Back to States List

North Dakota

North Dakota has two main public pension systems: the North Dakota Public Employees Retirement System (NDPERS) and the Teachers’ Fund for Retirement (TFFR). The North Dakota Retirement and Investment Office (NDRIO) works with the North Dakota State Investment Board (SIB) to oversee these retirement systems.

  • The SIB board consists of 11 members: 5 Ex Officio (Lt. Governor, State Treasurer, State Insurance Commissioner, Executive Director of Workforce Safety & Insurance, Land Commissioner); 3 representatives of PERS; 3 representatives of TFFR.

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 NDPERS proxy voting records for directly owned securities through pension fund portfolios. This data was obtained by a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request since North Dakota does not publicly disclose this information to its pensioners. The 1792 Exchange encourages North Dakota to publish its proxy voting records instead of keeping its pensioners in the dark about how the state votes on ESG issues with their money.

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

By Asset Manager

Dimensional Investment Funds

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

5%

Invesco Funds

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

34%

JPMorgan Funds

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

20%

Northern Funds

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

75%

William Blair Funds

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

72%

LSV Funds

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

37%

Asset Manager Voting

Pro-ESG

25.8%

Anti-ESG

3.4%

Anti-Fossil Fuels

23%

Anti-Pollution/Waste

29%

Animal Rights

15%

DEI

23%

Weapons/Defense

11%

Human Rights

33%

Income Equality

35%

Political Speech/Lobbying Spending

31%

Health Care

12%

Race/Gender targets on Boards

43%

Non-Pecuniary

8%

ESG-Focused Governance

20%

Abortion

13%

Pro-Fossil Fuel

3%

Equality not DEI

2%

Controversial Cause Support

4%

Geopolitical Rivals/China

5%

State Voting

Pro-ESG

37%

Anti-ESG

0%

Anti-Fossil Fuels

35%

Anti-Pollution/Waste

14%

Animal Rights

0%

DEI

56%

Weapons/Defense

33%

Human Rights

68%

Income Equality

13%

Political Speech/Lobbying Spending

19%

Health Care

6%

Race/Gender targets on Board

N/A

Non-Pecuniary Corporate Purpose

100%

ESG-Focused Governance

29%

Abortion

25%

Pro-Fossil Fuel

0%

Equality not DEI

0%

Controversial Cause Support

0%

Geopolitical Rivals/China

0%

Generate Reports
Clear
Toast