• Atmospheric CO2 /Parts per Million /Annual Averages /Data Source: noaa.gov

  • 1980338.91ppm

  • 1981340.11ppm

  • 1982340.86ppm

  • 1983342.53ppm

  • 1984344.07ppm

  • 1985345.54ppm

  • 1986346.97ppm

  • 1987348.68ppm

  • 1988351.16ppm

  • 1989352.78ppm

  • 1990354.05ppm

  • 1991355.39ppm

  • 1992356.1ppm

  • 1993356.83ppm

  • 1994358.33ppm

  • 1995360.18ppm

  • 1996361.93ppm

  • 1997363.04ppm

  • 1998365.7ppm

  • 1999367.8ppm

  • 2000368.97ppm

  • 2001370.57ppm

  • 2002372.59ppm

  • 2003375.14ppm

  • 2004376.96ppm

  • 2005378.97ppm

  • 2006381.13ppm

  • 2007382.9ppm

  • 2008385.01ppm

  • 2009386.5ppm

  • 2010388.76ppm

  • 2011390.63ppm

  • 2012392.65ppm

  • 2013395.39ppm

  • 2014397.34ppm

  • 2015399.65ppm

  • 2016403.09ppm

  • 2017405.22ppm

  • 2018407.62ppm

  • 2019410.07ppm

  • 2020412.44ppm

  • 2021414.72ppm

  • 2022418.56ppm

  • 2023421.08ppm

Briefs

Nature loss risk not a priority for asset owners as most dismiss biodiversity motions

Almost two thirds of AGM votes on biodiversity proposals were cast against or not voted on by investors, showing that biodiversity is not a priority for most asset owners,

New research shared with Net Zero Investor that analyses investor voting action assessed 26,587 votes cast on biodiversity proposals and found that very little, only 7%, of votes provided shareholders’ reasoning for the decision, and those that did were largely when the vote was in favour.

Funds that do disclose rationale for voting against biodiversity-related proposals shared reasons including that the proxy was overly prescriptive (33 funds), the company already reports (32), insufficient shareholder benefits (31) and the company already has a policy (28), according to the research by Planet Tracker.

The analysis found this despite companies having weak policy commitments or no evidence of meeting targets set previously, illustrating a lack of recognition around the risk of inaction on biodiversity.

Deeper analysis of three of the top five global asset managers – BlackRock, Vanguard and SSGA - revealed that despite public commitments to sustainable investing, their sustainability funds voted against biodiversity proposals 80-100% of the time and none recorded the rationale for their voting.

While the report found that the majority of sustainability and ESG funds in the study supported biodiversity proposals (76%), double the proportion of other fund types (38%), they only made up 3% of votes so have little impact on the outcome of the vote. 

Moreover, nearly 20% of sustainability funds voted against biodiversity-related proxies, giving shareholders a reason to question whether they are being misled.

“Financiers, particularly those who define themselves as sustainable, continue to overlook biodiversity and not using their financial might to protect nature," said John Willis, Director of Research at Planet Tracker.

“With asset managers favouring engagement over divestment as an approach in transforming corporate behaviour, funds must step up and support important biodiversity proposals, or provide justification for their voting decision," Willis concluded.


Also read
Only a fraction of European finance firms know a thing or two about biodiversity


Content Tags: Research  Engagement  US  UK  In-Brief 

Related Content