I decided to quit

I had it. I trained two times a week for a few months. But, as you probably might have noticed when watching the Paris Olympics, I didn’t reach my target to qualify for the Olympics. This was very disappointing as it took me quite some effort to train besides my full-time job.

People who know me a bit, will probably react to this statement by saying that training two times a week was maybe not sufficient to qualify for the Olympics. And, although they would say this in a more diplomatic manner, I don’t have the talent (not even close) to be an Olympic athlete. Simply put, they would say I have set the bar too high, but would still stimulate me to keep training, as it is healthy to do so. A blunt message and conversation, but also a very logical and honest one.

So why don’t we have those honest conversations regarding shareholder engagement and their targets? Too often I see engagement targets that are just unrealistic. For example, making a whole sector change their sustainability practices and only devote a few FTEs on this. Saying your engagement failed and you gave everything you got, without ever filing any shareholder resolutions. Saying you didn’t see the results, after only 1,5 years of engagement. Be disappointed the board didn’t listen and only dedicate junior staff to your engagement.

Please do not get me wrong. This is not a plea against shareholder engagement. Yes, I might be biased, but I see how engagement can deliver. From companies starting to acknowledge and start working on a “living wage” to pharmaceutical companies starting to provide voluntary licenses for critical treatments in low and middle income countries. But I also see that engagement is not always the magic solution some people say it is. Sometimes engagement fails, sometimes engagement will not deliver, sometimes engagement is too ambitious.

This is also not a plea against drawing consequences after unsuccessful engagement. On the contrary. From divesting from companies, voting against management, making statements or asking for regulation, and preferably a combination of those instruments. Connecting engagement outcomes with consequences is great, and as a sector we should do it more often.

This is a plea for two things. First of all, to be more critical when initiating shareholder engagement. Asking yourself critical questions. Do I have sufficient capacity, is my organization willing to escalate, are my targets realistic (and do I even truly have the knowledge to assess if they are realistic), what is my theory of change and is it sound? And based on the answers on these questions, calibrate your engagement goals to the goals you not only want to achieve, but also actually can achieve.

Secondly, this is also a plea to be more critical when stopping shareholder engagement. Not only be critical on your investees if they do not move forward on their sustainability plans, but also be self-critical on how you executed the engagement. What have I learned from this engagement? Did I truly devote sufficient resources to the engagement? Was I willing to escalate and did I have the capacity and expertise to do this when necessary? Important questions to make sure you set yourself up for success instead of failure for your next engagement.

As I did not qualify for the Olympic marathon this year, I also had to do some hard and critical self-reflection myself. This led to the difficult conclusion that I was far too ambitious and I therefore decided to very drastically reduce my ambitions. I have therefore decided to quit training for the marathon and instead will focus on the 100m sprint. Much looking forward to Los Angeles Summer Olympics in 2028!

#responsibleinvestment #engagement #sustainability