IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/finrev/v61y2026i2p471-491.html

What Drives Sustainable Institutional Engagement and Voting Behavior?

Author

Listed:
  • Martin Nerlinger
  • Martin Rohleder
  • Marco Wilkens
  • Jonas Zink

Abstract

We examine what drives institutional engagement and voting on environmental, social, and governance (ESG)‐related shareholder proposals, using data from Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) and Morningstar. We find that personal engagement often substitutes for voting, especially among large fund families and those using meetings or site visits. Funds that vote more often or disclose less are less supportive of ESG proposals, while those filing proposals or outsourcing votes show more support. Collaborative engagement and longer PRI membership correlate with stronger ESG voting. Though engagement‐active funds don't show major ESG performance gains, they increasingly support firms’ ESG improvements, highlighting the role of active ownership in promoting sustainability.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin Nerlinger & Martin Rohleder & Marco Wilkens & Jonas Zink, 2026. "What Drives Sustainable Institutional Engagement and Voting Behavior?," The Financial Review, Eastern Finance Association, vol. 61(2), pages 471-491, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:finrev:v:61:y:2026:i:2:p:471-491
    DOI: 10.1111/fire.70027
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/fire.70027
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/fire.70027?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Duan, Ying & Jiao, Yawen, 2016. "The Role of Mutual Funds in Corporate Governance: Evidence from Mutual Funds’ Proxy Voting and Trading Behavior," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(2), pages 489-513, April.
    2. David F. Larcker & Allan L. McCall & Gaizka Ormazabal, 2015. "Outsourcing Shareholder Voting to Proxy Advisory Firms," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58(1), pages 173-204.
    3. Caroline Flammer & Michael W. Toffel & Kala Viswanathan, 2021. "Shareholder activism and firms' voluntary disclosure of climate change risks," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(10), pages 1850-1879, October.
    4. repec:oup:revfin:v:29:y:2016:i:12:p:3394-3427. is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Calluzzo, Paul & Kedia, Simi, 2019. "Mutual fund board connections and proxy voting," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(3), pages 669-688.
    6. Dragana Cvijanović & Amil Dasgupta & Konstantinos E. Zachariadis, 2016. "Ties That Bind: How Business Connections Affect Mutual Fund Activism," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 71(6), pages 2933-2966, December.
    7. Peter Iliev & Michelle Lowry, 2015. "Are Mutual Funds Active Voters?," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 28(2), pages 446-485.
    8. Roni Michaely & Guillem Ordonez-Calafi & Silvina Rubio, 2024. "Mutual funds’ strategic voting on environmental and social issues," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 28(5), pages 1575-1610.
    9. Yonca Ertimur & Fabrizio Ferri & David Oesch, 2013. "Shareholder Votes and Proxy Advisors: Evidence from Say on Pay," Journal of Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 51(5), pages 951-996, December.
    10. Jennifer E. Bethel & Stuart L. Gillan, 2002. "The Impact of the Institutional and Regulatory Environment on Shareholder Voting," Financial Management, Financial Management Association, vol. 31(4), Winter.
    11. Ashwini K. Agrawal, 2012. "Corporate Governance Objectives of Labor Union Shareholders: Evidence from Proxy Voting," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 25(1), pages 187-226.
    12. Nadya Malenko & Yao Shen, 2016. "The Role of Proxy Advisory Firms: Evidence from a Regression-Discontinuity Design," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 29(12), pages 3394-3427.
    13. Chester S. Spatt, 2021. "Proxy Advisory Firms, Governance, Market Failure, and Regulation," The Review of Corporate Finance Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 10(1), pages 136-157.
    14. JOSEPH A. McCAHERY & ZACHARIAS SAUTNER & LAURA T. STARKS, 2016. "Behind the Scenes: The Corporate Governance Preferences of Institutional Investors," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 71(6), pages 2905-2932, December.
    15. Cindy R. Alexander & Mark A. Chen & Duane J. Seppi & Chester S. Spatt, 2010. "Interim News and the Role of Proxy Voting Advice," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 23(12), pages 4419-4454, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Duan, Ying & Jiao, Yawen & Tam, Kinsun, 2021. "Conflict of interest and proxy voting by institutional investors," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    2. Nitish Kumar & Yuehua Tang & Kelsey D. Wei, 2024. "Customers as Friendly Shareholders: Uncovering the Complex Mutual Fund-Broker Relationship," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 70(4), pages 2568-2589, April.
    3. Dasgupta, Amil & Fos, Vyacheslav & Sautner, Zacharias, 2021. "Institutional investors and corporate governance," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112114, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Wang, Xianjue, 2022. "Disloyal managers and proxy voting," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    5. Farizo, Joseph D., 2022. "(Black)Rock the vote: Index funds and opposition to management," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    6. Tao Li, 2018. "Outsourcing Corporate Governance: Conflicts of Interest Within the Proxy Advisory Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(6), pages 2951-2971, June.
    7. Jiekun Huang, 2023. "Thy Neighbor’s Vote: Peer Effects in Proxy Voting," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(7), pages 4169-4189, July.
    8. Wang, Xianjue, 2021. "Disclosure by firms under voting pressure," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    9. Bolton, Patrick & Li, Tao & Ravina, Enrichetta & Rosenthal, Howard, 2020. "Investor ideology," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(2), pages 320-352.
    10. Berno Buechel & Lydia Mechtenberg & Alexander F. Wagner, 2022. "When do proxy advisors improve corporate decisions?," Swiss Finance Institute Research Paper Series 22-47, Swiss Finance Institute.
    11. Miyachi, Hiroaki & Takeda, Fumiko, 2024. "Empirical study on voting results and proxy advisor recommendations in Japan," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    12. Calluzzo, Paul & Kedia, Simi, 2019. "Mutual fund board connections and proxy voting," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(3), pages 669-688.
    13. Xiaohui Li & Yao Shen & Jing Xie, 2024. "Proxy Voting on CEO Pay: Evidence from Rejection of the Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine," Working Papers 202412, University of Macau, Faculty of Business Administration.
    14. Loureiro, Gilberto & Mendonça, Cesar, 2024. "Do large registered investment funds undermine shareholder activism? Evidence from hedge fund proposals," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    15. Alberta Di Giuli & Alexandre Garel & Roni Michaely & Arthur Romec, 2026. "Climate Change and Mutual Fund Voting on Climate Proposals," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 72(2), pages 1253-1276, February.
    16. Ormazabal, Gaizka, 2018. "The Role of Stakeholders in Corporate Governance: A View from Accounting Research," CEPR Discussion Papers 12775, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    17. Paul M. Guest & Marco Nerino, 2019. "Do Corporate Governance Ratings Change Investor Expectations? Evidence from Announcements by Institutional Shareholder Services," Working Papers wp515, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    18. Choonsik Lee & Matthew E. Souther, 2020. "Managerial Reliance on the Retail Shareholder Vote: Evidence from Proxy Delivery Methods," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(4), pages 1717-1736, April.
    19. Shu, Chong, 2024. "The proxy advisory industry: Influencing and being influenced," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    20. Nadya Malenko & Yao Shen, 2016. "The Role of Proxy Advisory Firms: Evidence from a Regression-Discontinuity Design," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 29(12), pages 3394-3427.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:finrev:v:61:y:2026:i:2:p:471-491. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/efaaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.