We have now published our response to the GMPF Investment Strategy Statement.
We welcome the acknowledgement that climate change is a material financial risk to the Fund’s investments but we argue that the Fund’s chosen approach for responding to this, engagement with the fossil fuel companies, is inadequate to the task. As engagement specialist NGO Share Action have stated in a report on engagement with Shell (and the same is said about BP),
Institutional investors, particularly those with
fiduciary duties to younger pension savers, are
increasingly under scrutiny to show that their
engagements with high-carbon companies are
delivering meaningful results to reduce risks.
Investors in Shell should set clear timelines
around their engagements with the company, with
milestones and appropriate escalation strategies.
If credible risk reduction is not achieved within the
pre-determined engagement timeline, fiduciary
investors should consider divesting their holdings in