Grantham, Mayo, Van Otterloo & Co. (GMO)

In August 2022, Texas placed one or more funds from GMO on its List of Financial Companies that Boycott Energy Companies list. The Comptroller’s office examined publicly available data, including licensed information from Bloomberg, LSEG Workspace, and MSCI, to identify U.S.-based funds that appear to restrict or prohibit investments in energy companies. However, in February 2026, a federal judge in Austin issued a ruling prohibiting enforcement of SB 13, the law that allowed the Texas Comptroller to create and maintain its Financial Companies that Boycott Energy Companies list. The court held that the law infringed upon First and Fourteenth Amendment protections. The plaintiffs argued that SB 13 unlawfully penalized financial firms for engaging in protected speech and investment decisions related to ESG policies, effectively compelling viewpoint-based certifications to do business with the state. The State of Texas, however, contended that SB 13 represented a lawful exercise of its authority to direct state investments and contracting decisions and to protect the state’s energy industry from what it characterized as discriminatory financial practices. In February 2026, the Texas Comptroller’s Office and the Texas Attorney General’s Office appealed the ruling to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case remains pending (1)(2)(3)(4)(5). GMO received a score of 100 on the 2026 Corporate Equality Index (CEI) from the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a political stakeholder group. The company recruits employees based on sexual identity issues. The company discriminates against vendors that do not promote divisive sex and gender policies, indicating it prioritizes sexual issues over merit (6)(7)(8). The company received a score of 100 on the 2025 Corporate Equality Index (CEI) from the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a political stakeholder group. The company recruits employees based on sexual identity. The company discriminates against vendors that do not promote divisive sex and gender policies, indicating it prioritizes sexual issues over merit (9)(10). GMO is a signatory of the Principles for Responsible Investment, incorporating ESG issues into investment analysis, decision-making, and other business practices (11)(12). The company integrates ESG into its business practices. From its ESG Investing Web Page: “We believe that material ESG factors will be determinants of success of the companies and countries in which we invest, and so by integrating ESG in our investment processes we will improve our long-term client returns” (13). However, GMO has not publicly canceled customers, suppliers, or vendors based on political views or religious beliefs (14).

GMO’s HRC 2026 CEI rating indicates the company will not donate to non-religious charities unless they embrace controversial sexual identity policies (1)(2)(3). The company’s HRC 2025 CEI rating indicates the company will not donate to non-religious charities unless they embrace controversial sexual identity policies (4)(5). GMO does not appear to discriminate against charitable organizations based on views or beliefs (6).

GMO’s HRC 2026 CEI rating indicates the company forces employees to attend at least one, controversial training on gender identity, sexual orientation, transgender issues, and divisive racial ideology. The company provides gender transition guidelines for its employees and a specific benefits guide with a comprehensive explanation of transgender services funded by the company (1)(2)(3). The company’s HRC 2025 CEI rating indicates the company forces employees to attend multiple, controversial trainings on gender identity, sexual orientation, transgender issues, and divisive racial ideology. The company provides gender transition guidelines for its employees and a specific benefits guide with a comprehensive explanation of transgender services funded by the company (4)(5). GMO offers unconscious bias training to its employees (6). The company appears to prioritize diversity over merit in its recruitment. From its Sustainability and Responsible Investing Report: “When recruiting, we prioritize partnerships with search firms that have a stated and proven commitment to diversity, and we hold them accountable for providing diverse candidate slates” (7). GMO does not provide viewpoint protections for its employees (8).

GMO’s HRC 2026 CEI rating indicates the company potentially agrees to allow a controversial stakeholder group focused on sexual identity issues to dictate marketing or advertising strategy. By doing so, the company risks dividing employees, alienating customers and harming shareholders (1)(2)(3). The company’s HRC 2025 CEI rating indicates the company agrees to allow a controversial stakeholder group focused on sexual identity issues to dictate marketing or advertising strategy. By doing so, the company risks dividing employees, alienating customers and harming shareholders (4)(5). GMO is a signatory to the CFA Institute’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Code, indicating its support of DEI in its recruitment, hiring, onboarding, and promotions. Furthermore, the company pledges to integrate DEI into its policies, promote DEI in the investment industry, and provide regular reporting on its DEI metrics to the CFA Institute (6)(7)(8). The company was part of the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative prior to NZAM’s suspension in 2025. Its membership indicated a commitment to carbon neutrality with its investments by 2050 (9)(10)(11). GMO is a member of Climate Action 100+, committed to carbon neutrality by 2050 (12)(13). The company supports DEI within its business practices. From its Sustainability and Responsibile Investing Report: “Our focused attention on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)
allows GMO to forge deeper relationships with globally diverse groups, including prospective employees, clients, and business partners” (14). GMO supports ESG within its business practices. From its Responsible Investment Policy: “The ESG Oversight Committee governs the implementation of our responsible investment approaches, including
systems-level considerations, integration tools, and influence levers, ensuring firm-wide alignment around ESG
priorities” (15).

GMO’s HRC 2026 CEI rating indicates the company covers transgender related costs for its employees and their children, including paid short-term leave, puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, chest surgeries, genital surgeries, medical visits, lab monitoring, and mental health benefits. The company also covers at least five of the following services: reconstructive hair removal, cosmetic hair removal, tracheal shave or reduction, facial surgeries, voice modification surgery, voice modification therapy, lipoplasty or filling for body masculinization or feminization, and travel and lodging expenses. Additionally, the company has potentially pledged philanthropic support of at least one organization or event that promotes sex and gender ideology. By allowing a political stakeholder group to dictate operations, the company increases health care costs and risks dividing employees, alienating customers and harming shareholders (1)(2)(3)(4). The company’s HRC 2025 CEI rating indicates the company covers transgender related costs for its employees and their children, including paid short-term leave, puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, chest surgeries, genital surgeries, medical visits and lab monitoring, travel and lodging. Additionally, the company has pledged philanthropic support of at least one organization or event that promotes sex and gender ideology. By allowing a political stakeholder group to dictate operations, the company increases health care costs and risks dividing employees, alienating customers and harming shareholders (5)(6). In 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024 GMO donated $350,000, $900,000, $100,000, $300,000, $950,000, $500,000 and $500,000 to 350.org (7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13). In 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 the company donated $250,000, $300,000, $300,000, $250,000 to the Conservation Law Foundation (14)(15)(16)(17). Otherwise, there are no publicly known cases of GMO using corporate funds to advance ideological causes, organizations, or policies (18).

GMO’s HRC 2025 CEI rating indicates the company publicly advocated for controversial sex and gender ideology through local, state or federal legislation or initiatives. By allowing a political stakeholder group to dictate operations, the company risks dividing employees, alienating customers and harming shareholders (1)(2). The company does not operate a PAC or engage in lobbying at this time (3)(4)(5).