The scores from the annual PRI Assessment were released to signatories recently – and some asset managers lost no time in announcing them.
But does this give the complete picture? Responsible Investor is trying to find out.
Signatories can choose whether to disclose their scores (most released so far are either A+ or A).
RI has been gathering scores to collate this important market information – and we want YOUR help as it is an incomplete sample at the moment. The aim is to build something decision-useful for the entire market.
We are inviting PRI asset manager signatories to submit their 2018 Strategy and Governance scores to us by Friday September 7. We only seek Strategy and Governance scores at this stage for simplicity’s sake.
So please email your scores to Khalid Azizuddin.
In summary: We are only requesting this from asset managers and we require just two pieces of info: the name of your organization and your 2018 Strategy and Governance score.
Methodology and (very) preliminary findings:
In this initial phase, we began by compiling score data (relating to the Strategy & Governance Module) for the top 100 asset managers according to AUM, based on the annual IPE Top 400 list purely as a starting point.
To search for data, we began with the public domain. This typically started with website landing pages and continued by drilling down into relevant sections and reports. If the data remained elusive, a request was sent via the asset manager’s press office and not responsible investment staff.According to this methodology, the initial findings are as follows:
Among the top 100 asset managers:
• 24 publicly disclosed their scores for any period within the scope (2015-2018)
• 11 disclosed their scores upon request
• 6 refused to disclose their scores
• 22 are not signatories of the PRI or this category is not applicable (i.e. the entity no longer exists due to M&A, the entity is a group comprising of a number of separate firms)
• 37 did not respond to our request
• 4 received non-A+ scores (only one was publicly disclosed)
The findings would seem to bear out our initial sense that the assessment model reinforces tendencies to disclose higher-band scores – though we would love to be contradicted on this.
We’d like to stress that this exercise is not meant to criticise or undermine the PRI’s assessment model in any way.
On the contrary, we believe the assessments are a source of crucial information and would like to spark a conversation within the market on how to best unlock its value.
So please do contribute: it will just take a moment and you’ll help build a snapshot of the market at a crucial stage of its development.