Back to States List

Ohio

Ohio has four main public pension funds:

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.

The STRS board represents state public school teachers and consists of 11 members: 5 elected contributing teacher members; 2 elected retired teacher members; an investment expert appointed by the governor; an investment expert appointed jointly by the speaker of the House and the Senate president; an investment expert designated by the treasurer of state; and 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, a second by the treasurer of state, and the third 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), and 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 first table utilizes the state’s publicly disclosed proxy voting records for public securities that it directly owns through pension fund portfolios. The second table uses the aggregated proxy voting records of the state’s asset managers, who manage the pensions’ stock market portfolio either through mutual funds or ETFs, and are therefore exercising proxy voting privileges as well. Both of these tables are necessary to reflect an accurate and comprehensive picture of the state’s proxy voting records.

Averages

Pro-ESG

Anti-ESG

State Voting Average

30%

State Voting Average

0%

State Rank

41st

State Rank

11th

Asset Manager Average

45%

Asset Manager Average

7%

By Asset Manager

Adams Funds

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

6%

American Century Investment Management

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

76%

AQR Capital Management, LLC

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

77%

Ariel Investments, LLC

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

76%

BlackRock

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

49%

Blackstone

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

49%

BNY Mellon Funds

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

48%

Brookfield Asset Management

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

48%

Causeway Capital Management

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

48%

Coho Partners

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

48%

Credit Suisse

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

48%

Dimensional Fund Advisors, Inc.

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

41%

DoubleLine Capital

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

41%

Fisher Investments

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

41%

Franklin Templeton

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

45%

Frontier Capital Management

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

45%

Goldman Sachs Asset Management

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

43%

Harding-Loevner, LP

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

43%

Invesco Advisors

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

44%

JP Morgan Asset Management

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

44%

Lazard Asset Management, LLC

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

45%

Loomis Sayles

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

45%

LSV Asset Management

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

45%

MFS Institutional Advisors, Inc.

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

46%

Mondrian Investment Partners

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

46%

Ninety One

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

46%

Partners Group

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

46%

PGIM Quantitative Solutions, LLC

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

46%

PIMCO

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

46%

PineBridge

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

46%

Prudential Investments

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

46%

Redwood Inv EAFE

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

46%

State Street Funds

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

46%

T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.

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

44%

TCW

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

44%

UBS

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

44%

USAA Funds

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

45%

Vontobel

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

45%

Wasatch Advisors

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

45%

Westfield Capital Management

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

45%

Westwood Management

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

45%

Kayne Anderson ISC

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

45%

Neuberger Berman Investment Advisers LLC

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

45%

Acadian Asset Management

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

45%

Macquarie Investment Management Advisers

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

45%

Baillie Gifford

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

45%

Berkshire

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

45%

Blue Chip

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

45%

Fuller Thaler

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

45%

Golub

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

45%

Heartland

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

45%

Asset Manager Voting

Board Diversity:

33%

Require Environmental/Social Qualifications:

21%

Establish Environmental/Social Committee:

21%

Link Executive Pay to Social Goals:

23%

Climate Change:

43%

GHG Emissions:

47%

Climate Change Action:

21%

Report on Healthcare/Abortion:

25%

Weapons-Related Proposals:

16%

Social Proposal:

24%

Income Inequality:

16%

Political Activities and Action:

8%

Political Contributions and Lobbying:

40%

Political Lobbying Disclosure:

50%

Racial Equity Audit:

49%

Management Environmental Proposals:

73%

Anti-Social:

5%

Charitable Contributions:

8%

State Voting

Board Diversity:

40.0%

Require Environmental/Social Qualifications:

100.0%

Establish Environmental/Social Committee:

0.0%

Link Executive Pay to Social Goals:

0.0%

Climate Change:

14.8%

GHG Emissions:

46.2%

Report on Healthcare/Abortion:

20.0%

Weapons-Related Proposals:

20.0%

Social Proposal:

26.8%

Income Inequality:

23.8%

Political Activities and Action:

10.0%

Political Contributions and Lobbying:

50.0%

Political Contributions and Lobbying:

52.0%

Racial Equity Audit:

50.0%

Management Environmental Proposals:

100.0%

Anti-Social:

0.0%

Charitable Contributions:

0.0%

**The Retirement Systems of Alabama (RSA) has denied that State Street invests equities or casts proxy votes for the State. RSA has yet to publish its proxy voting records or disclose its investment managers. RSA’s public records list State Street a custodial bank and as a fund manager. No other investment managers are named in RSA public records, which is what is reported on the 1792 Exchange Proxy Database. RSA claims that Glass Lewis conducts its proxy voting. 1792 Exchange encourages RSA to publish these voting records in order that these records might be updated on this page. 1792 Exchange also encourages RSA to retain authority over proxy voting for ESG resolutions and not entrust these duties to Glass Lewis, a firm the Attorney General of Alabama has investigated for promoting ESG priorities at the expense of fiduciary responsibility.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this report, ‘Proxy Voting,’ is intended for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Click here for the full disclaimer.

Generate Reports

Clear

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