Thought-Provoking Q&A Session
Our Q&A session surfaced a range of fascinating questions, highlighting the relevance of the questions we're addressing and depth of interest in our methodology. Below are some of the topics raised, which we’ll address in detail in upcoming entries on our Voting for Sustainability FAQ section:
- Integrating Engagement: How do you incorporate engagement activities within the comparison of voting records?
- Differentiating Say-on-Climate Votes: How do you handle situations where a "sustainable" vote could either support a climate plan (vote yes) or oppose it (vote no) based on its adequacy?
- Comparing Asset Owners and Managers: Does your methodology effectively compare asset owners' voting records with how their policies are implemented by asset managers?
- Diverging Votes: Can your data track the number of diverging votes by Climate Action 100+ members on climate-related proposals?
- Impact of Proxy Voting Choice: How will the increasing trend of large asset managers offering proxy voting choice to clients affect your ranking methodology?
- Coverage Ratios: Do you provide a coverage ratio showing what percentage of proposals were voted on by asset managers or owners? How do you address varying coverage rates?
Thank You to Our Participants
A big thank you to everyone who joined and engaged with thought-provoking questions. Your contributions help shape the ongoing development of Voting for Sustainability and our broader offerings at rezonanz.
For those who couldn’t attend: feel free to reach out to us directly to request a recording of the webinar or download the latest Voting for Sustainability Report here.
Stay tuned as we continue the conversation and share more insights in the weeks to come. Together, we’re driving transparency, collaboration, and measurable change in responsible investment.