Introduction

The report assesses how large asset owners influence climate policy through stewardship, asset manager oversight and direct advocacy. Covering 30 major pension funds and insurers with over USD 17 trillion in assets, it highlights their systemic role in shaping policy and managing climate-related financial risks. Asset owners can influence investee companies, asset managers, policymakers and industry associations.

Results summary

Performance is mixed, with no asset owner fully utilising all available levers of influence. While some demonstrate positive engagement, most fall short. Stewardship scores range from A- to F, with 73% scoring D+ or below. Only a minority align policy engagement with science-based pathways. Five asset owners achieve strong policy advocacy ratings (A to B), while most show partial alignment.

Asset owner stewardship on climate lobbying

Stewardship practices are generally weak, particularly due to limited transparency. Only a small group of pension funds and European insurers demonstrate meaningful engagement. Examples include filing shareholder resolutions, engaging companies on lobbying alignment, and collaborative initiatives.

Indirect stewardship via asset managers remains underdeveloped. Few asset owners actively influence managers’ stewardship practices, despite their significant leverage. Voting on climate lobbying resolutions is stronger among leading pension funds, with some supporting over 80–100% of resolutions between 2021 and 2023.

Policy integration is limited. Only 13 of 30 asset owners reference climate lobbying in stewardship frameworks, and just six embed it systematically. Expectations often focus on disclosure rather than alignment with net zero or the Paris Agreement.

Management of asset managers’ lobbying

Oversight of asset managers’ own lobbying activities is minimal. Only two asset owners demonstrate engagement with managers on aligning their advocacy with climate goals. This represents an underutilised mechanism, despite asset owners’ influence as clients. The report suggests expanding monitoring frameworks and setting clearer expectations for manager behaviour.

Asset owner advocacy on government climate policy

Direct policy engagement is uneven and generally low. Only five asset owners show strong alignment with 1.5°C pathways, while 21 of 30 do not meet thresholds for active engagement. Engagement intensity is typically below levels considered strategic.

Asset owners most commonly support financial policies such as corporate climate disclosure and shareholder rights. Fewer engage in real-economy policies, although some funds advocate for renewable investment, emissions standards and building decarbonisation.

Indirect engagement through industry associations presents risks. Seven asset owners are linked to groups misaligned with climate goals, some actively opposing climate policies. This misalignment undermines asset owners’ stated commitments.

Transparency

Transparency is limited across both stewardship and policy engagement. Many asset owners provide only high-level disclosures, with little detail on activities or outcomes. No entity demonstrates comprehensive transparency on indirect lobbying. The report highlights the need for clearer reporting on both direct and association-based policy engagement, including alignment assessments and disclosure of memberships.

Appendix: Methodology

The assessment uses publicly available data to evaluate stewardship, voting behaviour and policy engagement. Stewardship scores combine engagement examples (50%), policy integration (25%) and transparency (25%). Policy engagement is measured against science-based benchmarks, considering both direct actions and industry association links.

Overall, the methodology emphasises alignment with Paris Agreement goals and evaluates whether asset owners’ actions support or obstruct climate policy progress.