Back to States List

Texas

Texas has two main public pension systems: the Teacher Retirement System of Texas (TRS) and the Employees Retirement System of Texas (ERS).

The TRS board represents public school teachers and consists of 9 members appointed by the Governor: 3 at the Governor’s discretion; 2 from a list prepared by the State Board of Education; 2 from the 3 public school district member candidates who have been nominated by employees of public school districts; 1 from the 3 retired member candidates who are nominated by retired TRS members; 1 from the three at-large candidates who have been nominated for the position.
- TRS discloses its proxy voting records for directly held equities on this website.
- TRS uses ISS for its proxy advisory services.

The ERS board represents other state and local government employees and consists of 6 members: 1 appointed by the Governor; 1 appointed by the Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives; 1 appointed by the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court and confirmed by the Texas Senate; 3 elected by ERS members and retirees.
- ERS discloses its proxy voting records for directly held equities on this website.
- ERS uses ISS for its proxy advisory services.

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 TRS’ proxy voting records for directly owned securities through pension fund portfolios. The 1792 Exchange commends TRS and ERS for publicly disclosing this information online for their 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%

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%

Goldman Sachs Funds

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

6%

Invesco Funds

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

34%

Neuberger Berman Funds

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

29%

Northern Funds

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

75%

PIMCO Funds

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

85%

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%

Symmetry Funds

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

3%

UBS Funds

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

48%

Virtus Funds

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

47%

Blackstone Funds

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

84%

Brandes Funds

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

35%

Golub Funds

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

89%

Cohen & Steers Funds

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

14%

Clarkston Funds

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

32%

Asset Manager Voting

Pro-ESG

20.2%

Anti-ESG

1.7%

Anti-Fossil Fuels

23%

Anti-Pollution

29%

Animal Rights

14%

DEI

23%

Weapons/Defense

16%

Human Rights

29%

Income Equality

30%

Political Speech/Lobbying Spending

27%

Health Care

16%

Race/Gender targets on Boards

37%

Non-Pecuniary

12%

ESG-Focused Governance

15%

Abortion

16%

Pro-Fossil Fuel

2%

Equality not DEI

1%

Controversial Cause Support

2%

Geopolitical Rivals/China

3%

State Voting

Pro-ESG

17%

Anti-ESG

2%

Anti-Fossil Fuel

12%

Anti-Pollution/Waste

19%

Animal Rights

11%

DEI

17%

Weapons/Defense

0%

Human Rights

15%

Income Equality

21%

Political Speech/Lobbying Spending

39%

Health Care

14%

Race/Gender targets on Boards

67%

Non-Pecuniary Corporate Purpose

0%

ESG-Focused Governance

0%

Abortion

0%

Pro-Fossil Fuel

9%

Equality not DEI

0%

Controversial Cause Support

0%

Geopolitical Rivals/China

0%

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