|
Corporate Social Responsibility
News
1.27.2006 ET
|
CSR News from:
|
|
|
News Category:
|
|
U.S. Mutual Fund Investors "Completely at Odds" With Fund Managers on Handling of Global Warming
First Survey of Mutual Fund Investors on Global Warming Finds Heat on Funds Rising; 2005 Proxy Vote Report Shows Top Funds Give Resolutions Cold Shoulder
(CSRwire) BOSTON, MA.--Seven out of 10 U.S. mutual fund investors now want
their mutual funds to support global warming shareholder resolutions, but
not one of the nation's largest mutual funds voted in favor of any climate
change proxy measures during 2005, according to a major new public opinion
survey from the Civil Society Institute (CSI) and a report prepared for
the Ceres investor coalition.
The new Ceres report shows that while many of the nation's institutional
investors are routinely supporting global warming resolutions, none of the
nation's 100 biggest mutual funds -- including those managed by Fidelity,
Vanguard and American Funds -- supported any of the 33 global warming
resolutions filed with US companies in 2005. However, the new CSI survey
shows that a clear of majority U.S. mutual fund investors want their
mutual fund managers to vote in favor of the global warming resolutions
and also to actively screen companies linked to climate change woes.
(See full Ceres report and CSI survey data below.)
"Mutual funds investors and their their funds are completely at odds today
on the topic of global warming," added Pam Solo, president of the Civil
Society Institute, which polled 845 mutual fund investors on the issue.
"Our new survey shows that 7 out of 10 American mutual fund investors want
their mutual funds to screen companies linked to global warming and also to
take action on shareholder resolutions calling on corporations to address
climate change issues."
"Mutual funds are a critical missing link in the push for better corporate
disclosure about climate risks," said Mindy S. Lubber, president of Ceres
and director of the Investor Network on Climate Risk, which includes $3
trillion of institutional investors. "Mutual funds are ignoring the
growing evidence that climate change will have far-reaching fiscal impacts
on a wide range of business sectors, whether from rising insurance claims
due to hurricanes and other natural disasters or growing worldwide demand
for hybrid vehicles and other 'clean' technologies."
Today, Co-op America unveiled a Web-based action campaign at
http://www.coopamerica.org/takeaction/mutualfunds, where mutual fund
investors can go to urge the three largest U.S. fund families -- Fidelity,
Vanguard and American Funds, which collectively manage over $1 trillion in
assets -- to start voting in favor of global warming proxy resolutions.
"Mutual funds, which are responsible for the retirement investments of
millions of investors, should be at the forefront of investors encouraging
companies to address global warming," said Alisa Gravitz, executive
director of Co-op America. "Instead, all of the largest funds of America's
major mutual fund families -- including Fidelity, Vanguard and American
Funds -- failed to vote in favor of any resolutions in 2005 encouraging
companies to address global warming. Getting these funds to vote in favor
of resolutions to address global warming would make a tremendous
difference for investors and the environment."
KEY CSI SURVEY FINDINGS
The major new survey conducted by Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) for
the Civil Society Institute focused on a sample of 845 U.S. mutual fund
investors. The survey found:
Three out of four mutual fund investors (74 percent) want their
"mutual fund to ask questions about the potential impact of global warming
on the companies in which they are investing your money." More than four
out five women (83 percent) want their mutual funds to ask the tough
questions about investing in companies tied to global warming, as opposed
to slightly less than two thirds of men (64 percent).
About seven out of 10 mutual fund investors (71 percent) said
"yes" when asked: "Many investors are filing shareholder resolutions with
companies requesting that company management pay closer attention to global
warming concerns and problems. Do you think your mutual fund should support
these resolutions on your behalf?" Just one quarter of the respondents
said "no" (including only 11 percent who said "definitely no").
Roughly seven in 10 mutual fund investors (71 percent) said they
would not "invest directly in a company that is a major source of pollution
linked to global warming, whether from its operations or the products it
produces." Of this group, more than a third (36 percent) responded
"definitely no" versus less than a quarter (23 percent) who said "yes"
(including just 6 percent "definitely yes"). Female mutual fund owners
are considerably more likely than their male counterparts -- by a margin
of 82 percent to 60 percent -- to be opposed to investing directly in
polluters tied to global warming.
About four in five mutual fund investors (79 percent) "think
that companies should analyze the long-term financial impacts that global
warming will have on their businesses and on the potential value of their
stock to people who either own shares directly or indirectly through a
mutual fund." Well over two-fifths of mutual funds investors (45 percent)
responded "definitely yes") versus fewer than one in five (16 percent) who
said "no" (including just 6 percent responding "definitely no").
KEY CERES REPORT FINDINGS
The Ceres-commissioned report, "Unexamined Risk: How Mutual Funds Voted on
2005 Climate Change Shareholder Resolutions" analyzes how the nation's 100
largest mutual funds voted their shareholder proxies on 33 climate change
resolutions filed at the 2005 corporate annual meetings. The shareholder
resolutions asked companies to disclose the financial risks and
opportunities posed by climate change and, in some cases, their strategies
for controlling greenhouse gas emissions. The report, prepared by the
Investor Research Responsibility Center (IRRC), shows the following:
None of the 100 largest mutual funds whose specific votes were
analyzed supported any climate change resolutions in 2005.
None of the 31 investment management companies routinely
supports shareholder proposals seeking more corporate disclosure on
climate change.
28 of the 31 investment management companies have proxy voting
policies that require them to oppose or abstain on all
environmental-related resolutions, including climate change resolutions.
Among those 28 companies with such policies are mutual fund giants,
Fidelity, Vanguard and American Funds, which collectively manage more than
$1 trillion of the assets held in the top 100 mutual funds (equal to 70
percent of the total).
Only three mutual fund companies--Columbia, Franklin Templeton
and Neuberger Berman--have guidelines that even allow some proxy votes to
be cast in favor of climate change proposals.
The results come as global warming shareholder resolutions have received
record high voting supporting from investors in 2004 and 2005, including
28 percent shareholder support for a resolution filed last year with
ExxonMobil asking the company to disclose the impacts of the Kyoto
Protocol on its business. It was the highest vote ever on a climate
resolution filed at ExxonMobil. Three of the nation's largest public
pension funds which collectively manage over $400 billion in assets and
the largest private pension fund, TIAA-CREF, all routinely supported
global warming resolutions in 2005.
Doug Cogan, deputy director of social issues at IRRC, said: "This
report finds that virtually none of the top 100 U.S. equity mutual funds
are addressing climate change through affirmative proxy voting policies.
Despite the rising financial stakes and significant actions taken by other
institutional investors, mutual funds have shown a near-universal lack of
interest in supporting climate change resolutions since the proxy voting
disclosure requirements went into effect two years ago."
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
The ORC survey results were based on telephone interviews conducted among
a sample of 2,034 adults (1,013 men and 1,021 women) age 18 and over,
living in private households, in the continental United States. (Of this
group, the bulk of the survey focused on the 845 self-identified mutual
fund investors.) Interviewing was completed at ORC's Central Telephone
Facilities during the period of January 5-9, 2006. Completed interviews
were weighted by four variables: age, sex, geographic region, and race, to
ensure reliable and accurate representation of the total adult population.
The margin of error at a 95 percent confidence level is plus or minus two
percentage points for the sample of 2,034 adults and plus or minus 3
percent for the subset of mutual fund investors. Smaller sub-groups will
have larger error margins.
ABOUT THE GROUPS
The nonprofit and nonpartisan Civil Society Institute ( http://www.civilsociety.org) is a
think tank that serves as a catalyst for change by creating
problem-solving interactions among people, and between communities,
government and business that can help to improve society. Global warming
and U.S. energy policy are major policy focuses of CSI, which is the
sponsor of the http://www.40mpg.org
campaign.
Ceres ( http://www.ceres.org) is a
national coalition of investors, environmental groups and other public
interest organizations that workings with companies to improve their
handling of sustainability issues such as global climate change. Ceres
also directs the Investor Network on Clinmate Risk, an alliance of more
than 50 institutional investors that collectively manage about $3 trillion
in assets.
Co-op America (
http://www.coopamerica.org) is a not-for-profit consumer and investor
education organization founded in 1982. It harnesses marketplace
strategies to solve social and environmental problems, and mobilizes
consumers and investors to encourage companies to improve their social and
environmental responsibility.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Key CSI survey findings, the full text of the IRRC
report, and a streaming audio recording of the Ceres/CSI news event will
be available on the Web as of 4 p.m. ET on January 26, 2006 at
http://www.civilsocietyinstitute.org and http://www.ceres.org.
|
|