Back to States List

Illinois

Illinois has four main public employee pension systems: the State Retirement Systems (SRS) of Illinois, the Illinois Teachers Retirement System (TRS), the Illinois State Universities Retirement System (SURS), and the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF).

  • The Illinois State Board of Investment (ISBI) manages assets for Illinois’ State Employees’ Retirement System (SERS), General Assembly Retirement System (GARS), and the Judges’ Retirement System (JRS). The ISBI board consists of 9 members: 5 appointed bythe Governor; 4 Ex Officio (State Treasurer, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of each of the retirement systems).
    • The ISBI discloses its specific proxy voting records on this website.
    • The ISBI uses Glass Lewis for its proxy advisory services.

    • The ISBI does not disclose the identity of its general investment consultant in its 2023 Annual Report. However, according to the minutes of a March 2024 Investment Policy Meeting, the ISBI’s general investment consultant is Meketa.
  • The TRS board represents public teachers and consists of 15 members: 1 Ex Officio (State superintendent of education); 7 trustees appointed by the Governor; 5 trustees elected by contributing TRS members; 2 trustees elected by TRS annuitants. The Governor appoints the President of the Board of Trustees.
  • The SURS board represents state university employees and consists of 11 members approved by the state senate: 4 trustees are elected by active SURS members; 2 trustees are elected by retired SURS members; 5 trustees are appointed by the Governor (one of whom is the chairperson of the Illinois Board of Higher Education). The Governor designates the board chairperson.
  • The IMRF board represents participating municipal employees and consists of 8 members: 4 Executive Trustees elected by participating units of government; 3 Employee Trustees elected by participating IMRF members; 1 Annuitant Trustee elected by IMRF annuitants.
    • According to its website, the IMRF’s general investment consultant is Callan.

The “By Asset Manager” and “Asset Manager Voting” tables show the proxy voting records of the state’s asset managers who manage the pensions’ stock market portfolio through index, exchange-traded, or mutual funds. Since these are externally managed funds, the asset managers typically retain and exercise proxy voting privileges. This data is used to calculate the state’s pro-ESG and anti-ESG scores to see how the state leverages its externally managed funds in proxy voting.

The “State Voting” table shows ISBI’s proxy voting records for directly owned securities through pension fund portfolios. The 1792 Exchange commends ISBI for publicly disclosing this information online for its pensioners.

Both tables are important to show a comprehensive picture of the state’s proxy voting record.

By Asset Manager

AQR Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

82%

Adams Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

0%

BlackRock Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

7%

Dimensional Investment Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

5%

Emerald Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

33%

JPMorgan Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

20%

Lazard Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

49%

Northern Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

75%

T Rowe Price Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

3%

UBS Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

48%

Blackstone Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

84%

William Blair Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

72%

Zevenbergen Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

29%

GQG Partners Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

57%

LSV Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

37%

Ariel Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

21%

Wasatch Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

19%

Greenspring Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

0%

Brookfield Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

48%

Grandeur Peak Global Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

67%

Asset Manager Voting

Pro-ESG

16.1%

Anti-ESG

2.2%

Anti-Fossil Fuels

20%

Anti-Pollution/Waste

21%

Animal Rights

11%

DEI

17%

Weapons/Defense

15%

Human Rights

22%

Income Equality

15%

Political Speech/Lobbying Spending

19%

Health Care

13%

Race/Gender targets on Boards

14%

Non-Pecuniary

11%

ESG-Focused Governance

11%

Abortion

10%

Pro-Fossil Fuel

2%

Equality not DEI

2%

Controversial Cause Support

2%

Geopolitical Rivals/China

4%

State Voting

Pro-ESG

35%

Anti-ESG

0%

Anti-Fossil Fuel

28%

Anti-Pollution/Waste

9%

Animal Rights

0%

DEI

44%

Weapons/Defense

40%

Human Rights

55%

Income Equality

21%

Political Speech/Lobbying Spending

40%

Health Care

5%

Race/Gender targets on Boards

100%

Non-Pecuniary Corporate Purpose

86%

ESG-Focused Governance

22%

Abortion

20%

Pro-Fossil Fuel

0%

Equality not DEI

0%

Controversial Cause Support

0%

Geopolitical Rivals/China

0%

Generate Reports
Clear
Toast