to engage in shareholder activism, and to strike a balance between the position of workers as stakeholders and the position of workers as shareholders.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Between stakeholders and shareholders: Pension funds and labour solidarity in the age of sustainability\",\"authors\":\"P. Tomassetti\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20319525221140422\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article investigates the contribution of pension funds in harnessing the power of finance to achieve social and environmental objectives. After reviewing and discussing the potential and main hurdles to pension fund engagement in Socially Responsible Investment (SRI), the common law approach to shareholder activism is contrasted with the EU law on pension funds and on sustainability-related disclosures and taxonomies. Unlike the US and other common law jurisdictions, where the duties regarding retirement institutions are derived from trust law, EU rules on pension funds governance and investment policies are generally grounded on the more relaxed duties of corporate and financial law. On the one hand, this makes it easier for pension funds to consider the potential impact of environmental, social and governance factors (ESG) on investment decisions. On the other, social and environmental concerns are functionalised for economic purposes, thus reducing the possibilities for a more critical and strategical use of pension funds’ financial power by activists. This also explains why, despite being often participated in by trade unions, the existing governance of pension funds in Europe tends to outsource the management of investment policies to financial operators. While this takes responsibility away from the governing boards of pension funds in terms of their legal duties, the combination of decentralisation and the outsourcing of investment management undermines the possibility for unions to engage in shareholder activism, and to strike a balance between the position of workers as stakeholders and the position of workers as shareholders.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41157,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Labour Law Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Labour Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525221140422\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Labour Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525221140422","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

本文调查了养老基金在利用财政力量实现社会和环境目标方面的贡献。在审查和讨论了养老基金参与社会责任投资(SRI)的潜在和主要障碍后,将普通法中的股东行动主义方法与欧盟关于养老基金以及可持续性相关披露和分类的法律进行了对比。与美国和其他普通法司法管辖区不同的是,在这些司法管辖区,有关退休机构的义务源自信托法,而欧盟关于养老基金治理和投资政策的规则通常基于更宽松的公司法和金融法义务。一方面,这使养老基金更容易考虑环境、社会和治理因素(ESG)对投资决策的潜在影响。另一方面,出于经济目的,社会和环境问题被功能化,从而减少了活动家更关键和战略性地使用养老基金财政权力的可能性。这也解释了为什么尽管工会经常参与,但欧洲现有的养老基金管理往往将投资政策的管理外包给金融运营商。虽然这剥夺了养老基金管理委员会在法律职责方面的责任,但权力下放和投资管理外包的结合破坏了工会参与股东行动主义的可能性,并在工人作为利益相关者的地位和工人作为股东的地位之间取得平衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Between stakeholders and shareholders: Pension funds and labour solidarity in the age of sustainability
This article investigates the contribution of pension funds in harnessing the power of finance to achieve social and environmental objectives. After reviewing and discussing the potential and main hurdles to pension fund engagement in Socially Responsible Investment (SRI), the common law approach to shareholder activism is contrasted with the EU law on pension funds and on sustainability-related disclosures and taxonomies. Unlike the US and other common law jurisdictions, where the duties regarding retirement institutions are derived from trust law, EU rules on pension funds governance and investment policies are generally grounded on the more relaxed duties of corporate and financial law. On the one hand, this makes it easier for pension funds to consider the potential impact of environmental, social and governance factors (ESG) on investment decisions. On the other, social and environmental concerns are functionalised for economic purposes, thus reducing the possibilities for a more critical and strategical use of pension funds’ financial power by activists. This also explains why, despite being often participated in by trade unions, the existing governance of pension funds in Europe tends to outsource the management of investment policies to financial operators. While this takes responsibility away from the governing boards of pension funds in terms of their legal duties, the combination of decentralisation and the outsourcing of investment management undermines the possibility for unions to engage in shareholder activism, and to strike a balance between the position of workers as stakeholders and the position of workers as shareholders.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
28.60%
发文量
29
期刊最新文献
Anti-discrimination cases decided by the Court of Justice of the EU in 2023 Resocialisation through prisoner remuneration: The unconstitutionally low remuneration of working prisoners in Germany Work in prison: Reintegration or exclusion and exploitation? Beyond profit: A model framework for ethical and feasible private prison labour Minding the gap? Blind spots in the ILO's and the EU's perspective on anti-forced labour policy
×
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