Bruin hosted a specialist roundtable discussion in partnership with Royal London Asset Management, bringing together stewardship and ESG professionals from across the investment industry to explore how expectations, trade-offs and practical realities are shaping stewardship today.
The session was co-led by Carlota Garcia-Manas from Royal London Asset Management, and Rebeca Coriat from Lombard Odier Investment Managers, and provided an engaging and open forum for participants to reflect on how stewardship priorities are evolving amid growing scrutiny from regulators, asset owners and wider stakeholders, and what meaningful impact looks like in practice.
The conversation examined how firms are balancing outcomes-focused engagement, investment integration and proxy voting while navigating competing priorities across environmental, social and governance issues. Participants also shared perspectives on the shifting regulatory landscape, the evolving role of reporting, and the increasing focus on corporate governance and board engagement as core components of effective stewardship.
The following summary captures the key themes and reflections that emerged from this candid discussion.
DELIVERING STEWARDSHIP OUTCOMES: Expectations, trade‑offs and priorities
As stewardship continues to evolve in response to growing interest and somewhat heightened scrutiny from asset owners, regulators and wider stakeholders, many teams are sharpening their focus on what meaningful impact looks like and how best to balance competing stewardship priorities through outcomes-focused engagement, investment integration and customised proxy voting.
Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) roundtables have evolved into a valued forum for thoughtful discussion and shared insight. By bringing together colleagues from across the industry, these sessions help us explore what ESG commitments look like in practice, and how we as ESG professionals can play a meaningful role in supporting positive outcomes for our clients, the planet and the communities we serve. Below we share our reflections from a candid discussion among stewardship professionals on how expectations, pressures and practical realities are influencing stewardship in practice.
LOOKING BACK – What did and didn’t work in 2025? Opinions in the room were mixed.
Generally, those asset managers and asset owners who were committed to sustainability, doubled down on that in 2025. So, they have become more active, maybe without being more vocal about it, but they have quietly kept doing the work, and that’s positive as context.
There have also been challenges. Since Jan 2025, shareholder rights have been diminished and this is a threat to collaborative engagement, particularly around US-focused businesses which stirred some confusion for governance bodies and board members around ESG principles. However, in the UK, the Competition and Markets Authority has exhibited clear support for environmental and other externality-driven collaborative engagement.
In terms of stewardship, one asset manager felt that 2025 was more on the thriving side, compared to 2023 and 2024, which were more difficult years. Given their business focus on fixed income and on alternatives, the challenges were around voting. Overall, when thinking about executing stewardship plans across the fixed income space, the asset manager felt they were able to move forward beyond the noise they had previously faced in 2023 and 2024 on ESG integration.
From an ESG integration perspective, some participants felt the industry is neither clearly thriving nor facing significant challenge but has instead become more nuanced in 2025. In particular, discussions highlighted that asset owners are taking increasingly individual and differentiated approaches to defence, rather than adhering to a single status quo. Each issue continues to be assessed across the E, S and G pillars, with defence raising a range of considerations, particularly within the social dimension. Participants also noted that stewardship is increasingly being conducted using more careful and nuanced language, often shaped by regulatory scrutiny of specific terms or framing. Overall, the discussion suggested that ESG professionals are having to continually reassess their approaches at both a macro and micro level, though there remains some uncertainty about how positive this shift is for the industry as a whole.
REPORTING BURDEN HAS DECREASED. Are we just catching up on our breath or will teams be able to deliver more on stewardship?
Companies and asset managers are swamped with reporting. However, the concerns around #DeathByReporting, as Royal London Asset Managements’ Head of Climate Transition and ESG Engagement has called it in recent years, has made headway with people that matter and freed up more time for stewardship. Since January, one asset manager, in particular, felt reporting has gotten easier with the UK Stewardship Code 2026 which establishes the core principles of effective stewardship and aims to set a high standard of transparency for asset owners and asset managers. They felt that the more streamlined reporting structure has reduced the burden on asset managers, in some cases significantly contracting output.
WHAT DOES EFFECTIVE STEWARDSHIP MEAN? How do we emphasise that stewardship is not just sustainability?
Many ESG professionals reflected on a shared question: “how can I be a good, responsible ESG investment employee?” This mindset is becoming increasingly common and widely accepted across the industry. Alongside this, there is a growing awareness of the tension between strong ESG processes and real-world outcomes, particularly on complex issues such as climate change. While the industry has made significant progress in developing robust frameworks and high-quality reporting, translating this effort into tangible impact remains challenging. As a result, ESG professionals often find themselves navigating the gap between the scale of their efforts and the pace at which outcomes are delivered, prompting deeper reflection on how stewardship can drive more effective change.
Another perspective was raised from an internal coaching advisor to investment teams on stewardship, engagement and agency integration. Much of last year was spent on inputs from corporate entities to make clear what their values are. We’ve seen the value proposition for ESG show a wild diversion in the market between the company, responsible investment (RI) commentary, action taken and the allocated fund. There has been a healthy reckoning within the industry, with many acknowledging that past narratives have led to more frank and honest discussions about where our real responsibilities lie. We’re all members of a service industry. We are here to serve, and as our organisations hold and express distinct values of their own. Establishing clarity on corporate values provides the foundation for all subsequent ESG decision-making.
A CORPORATE GOVERNANCE COMEBACK. What does it mean? How are boards effectively meant to function? And what is the skills and knowledge deficit?
The industry has, at times, turned ESG into an art form. In its early phase from 2016 to 2019, ESG was often treated as a marketing narrative rather than a discipline. The subsequent wave of regulation brought much‑needed rigour, but also pushed the industry towards heavy documentation, sometimes at the expense of innovation and delivery. Today, that pendulum is swinging again, prompting a reassessment of where substance, creativity and accountability truly sit within ESG practice.
Participants highlighted positive engagement with boards and investment trusts, with a meaningful level of activism evident. Overall, voting and engagement remained the central focus of stewardship activity. However, in all of this, what the industry has forgotten to look at is corporate governance. Participants agreed that in stewardship, professionals pay less attention to the board of directors. Through speaking engagements, one professional identified gaps in the skills needed for effective corporate governance and engagement, particularly in analysing board structures and internal power dynamics. When starting out, this professional made it their mission for the first two years to learn as much as possible about how boards are effectively supposed to function. Only then, after two years and a very close study with one expert, did they start to conduct board engagements. Then in their first research role, the professional felt confident to have those “spicy conversations” about what is actually happening at the board level, putting aside the topic of pay.
As an ESG professional, once you understand the power dynamics across the 15 or 20 companies you regularly engage with, the tone of conversations with executives – and often with non‑executive directors and the chair – begins to shift. The engagement process becomes markedly different because those stakeholders recognise your depth of knowledge.
This open and honest discussion highlighted a stewardship discipline that is evolving rather than retreating. Amid heightened expectations and complexity, practitioners are becoming more deliberate about where they focus their time, how they use their influence, and what meaningful outcomes really look like. While tensions remain between ambition and impact, the conversation reflected a growing maturity in approach – one grounded in realism, accountability and continued engagement. As stewardship continues to adapt, it is this willingness to reflect, refine and act with intent that will shape its effectiveness in the years ahead.
For any further information on this event, or to discuss market insights, hiring trends, or team structuring across Investments, Front Office, & ESG, our team would be pleased to share further insights and continue the conversation. Please contact:
Harry Miller – Investments, Front Office, & ESG Recruitment