Back to States List

Ohio

Ohio has four main public pension systems: the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS), the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio (STRS), the School Employees Retirement System (SERS), and the Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund (OP&F).

  • The OPERS board represents state employees, local government employees, and employees of participating agencies; the board consists of 11 members: 1 Ex Officio (Director of the Department of Administrative Services); 1 appointed by the Governor; 1 appointed by the Treasurer; 1 appointed by the General Assembly; 7 elected by OPERS members.
    • OPERS discloses its proxy voting records on this website.
    • OPERS uses Glass Lewis for its proxy advisory services.
  • The STRS board represents state public school teachers and consists of 11 members: 5 elected contributing teacher members; 2 elected retired teacher members; 1 investment expert appointed by the governor; 1 investment expert appointed jointly by the speaker of the House and the Senate president; 1 investment expert designated by the treasurer of state; the superintendent of public instruction or his designated investment expert.
  • The SERS board represents public school employees and consists of 9 members: 4 elected employee members, 2 elected retiree members, and 3 appointed investment expert members; 1 investment expert is appointed by the governor, 1 investment expert is appointed by the treasurer of state, and 1 investment expert is appointed jointly by the speaker of the House and president of the Senate.
  • The OP&F board represents police and firefighters and consists of 9 members: 6 employee members elected by their respective member groups (2 representatives of police departments, 2 representatives of fire departments, 1 retired firefighter, 1 retired police officer); 3 statutory members with professional investment experience (1 appointed by the Governor, 1 appointed by the State Treasurer, 1 appointed jointly by the Senate President and the Speaker of the House).

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 STRS proxy voting records for directly owned securities through pension fund portfolios. The 1792 Exchange commends OPERS for publicly disclosing this information online for its pensioners. STRS data was obtained by a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request since Ohio does not publicly disclose this information to its pensioners. The 1792 Exchange encourages Ohio 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

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%

DoubleLine Funds

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

52%

Fisher Funds

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

67%

Franklin Templeton Funds

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

51%

Frontier Funds

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

19%

Goldman Sachs Funds

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

6%

Harding Loevner Funds

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

12%

Invesco Funds

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

34%

Lazard Funds

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

49%

Loomis Sayles

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

25%

Neuberger Berman Funds

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

29%

PGIM Funds

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

42%

PIMCO Funds

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

85%

PineBridge Funds

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

37%

Prudential Funds

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

38%

Redwood Funds

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

2%

State Street Funds

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

18%

T Rowe Price Funds

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

3%

TCW Funds

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

76%

UBS Funds

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

48%

Blackstone Funds

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

84%

Golub Funds

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

89%

Vontobel Funds

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

0%

Baillie Gifford Funds

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

29%

Mondrian Funds

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

47%

Fuller Thaler Funds

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

30%

LSV Funds

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

37%

Causeway Funds

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

57%

Ninety One Funds

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

13%

Ariel Funds

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

21%

Coho Funds

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

51%

Wasatch Funds

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

19%

Blue Chip Investor Funds

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

0%

Brookfield Funds

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

48%

Kayne Anderson Funds

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

29%

Heartland Funds

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

0%

Westwood Funds

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

0%

Asset Manager Voting

Pro-ESG

23.4%

Anti-ESG

2.2%

Anti-Fossil Fuels

25%

Anti-Pollution/Waste

30%

Animal Rights

13%

DEI

25%

Weapons/Defense

18%

Human Rights

32%

Income Equality

30%

Political Speech/Lobbying Spending

29%

Health Care

16%

Race/Gender targets on Boards

34%

Non-Pecuniary

21%

ESG-Focused Governance

19%

Abortion

19%

Pro-Fossil Fuel

2%

Equality not DEI

2%

Controversial Cause Support

2%

Geopolitical Rivals/China

2%

State Voting

Pro-ESG

23%

Anti-ESG

25%

Anti-Fossil Fuels

8%

Anti-Pollution/Waste

0%

Animal Rights

0%

DEI

33%

Weapons/Defense

0%

Human Rights

60%

Income Equality

17%

Political Speech/Lobbying Spending

11%

Health Care

17%

Race/Gender targets on Board

100%

Non-Pecuniary Corporate Purpose

33%

ESG-Focused Governance

0%

Abortion

14%

Pro-Fossil Fuel

10%

Equality not DEI

5%

Controversial Cause Support

0%

Geopolitical Rivals/China

82%

Generate Reports
Clear
Toast