Many US state pensions fail to address climate risk in proxy voting

14 February 2025

Elizabeth Pfeuti

Latest News

Australia narrows climate reporting scope mid‑rollout

Minerva Proxy Update

Follow This challenges Shell days before key vote

SRD III is Europe’s chance to fix proxy plumbing

SEC Steps Closer to Unwinding Climate Disclosure Rules

Minerva Proxy Update

Featured Briefings

Australia Proxy Season Review 2025

2026 Proxy Season Preview

Diversity Divergence: Shareholders Steadfast Amid Pervasive Political Posturing

Many US state pensions fail to address climate risk in proxy voting

February 14, 2025

While some US state pensions are starting to use proxy voting as an effective risk management tool, too many still fall short in addressing climate-related financial risks in their voting guidelines and practices.

In an assessment of pensions fund’s proxy voting guidelines’ strength in addressing climate- and environment-related financial risks, the Sierra Club report revealed only one pension earned an A grade while two-thirds of the pensions received D or F grades.

The New York State Common Retirement Fund received an A grade for its guidelines, which proactively address the full scope of risk mitigation measures on key systemic risks.

Meanwhile, seven state pension funds, including the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, received B grades for their strong performance on systemic risk, climate resolutions and climate lobbying resolutions and moderate performance in all other areas.

The report also evaluated proxy voting records on climate-related votes, revealing that eight pension systems from California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Oregon earned A grades, indicating that they are adopting a thorough approach to risk management.

Whereas pension systems in Connecticut and LA Country received B grades while the State of Wisconsin Investment Board and the Washington State Investment Board received C grades.

Of the 32 pension funds assessed, the only pension fund to receive an overall A grade was the Massachusetts Pension Reserves Invesment Management due to its B grade for guidelines, A grade for voting and the availability of its vote record through the Freedom of Information Act.

Nine funds earned B or C grades for having transparent voting records and solid-to-moderate proxy voting guidelines. Fourteen received D or F grades due to transparent voting records but weak-to-poor proxy voting guidelines, resulting in poor outcomes. Eight pensions were given 'incomplete' grades for not disclosing their voting records.

Minerva’s blog focuses on the latest developments in ESG investing and stewardship. Minerva is a global provider of sustainable stewardship solutions with over 25 years of expertise. Minerva empowers investors by providing essential tools, including ESG research and data, enabling them to navigate the intricate landscape of stewardship and proxy voting, whilst ensuring their decisions are well-informed and aligned with sustainable principles.

You can read more of our articles by clicking here.

Related Stories

SEC Steps Closer to Unwinding Climate Disclosure Rules

May 13, 2026
Read More

From Stewardship Silos to Systems Thinking

May 1, 2026
Read More

US state attorneys general escalate ESG pressure on credit ratings agencies

April 30, 2026
Read More

Trump’s Anti DEI Order Heads to Court as Investors Hold the Line

April 30, 2026
Read More
AGM

BP’s AGM votes: governance opacity, not just protest

April 24, 2026
Read More