Large investment funds have consistently voted against measures to protect biodiversity at shareholder meetings, a report has found, with proposals supporting nature receiving support of less than 40% of votes cast since 2010 across those analysed.

Non-profit Planet Tracker looked at 26,500 votes cast on biodiversity-supportive proposals with resolutions backed by just 38% of those in the period from 2010 to the end of 2022, it said in the report published Wednesday.

Some of the key reasons for the 62% of those voting against or abstaining related to “insufficient shareholder benefits”, “no history of harm to shareholders”, and “overly prescriptive” resolutions.

The analysis also found that even sustainability and ESG funds that voted on biodiversity issues still voted against measures to limit deforestation 20% of the time. They comprised 3% of the total votes studied.

The data is even more stark across some of the largest asset managers globally – Blackrock, Vanguard, and SSGA – whose sustainability/ESG funds voted against biodiversity proposals 80–100% of the time, Planet Tracker found.

These actors tend to argue that engagement rather than divestment is a superior approach, the report suggested.

The majority of proposals related to deforestation.

Of the votes analysed, only 7% of funds provided reasons for their voting behaviour for biodiversity-related proposals.

“In Planet Tracker’s opinion, investors should reasonably expect investment managers to provide a brief reasoning for their voting actions. Clearly the vast majority of investment managers disagree,” the report stated.

The private sector has been urged to help solve the nature crisis, with several targets in the historic 2022 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) calling on financials to help channel funding towards nature positive outcomes.

By Roy Manuell – roy@carbon-pulse.com

*** Click here to sign up to our weekly biodiversity newsletter ***