Communicating how investors structure, resource, and execute stewardship in an increasingly complex operating environment was the primary aim of this year’s Investment Stewardship Survey Report. This article summarizes some of the more forward-looking sentiments of respondents, specifically on their use of engagement-providers, their oversight of outsourced stewardship, and the implications of a diverging market landscape.
Engagement Providers: Capacity Multipliers in Practice
A significant majority of investors, three out of four respondents in the 2026 Glass Lewis Stewardship Survey Report, currently do not utilize external engagement providers. This reluctance is notably lower among asset owners, with almost half of them indicating a preference for engaging directly. Conversely, asset managers and those with larger, more established investment teams are less inclined to outsource stewardship activities. This divergence suggests that operational models, organizational culture, and the sheer size of internal stewardship resources significantly influence the perceived need and benefit of external support.
For those investors who do engage third-party providers, the motivations are predominantly pragmatic. Utility is primarily derived from viewing these providers as "capacity multipliers," leveraging their external resources and specialized expertise to achieve shared stewardship goals. The ordinal ranking of reasons for using external providers underscores this practical approach, prioritizing capabilities that directly enhance an investor’s own operational capacity.
Key Criteria for Selecting Engagement Partners
When selecting an engagement provider, respondents in the Glass Lewis survey identified a clear set of priorities. The most critical criteria revolve around the provider’s capacity to support a broad spectrum of engagement types, coupled with the robustness of their internal processes, the depth of their resources, and the proven strength of their expertise. This dual focus highlights a preference for partners that offer both thematic flexibility—the ability to address diverse ESG issues across various industries—and operational credibility, demonstrating a track record of effective and efficient engagement.
The survey data reveals that the top three criteria for selecting an engagement provider are:
- Breadth of Engagement Capabilities: The ability to undertake a wide range of engagement activities, from direct issuer dialogue to thematic campaigns and proxy voting analysis.
- Strength of Processes and Expertise: Demonstrated proficiency in engagement methodologies, research, and analysis, backed by a deep understanding of ESG issues and corporate governance.
- Resource Allocation and Capacity: The provider’s ability to dedicate sufficient resources, including skilled personnel and technological infrastructure, to meet the investor’s stewardship objectives.
These findings indicate that investors are not merely seeking to delegate tasks but are looking for strategic partners who can augment their stewardship efforts with specialized skills and a scalable operational framework. The perceived value of these providers lies in their ability to extend the reach and impact of an investor’s stewardship program, particularly in navigating the complexities of a global and evolving market.
Asset Owners Demand Enhanced Oversight of Outsourced Stewardship
A recurring theme emerging from the survey is the growing desire among asset owners for greater transparency and oversight concerning stewardship activities conducted on their behalf by external asset managers. This sentiment reflects a broader trend across the investment industry, where accountability, governance, and demonstrable ESG integration are becoming increasingly critical. Asset owners, responsible for the fiduciary duties associated with substantial pools of capital, are rightly keen to understand how their capital is being deployed not just for financial returns but also to achieve broader sustainability and governance objectives.
When asked to identify the key challenges in improving the oversight process for outsourced engagement, respondents consistently pointed to data-related issues. The primary obstacles include the difficulties in collecting standardized and comprehensive information from investment managers regarding their stewardship activities. Furthermore, normalizing this data across different managers and ensuring consistency in reporting formats present significant hurdles. This lack of standardization complicates the process for asset owners to aggregate stewardship outcomes, benchmark manager performance, and ultimately translate these activities into actionable insights that inform their own investment decisions and governance frameworks.
The challenges identified by respondents include:
- Data Collection Difficulties: The inability to consistently or easily gather data on stewardship activities from all managers.
- Data Normalization and Standardization: The struggle to compare stewardship data across different providers due to varying methodologies, metrics, and reporting formats.
- Resource Constraints: A lack of internal resources within asset owner organizations to dedicate to the complex task of monitoring and analyzing outsourced stewardship.
- Defining Clear KPIs: The absence of universally agreed-upon key performance indicators for stewardship activities, making it hard to measure success.
These data-related challenges underscore the need for greater collaboration between asset owners and managers to develop more standardized reporting frameworks and data collection mechanisms. Without these improvements, asset owners will continue to face operational complexities in effectively overseeing and leveraging the stewardship efforts undertaken on their behalf.
Navigating a Diverging Market: ESG Debate’s Marginal Influence
The survey also probed investors’ perspectives on the influence of the ongoing political, regulatory, and public debates surrounding ESG and anti-ESG positions on their stewardship priorities over the past twelve months. The findings indicate that while these debates are certainly present and acknowledged, they have not yet prompted a wholesale reprioritization of stewardship efforts among the majority of investors. Instead, the influence of these external discussions generally registers as a marginal factor, shaping priorities at the edges rather than driving fundamental shifts in strategy.
A significant majority of respondents reported experiencing a slight to modest impact from these debates on their stewardship focus. This suggests a degree of resilience in established stewardship practices, which are often rooted in long-term investment horizons and a commitment to fundamental corporate governance. Interestingly, smaller organizations were more likely to report that these debates had little or no influence on their stewardship focus. This could be attributed to a greater degree of insulation from external political or media pressures, or perhaps a more focused internal mandate that is less susceptible to transient public discourse.
Notably, the survey did not reveal any significant regional differences in the influence of the ESG versus anti-ESG debate between Europe and North America. This observation is particularly noteworthy when contrasted with the regional variations observed in the prioritization of specific engagement topics. Such a finding might suggest that while the discourse around ESG is global, its impact on overarching stewardship priorities is more uniform, whereas the specific issues that drive engagement can be more deeply influenced by regional and institutional contexts that evolve over time.
In their qualitative comments, respondents shared nuanced views on how the current environment affects their work. Several noted a perceived reduction in engagement activity with U.S. companies, potentially reflecting a more cautious approach in light of the heightened political scrutiny. There was also a discernible shift towards more bilateral dialogues, emphasizing direct, private conversations with issuers over public, collaborative engagements. This tactical adjustment might be a response to the perceived sensitivity of ESG topics in certain markets.
Despite these environmental shifts, the core principles and priorities guiding investor stewardship practices appear to remain largely consistent. As one respondent aptly summarized: “We have not scaled back on our stewardship practices or engagement efforts, we remain steady even though the pendulum swings. However, we of course take the current anti-ESG movement into considerations and prepare engagements and discussion accordingly, depending on who we engage with.” This statement encapsulates a pragmatic approach, acknowledging external pressures while maintaining a steadfast commitment to core stewardship responsibilities.
Broader Implications and Future Outlook
The survey results collectively paint a picture of an investment stewardship landscape that is maturing and adapting to external complexities, but not undergoing a radical upheaval. The reliance on engagement providers as capacity multipliers is clear, yet the criteria for selection emphasize a need for deep expertise and operational reliability. Asset owners’ increasing demand for oversight of outsourced stewardship signals a growing expectation for transparency and accountability, pushing the industry towards more standardized and measurable outcomes.
The influence of the ESG debate, while present, appears to be more of a fine-tuning mechanism than a disruptive force, shaping priorities at the margins for most investors. This suggests that the fundamental drivers of stewardship—long-term value creation, risk management, and sound corporate governance—continue to hold sway, even amidst fluctuating public and political sentiments.
The divergence in how regional and institutional contexts influence specific engagement topics, while not impacting overall stewardship priorities in the same way, warrants further observation. As the investment landscape continues to evolve, the ability of investors to effectively navigate these differing contexts, manage outsourced stewardship transparently, and maintain a consistent approach to core ESG principles will be crucial for fostering sustainable value and long-term resilience.
For more comprehensive insights into the current state of investment stewardship, the 2026 Glass Lewis Stewardship Survey Report provides a detailed analysis of these trends and their implications for the future of responsible investing.
