BlackRock And Its ESG ‘Voting Choice’ Ruse

In August 2022, 19 pink state attorneys general wrote to Fink informing him that proxy voting to advance ESG or different ideological causes violated their legal guidelines governing fiduciary duties. Ten states handed legal guidelines making it clear that such proxy voting is a breach of fiduciary obligation. The Voting Choice program is an try to create a protection in opposition to fiduciary-malfeasance claims by making it seem that BlackRock has seen the errors of its methods and is returning proxy-voting energy to buyers. But that merely isn’t the case.

As of March 31, $2.1 trillion of BlackRock’s $4.5 trillion fairness index AUM was eligible for Voting Choice. Only 26% was collaborating. The program’s current growth to sure retail buyers will slightly increase the eligible quantity to $2.3 trillion. If the participation share holds, Voting Choice would scale back BlackRock’s discretionary voting energy from about 10% of all votes forged for S & P 500 corporations to a still-massive 8.7%. That’s assuming no individuals select the option “to continue to vote according to the BlackRock Investment Stewardship policy,” which clearly does nothing to cut back BlackRock’s discretionary voting energy.

The program does supply buyers the extra possibility to select from third-party voting insurance policies supplied by proxy-advisor giants ISS and Glass Lewis, each robust ESG supporters themselves.  Actual voting alternative – voting the shares individually – doesn’t look like an possibility within the expanded program however can be irrelevant even when it have been.

BlackRock is increasing this system to incorporate retail buyers in its S & P 500 ETF – with 500 annual shareholder conferences involving hundreds of director nominees and shareholder resolutions. It is unlikely that any people would assume the burden or have the assets to vote intelligently on each director or decision even when that they had the selection.

The program does supply one arguably non-ESG-supporting choice to vote with administration, which regularly (not at all times) opposes ESG initiatives. But administration stays topic to BlackRock’s behind-the-scenes ESG strain diminishing the worth of that possibility. In his 2020 letter to CEOs, Fink referred to as this strain “engagement.” More formally, BlackRock calls it “investment stewardship.” Both phrases are euphemisms for compulsion – with ESG on the forefront.

According to BlackRock, its “stewardship” and “investment” groups work collectively to supply company administration with “insight on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations.” Its aim is to incorporate “the assessment and integration of environmental and social issues, within an investment context” and “hold directors accountable for their action or inaction.” That sounds quite a bit like what BlackRock has been doing with proxy voting.

But “stewardship” is each more practical and extra insidious than proxy voting, because it happens in C suite convention rooms and on Zoom calls, past the purview of each buyers and people who would defend their pursuits. And, make no mistake, “investment stewardship” is the place BlackRock’s actual energy resides. It’s the “investment stewardship” workforce that votes the shares BlackRock holds – and the CEOs of these corporations comprehend it. 

Wiser states will legislatively mandate disclosure of investment-stewardship conferences and make it clear that pressuring corporations to help ESG or different ideological goals over earnings is itself a breach of fiduciary duties, even when casual.

In any occasion, it is rather unlikely that pink states will enable BlackRock to make use of its so-called Voting Choice ruse as a shortcut round its fiduciary obligations. Legislators, attorneys normal, and state monetary officers are following these points intently. And because the elected stewards of their states’ (and taxpayers’) investments, they’re holding BlackRock and different ESG supporting corporations accountable.