Back to States List

Minnesota

Minnesota has three main public pension funds, MSRS, TRA, and PERA. The Minnesota State Board of Investment (SBI) manages these assets and discloses its specific proxy voting guidelines on this website. The SBI board is comprised of the Governor, State Auditor, Attorney General, and Secretary of State.

  • The MSRS board represents many state public employees; the board consists of 11 members: 3 appointed by the Governor, 1 appointed by the Met Council; 7 elected by MSRS members.
  • The TRA board represents public teachers and consists of 8 members: 5 elected trustees (Four of the five elected trustees are active members of TRA and one is a TRA retiree) and 3 ex officio members (the Commissioner of Education, the Commissioner of Minnesota Management and Budget, and a representative of the Minnesota School Boards Association).
  • The PERA board represents remaining eligible public employees and consists of 11 members: The State Auditor (ex officio), 5 trustees appointed by the Governor to represent cities, counties, school boards, retirees and the public, respectively, and the remaining 5 members are elected by the PERA membership at large to represent the general active membership, Police & Fire plan members and all benefit recipients.

The first table shows the aggregated proxy voting records of the state’s asset managers, who manage the pension’s stock market portfolio either through mutual funds or ETFs, and are therefore exercising proxy voting privileges as well. The second table shows the state’s publicly disclosed proxy voting records for public securities that it directly owns through pension fund portfolios. Both of these tables are necessary to reflect an accurate and comprehensive picture of the state’s proxy voting records.

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

17.4%

Anti-ESG

1.2%

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