Back to States List

Minnesota

Minnesota has three main public pension systems: the Minnesota State Retirement System (MSRS), the Teachers Retirement Association (TRA), and the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA). The Minnesota State Board of Investment (SBI) manages the assets of these systems.

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 SBI’s proxy voting records for directly owned securities through pension fund portfolios. The 1792 Exchange commends the SBI 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%

Columbia Funds

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

39%

Fidelity Funds

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

14%

Goldman Sachs Funds

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

6%

Neuberger Berman Funds

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

29%

State Street Funds

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

18%

State Street SSGA

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

19%

T Rowe Price Funds

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

3%

Hotchkis and Wiley Funds

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

60%

Sands Capital Funds

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

16%

Baillie Gifford Funds

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

29%

Zevenbergen Funds

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

29%

LSV Funds

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

37%

Ariel Funds

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

21%

Pzena Funds

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

0%

Hood River Capital Funds

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

0%

Asset Manager Voting

Pro-ESG

19.3%

Anti-ESG

2.1%

Anti-Fossil Fuels

17%

Anti-Pollution/Waste

20%

Animal Rights

11%

DEI

19%

Weapons/Defense

11%

Human Rights

24%

Income Equality

24%

Political Speech/Lobbying Spending

20%

Health Care

7%

Race/Gender targets on Board

27%

Non-Pecuniary

14%

ESG-Focused Governance

6%

Abortion

9%

Pro-Fossil Fuel

1%

Equality not DEI

1%

Controversial Cause Support

1%

Geopolitical Rivals/China

2%

State Voting

Pro-ESG

82%

Anti-ESG

43%

Anti-Fossil Fuels

74%

Anti-Pollution/Waste

88%

Animal Rights

86%

DEI

89%

Weapons/Defense

75%

Human Rights

95%

Income Equality

92%

Political Speech/Lobbying Spending

93%

Health Care

37%

Race Gender/targets on Boards

100%

Non-Pecuniary Corporate Purpose

80%

ESG-Focused Governance

56%

Abortion

89%

Pro-Fossil Fuel

33%

Equality not DEI

26%

Controversial Cause Support

17%

Geopolitical Rivals/China

92%

Generate Reports
Clear
Toast

This website stores cookies on your computer. These cookies are used to collect information about how you interact with our website and allow us to remember you. We use this information in order to improve and customize your browsing experience and for analytics and metrics about our visitors both on this website and other media. To find out more about the cookies we use, see our Privacy Policy.

Accept