Pension Fund Activists Focus on Climate Change, Diversity, Director Nomination Process — with New York City Funds in the Lead
Posted on November 12, 2014 by Hank Boerner – Chair & Chief Strategist#Climate Change #Corporate Governance #Corporate Responsibility #Corporate Sustainability #ESG Issues #Financially Material #Investor Engagement #Materiality #Shareowner Activism #Sustainable Investing #Uncategorized
by Hank Boerner– Chairman, G&A Institute
Leading and influential activists in the sustainable & responsible investment community are focusing on the filing of their 2015 corporate proxy ballots with ESG issues top-of-mind. Let’s take a look at the actions of the New York City (5) pension funds (with US$160 billion in Assets Under Management).
The city comptroller, Scott M. Stringer, was elected in November 2013, along with the new high-visibility mayor (Bill DeBlasio). Under Comptroller Stringer’s direction, the fund(s) are filing proxy proposals with 75 companies to demand a greater voice in the nomination of boards of directors. This is the characterized as “giving shareowners a true voice in how boards are elected.” .
This campaign is designed to roll out proxy access demands across the broad public company universe in the United States. Back in the 1800s, one of the corrupt big city political bosses was William M. “Boss” Tweed. Said Comptroller Stringer: “The current ]corporate] election procedures would make Boss Tweed blush. We are seeing to change the market by having more meaningful director elections through proxy access, which will make boards more responsive to shareowners. We expect to see better long-term performance across our portfolio…”
(As local point of reference, Boss Tweed of Tammany Hall was a member of Congress and director of the Erie Railroad Company and 10th National Bank. He was convicted of corruption and died in jail in 1878. His name is synonymous with corruption, cronyism, political back slapping.)
The NYC comptroller serves as investment advisor to, and custodian and trustee of the 5 funds, which are for city employee beneficiaries — teachers, police, fire department, board of education, city employees.
“Proxy access” is the ability for owners to nominate directors in addition to — or in opposition to — the company’s slate of directors (in the proxy statement). Comptroller Stringer wants to give shareholders with (1) 3% of shares and (2) holding the shares for 3 years the “threshold” of being able to nominate candidates for board service, up to (3) 25% of the total board membership. Those companies not agreeing to the proposal received the NYC fund ballot initiative.
And big corporate names are involved; the resolutions are being filed at:
- 33 carbon intensive coal, oil & gas, and utility companies (such as Duke Energy, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Apache, AEP (power), Southwestern Energy, ConocoPhilipps, Peabody Energy);
- 24 companies with few / or no women on the board, and “little or no” racial or ethnic diversity – including eBay, Priceline, Level 3 Communications, Urban Outfitters, Alexion Pharma;
- 25 companies that received “significant” opposition to 2014 shareholder votes (advisory, not binding) on their executive compensation plans.
In focus: :”Zombie directors” – of 41 corporate directors receiving less than a majority vote in 2013, 40 remain on their boards. As Comptroller Stringer described them, “unelected, but still serving…
“This is all part of what the pension fund leaders call their “Boardroom Accountability Project,” designed to call attention to as boards of directors and their perceived failure to address critical issues — climate risk, excessive compensation and lack of diversity in the board room.
Note that under “”plurality” voting in un-contested elections, a director who receives just one vote (his or hers counts if shares are owned) is re-elected…even if every other vote is cast against him. The project seeks to have companies amend their bylaws to change that situation.
New York State Comptroller Tom DiNapoli was re-elected by an overwhelming statewide majority in November; he enthusiastically endorsed the city funds’ project (he is the sole trustee of the US$180 billion New York State Common Fund). He described the Board Accountability Project as a wake-up call to boards of directors to change the way business in the board room is done.
Also in support: Anne Stausboll, CEO for California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) — the nation’s largest public employee pension fund with US$ 300 billion in AUM.
Her colleague, Anne Sheehan, corporate governance director at the California State Teachers Retirement System (CalSTRS) termed the board accountability project “long overdue for our country,” voicing her support. The fund has US$186 billion AUM.
This is not just a “New York City” liberal-leaning thing — voicing support for the project were other public sector fiduciaries:
- William R. Atwood, executive director of the Illinois State Board of Investment. (US$5 billion AUM)
- Francis X. Bielli, executive director of the Philadelphia Board of Pensions & Retirement. (US$4.5 billion AUM)
- Travis Williams, chairman of the Firefighters Pension System of Kansas City, Missouri. (US$460 million AUM)
- Alex Fernandez, chairman of the Miami (Florida) Firefighters Relief and Pension Fund.( US$1.5 billion AUM)
Comptroller Scott Singer explained that the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) first proposed “universal proxy access” (for all shareholders) back in 2003 as a “way to end the Imperial CEO,” as Enron, WorldCom and other large-caps imploded and many went out of business. In 2010, the SEC approved a universal policy access rule in response to the financial crisis.” In a federal district court case, the rule was set aside; the SEC still allows “private ordering,” the ability for shareowners such as pension funds to file resolutions to be placed on the annual voting ballot.
And so the battle lines are being drawn for 2015 corporate engagements. Many of the public companies named by New York City funds are seen as leaders in sustainability, responsibility and accountability. The proxy resolutions would seem to state otherwise.
It will be interesting to see how the Board Accountability Project progresses, and how corporate boards and C-suites see the demands presented for greater “Corporate Democracy.”