Netherlands Metal Workers Pension Fund Pulls Investments in Coal

Pensioenfonds Van De Metalektro has chosen to stop investing in coal emissions companies.

The $55.4 billion Netherlands-based pension fund, which covers the retirement benefits for metal workers, said that coal-only companies no longer have “future-proof operations.” This led to the decision to exclude the stocks.

“That is why we ask companies in which we invest to actively contribute to a reduction in CO2 emissions and a cleaner energy supply,” said Eric Uijen, the chairman of the fund’s executive board, in a statement.

Basing its beliefs on the Paris Climate Agreement, the metal workers’ pension expects that coal will eventually stop being used as a means of energy. It called investments in coal producers “stranded assets” in a news release, where it added that it makes “no distinction” between metallurgical coal (which creates heat for steelmaking) and thermal coal (which generates electricity).

For more stories like this, sign up for the CIO Alert newsletter. 

Metalektro plans to reduce the carbon footprint of all of its investments by 25% in 2021. It has been discussing its carbon dioxide stance with energy companies, particularly the top 10 carbon emitters, which exclude Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell. If the companies will not talk with the fund or do not meet its reduction requirements, they are placed on the fund’s exclusion list.

The fund also requires 10% of its portfolio across all asset classes to contribute to meeting the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals code. Pensioenfonds Van De Metalektro also does not invest in tar sand oil or tobacco.

Tags: Carbon, Divestment, ESG, Pensioenfonds Van De Metalektro, Pension

NYC Comptroller Scott Stringer is urging Exxon Mobil shareholders to vote for a resolution calling for the disclosure of board qualifications and diversity at the company’s annual meeting on May 30.

The resolution, known as item 6, seeks a matrix that details the skills and attributes, including the gender, race, and ethnicity, of each director nominee.

In a May 18 SEC filing, Stringer submitted a letter to Exxon Mobil shareholders on behalf of the $194 billion New York City Pension Funds asking them to vote for item 6 at next week’s shareholder meeting. The fund owns 9.2 million shares of Exxon Mobil, which is currently worth about $756.7 million.

In his letter, Stringer wrote that the proposed matrix would enable shareowners to assess the quality and diversity of Exxon’s board in order to make informed voting decisions on director nominees.

For more stories like this, sign up for the CIO Alert newsletter. 

“A responsive board matrix will give shareowners a ‘big-picture’ view of directors’ attributes and how they fit together,” wrote Stringer, “thereby enabling shareowners to assess how well-suited individual director nominees are for Exxon.” He also said it would help identify any gaps in skills, experience, or other characteristics, and allow shareholders to make better-informed proxy voting decisions.

“Such disclosure is especially important for energy companies, such as Exxon, which are facing the challenging prospects of changing business models and strategies in order to transition successfully to a low-carbon future,” he wrote.

Stringer also pointed out that such disclosure has seen “a significant uptick” by S&P 500 and Russell 3000 companies over the past few years, including at Exxon competitors Chevron and Occidental Petroleum. He also said other companies providing first-time disclosure this year include W.W. Grainger, Leucadia National, Unum, Skyworks Solutions, PepsiCo, Ameren, Exelon, Wells Fargo, Colgate Palmolive, Honeywell International, and Duke Energy.

“Each of these companies engaged in productive dialogue with the NYC Funds,” Stringer said.

Stringer argued that Exxon’s current disclosure is “inadequate and confusing, as was its engagement with the NYC Funds.” He said Exxon maintains that its current disclosure of its overall board competencies and diversity should be sufficient for shareowners.

“We attempted repeatedly to engage Exxon management and directors,” he wrote, adding that the fund had one substantive discussion with Exxon management in January, followed by a brief call after which the fund received a copy of a “no-action request” that Exxon submitted to the SEC. “All five of our requests to engage directly with an independent Exxon director went unanswered.”

Tags: ESG, ExxonMobil, Pension, Scott Stringer, Shareowner Resolution