ShareAction are running a campaign to urge pension schemes to vote against the boards of banks that are backtracking on their climate commitments https://action.shareaction.org/page/186324/action/1?ea.url.id=9167363&forwarded=true

We’ve heard from ShareAction that despite USS claiming to be worried about the Climate Crisis and saying they may vote against directors where “a company’s sustainability performance and/or disclosures fall short of expectations.” USS voted FOR all the directors of Santander despite Santander clearly backtracking on their climate commitments. 

USS has major share holdings in HSBC, NatWest, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Commerzbank all of which have backtracked on climate commitments and have AGMs coming up. 

If you haven’t yet used the ShareAction form to write to USS please do so now using this link https://action.shareaction.org/page/186324/action/1?ea.url.id=9167363&forwarded=true.  

If you have received a reply from USS, please use the text below to challenge their vote at the Santander AGM and use the contact details here .

Follow up email to USS

To Whom It May Concern,

Thank you for your response outlining USS’s approach to climate risk, engagement, and voting.

However, I am concerned that USS’s actions do not match its words.

After more than 100 emails from members like me, sharing ShareAction’s clear research that Santander is backtracking on its climate commitments, USS still voted in favour of all directors at Santander’s AGM.

That is inconsistent with your previous email, where you said USS may vote against directors where “a company’s sustainability performance and/or disclosures fall short of expectations.” Santander clearly fell short. USS voted for the entire board regardless.

This raises questions about how USS is using its influence to address systemic climate risk within the financial sector.

I am asking for clear answers to these three questions:

• How does USS’s vote at Santander align with its responsible investment and net zero commitments?
• Under what specific circumstances would USS vote against bank directors on climate grounds?
• Will USS commit to taking stronger voting action at upcoming AGMs where banks are failing to meet credible climate standards?

There are still opportunities to act. More bank AGMs are approaching, including HSBC and NatWest, where ShareAction has also identified clear backtracking on climate commitments.

USS has demonstrated it can engage, but engagement alone is not enough where it has not led to change. What is needed now is appropriate, targeted, escalation.

Will USS step up and use its voting power to help get banks back on track?

I look forward to a substantive response.

Yours sincerely,