Engagement Dialogue

Hero Weltkugel

The members of SVVK-ASIR believe that direct dialogue with companies is the most effective approach to bring about positive change. Therefore, engagement is our preferred strategy.

There is scientific evidence that engagement dialogue and, linked to it, voting at Annual General Meetings is the most effective strategy for investors to achieve positive impact with regard to capital market investments. At the same time, engagement has also been shown to lead to long-term value creation and risk reduction. If, on the other hand, the engagement dialogue is inconclusive, the exclusion and divestment of a company as an ultimate consequence is a legitimate option.

Screening

By screening and monitoring the investment universe of our members, we identify problematic companies. In the case of demonstrably severe and systematic violations of our normative basis (human rights, labour rights, environmental rights and corruption), we engage in dialogue with the companies in question. The application of these legal standards to private sector companies is aligned with the recommendations of the United Nations and the OECD, which Switzerland also supports.

An overview of the companies with which the SVVK-ASIR is currently in an engagement dialogue due to norm violations can be found here. In addition, the SVVK-ASIR conducts a specific dialogue on climate and biodiversity with other companies.

01020304 / 04

FAQ

What is an engagement?

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.

Is engagement effective?

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.

Why choose engagement over exclusion?

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.

With which companies do we enter into dialogue?

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.

How do we measure the success of an engagement?

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.

What happens if no progress is being made?

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.

Can an exclusion be lifted?

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.

Who decides on recommendations?

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.

Partners

Specialised external investment providers with the relevant network and expertise are appointed to engage in the dialogue. Read more about our partners.