Engagement Dialogue

SVVK-ASIR defines engagement as a structured dialogue with companies, with the aim of addressing environmental, social and governance risks and achieving improvements. Engagement is generally long-term and aims to mitigate negative impacts and promote sustainable changes in corporate governance, strategy and business practices.

Academic research and practical experience both suggest that structured shareholder dialogue can, in many cases, bring about positive change in companies, especially when this dialogue is maintained over the long term and based on clear expectations. Studies have also shown a correlation between engagement and improvements in corporate governance and addressing environmental and climate risks.

At the same time, engagement is not an end in itself or a panacea. How effective engagement is depends on the topic, the company and the context. SVVK-ASIR therefore uses engagement in a targeted manner and monitors its progress as part of its rules-based approach.

Direct dialogue allows investors to use their influence as active owners and to support companies in addressing problematic practices. Engagement can be more effective than an immediate withdrawal, particularly when it comes to complex or systemic issues. However, exclusion remains a possible course of action if efforts to engage in dialogue prove unsuccessful.

Companies are selected for an engagement dialogue using two different approaches.

In line with the recommendations of the OECD, SVVK-ASIR follows a risk-based approach and prioritises cases involving serious, systematic risks, such as suspected violations of the normative basis or significant climate-related risks. These cases are identified using a systematic screening process and follow a strict engagement and escalation procedure. If no progress is made, this can lead to a recommendation for exclusion.

SVVK-ASIR also engages in further thematic dialogues with companies. When selecting these areas of engagement, factors such as the potential for influence and available resources are taken into account. These dialogues are intended to have an impact without necessarily being subject to a formal escalation path.

Yes. Climate-related engagements follow the same principles as other thematic engagements. In addition, the Climate Stewardship Policy sets out SVVK-ASIR’s expectations of companies with regard to climate transition.

Yes. SVVK-ASIR’s normative basis, in particular the Paris Agreement, forms the foundation for the climate dialogue. Building on this, SVVK-ASIR sets out its expectations of companies and puts these into practice as part of its engagement approach.

The success of an engagement is measured against clearly defined objectives and through regular evaluations. At the beginning of an engagement, specific expectations of the company are set out on the basis of a comprehensive analysis, geared towards the issue at hand.

Progress will then be reviewed every year throughout the course of the engagement. The assessment looks at two aspects in particular:

Progress: are the defined objectives being implemented in a meaningful way, for example through improvements in strategy, governance or measures?

Responsiveness: does the company appear willing to engage in dialogue, and is it dealing with expectations constructively?

An engagement is considered successful if measurable progress can be demonstrated and the company is actively working towards achieving the agreed objectives. If no progress is made or there is no sign of constructive collaboration, this may lead to further steps being taken as part of the defined escalation process.

Where engagements prove unsuccessful, the appropriate response is governed by SVVK-ASIR’s Engagement and Exclusion Policy , which sets out the binding principles for possible escalation and exclusion decisions.

Deny debt recommendations in the context of climate change aim to limit the inflow of new capital into business models or expansions that are not compatible with climate transition objectives. As such, they primarily affect future investment decisions.

Individual member institutions decide how to manage existing investments in their portfolios in accordance with their fiduciary responsibilities and their respective investment strategies.

The deny debt approach leverages the unique features of the climate transition dialogue. In particular, the expansion of carbon‑intensive business models is largely financed by means of external capital such as loans and bonds. The approach therefore focuses on those areas that matter most.

Limiting new investments in debt securities means the inflow of new funds can be targeted more precisely. At the same time, by staying on as shareholders, investors retain their influence within the scope of their engagement, for example through dialogue with companies or by supporting shareholder proposals.

A complete sale of shares on secondary markets, on the other hand, usually has only a limited direct impact on a company’s access to financing. SVVK-ASIR’s approach therefore combines engagement with targeted measures on the financing side.

Yes. SVVK-ASIR may recommend the re-inclusion of previously excluded companies under certain conditions. The criteria are set out in the Engagement and Exclusion Policy and are reviewed on an annual basis.

Recommendations are made by SVVK-ASIR’s Responsible Investment Committee (RIC). Appointed by the Board of Directors, this committee is made up of representatives from the member institutions and is responsible for the professional assessment of engagement cases.

It is important to note that the RIC only issues recommendations. Implementation – such as investment or voting rights decisions – is always the responsibility of the individual member institutions, which act as independent trustees.

The binding rules, responsibilities and procedures are set out in SVVK-ASIR’s Engagement and Exclusion Policy . The Climate Stewardship Policy complements this with regard to climate-related expectations.