Investors filed a record number of biodiversity resolutions in 2024, a new Global Witness analysis reveals – yet none passed, and all received low levels of support overall.
This is largely thanks to US-based asset managers BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street Global Advisors (SSSA), who were found to have opposed the majority of the biodiversity and deforestation-related resolutions put forward by other shareholders.
Published today, the new findings come amid growing concern for nature and biodiversity, with the world losing the equivalent of almost 10 football fields of forest per minute last year. Scientists now say human activity has pushed the world into the danger zone in seven out of eight indicators of planetary safety, while UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned at COP16 that, “This is what an existential crisis looks like.”
While ESG resolutions have emerged as a powerful tool for shareholders to wield to influence corporate sustainability practices, the new findings reflect a broader trend showcasing how investors are failing to use their leverage with the companies they invest in to reduce deforestation and harm to nature.
Alexandria Reid, Forests campaign lead at Global Witness said, “Investors increasingly say they are interested in ending the nature crisis, but their actions in the boardroom tell a different story, as they continue to vote against resolutions needed to safeguard ecosystems from threats like preventable deforestation in the supply chains of the companies they finance.
“The truth is turkeys do not vote for Christmas: we cannot count on bankers to forgo the profits of deforestation voluntarily. Every day that governments continue to delay the laws needed to stop the financing of deforestation pushes our planet to the brink.”
In total, the analysis found that 18 biodiversity and deforestation-related shareholder resolutions were publicly filed in 2024. This compares with 12 in 2023 and 9 in 2022. This includes resolutions focussed on issues such as supply-chain deforestation, deep sea mining, water use, and the use of pesticides in agricultural supply-chains.
To establish the findings, Global Witness analysed public filings logged in databases provided by the Principles for Responsible Investment and Ceres, using relevant search terms.
Global Witness also analysed how individual asset managers voted on three key resolutions this year: one at Tyson Foods, demanding the company accelerate its efforts to eliminate deforestation from its supply chain; and two resolutions at Pepsico and Home Depot, which both demanded the companies conduct a biodiversity impact assessment. They received 3 per cent, 18 per cent and 16 per cent support respectively.
Included among those rejecting these resolutions were asset managers with public commitments on net zero and deforestation, via the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative, or the Finance Sector Deforestation Action group.
Overall, the analysis found that ‘average support’ for deforestation and biodiversity focused resolutions going to vote has fallen in recent years, averaging just 13 per cent support in 2024 and 10 per cent in 2023, down from 59 per cent and 50 per cent in 2022 and 2021 respectively.
Votes from major asset managers significantly influence the outcome of ESG proposals. BlackRock, Vanguard and SSGA, known as the ‘Big Three’, collectively hold substantial stakes in major companies that operate in sectors at high-risk of causing deforestation, like agriculture, mining and fossil fuel extraction, among others.
As some of the world’s largest asset managers, the Big Three often wield enough voting power to tip the scales on shareholder resolutions; however, each of them voted against the three resolutions analysed, despite occasionally supporting deforestation-related resolutions in the past.
Overall, Global Witness found that US-based asset managers are notably more reluctant to support biodiversity resolutions compared to those in the EU and UK.
Ashley Thomson, Senior US Policy Adviser at Global Witness said, “This report paints a worrying picture of leading US financiers’ lackluster approach to biodiversity loss. There’s a clear disconnect between these asset manager’s rhetoric and actions, which undermines their power to drive real change.
“The failure of leadership from major US financial players is a huge obstacle to addressing the biodiversity crisis. It’s time for them to recognise and use their influence to demand that companies prioritise sustainability and respect our natural world.”