According to interviews conducted by Reuters with activist investors and fund managers, it is expected that votes related to climate change resolutions will receive more support from large asset managers this year compared to previous years. In the United States, there have been 79 climate-related resolutions filed so far, surpassing the numbers from last year and 2019. The Sustainable Investments Institute predicts this number could reach 90 by the end of the year. These resolutions cover topics such as emissions limits, pollution reports, and climate audits to assess the financial impact of climate change on businesses. The main focus is on urging companies in various sectors to outline their plans for reducing carbon footprints in alignment with government commitments to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. Billionaire British hedge fund manager Chris Hohn is advocating for companies to have a credible plan with short-term targets in order to achieve net-zero targets by 2050. He believes that without a solid plan, companies are engaging in greenwashing and shareholders should hold them accountable. Hohn is urging companies to allow shareholders to vote on their climate plans, with several companies already committing to this, including Royal Dutch Shell, Aena, Unilever, and Moody's. While these shareholder resolutions are typically non-binding, they often lead to changes as executives aim to appease as many investors as possible. "The calls for increased transparency and goal-setting are more direct now compared to 2020," stated Daniele Vitale, head of governance at Georgeson in London, a firm that advises companies on shareholder perspectives. As more companies commit to net-zero targets by 2050 in accordance with the Paris climate agreement, few have set interim targets. A study by South Pole found that only 10% of 120 companies across various industries have done so. There is uncertainty and a lack of clarity on the specific plans and timeline companies will follow to achieve these goals, according to Mirza Baig, head of investment stewardship at Aviva Investors. Data analysis from J Safra Sarasin reveals the magnitude of the challenge ahead. Sarasin conducted a study on the emissions of approximately 1,500 firms in the MSCI World Index, which serves as a broad representation of the world's listed companies. The study determined that if companies worldwide do not reduce their emissions, global temperatures could increase by over 3 degrees Celsius by 2050, falling short of the Paris accord target of limiting warming to below 2C, preferably 1.5C. The study also revealed significant variations among industries: If all companies emitted at the same rate as the energy sector, the temperature rise would be 5.8C, with the materials sector (including metals and mining) on track for 5.5C, and consumer staples (such as food and drink) for 4.7C. These calculations are primarily based on companies' reported emissions levels in 2019, covering Scope 1 and 2 emissions - those directly caused by a company, as well as the electricity it purchases and uses. The pressure from investors for transparency is expected to be highest on sectors with high carbon emissions. ExxonMobil, traditionally slow in setting climate goals, recently disclosed its Scope 3 emissions, leading to California Public Employees’ Retirement System withdrawing a shareholder resolution. Calpers’ Simiso Nzima believes that 2021 will see more companies reaching agreements with activist investors on climate concerns, describing it as a positive trend. Exxon, however, has requested permission from the US Securities and Exchange Commission to skip votes on four other shareholder proposals, including three related to climate issues. They mention reasons such as the company having already made significant reforms. According to an Exxon spokesman, ongoing discussions with stakeholders led to the disclosure of emissions. Both Exxon and the SEC did not comment on the requests to skip votes, as the SEC had not yet made a ruling on Exxon's requests as of late Tuesday. Activists hope for more action from BlackRock, the world's largest investor with $8.7 trillion under management, which has promised a more stringent approach to climate issues. Recently, BlackRock called for boards to develop a climate plan, release emissions data, and set strong short-term targets, warning that directors could be voted out at the AGM if these steps are not taken. BlackRock supported a resolution at Procter & Gamble's AGM, which aimed to address deforestation in supply chains and passed with 68% support. Green Century Capital Management hopes this is a positive sign for the future. BlackRock will assess each proposal on a case-by-case basis, while Amundi also plans to support more resolutions. Vanguard, however, appears less certain about its stance. Lisa Harlow, who leads Vanguard's stewardship efforts in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, expressed uncertainty about whether the company's support for climate resolutions this year would surpass its usual rate of backing one in ten. British hedge fund founder Chris Hohn, who manages a $30 billion fund called TCI, is working to implement a regular system for evaluating climate progress through annual shareholder votes. This initiative, known as "Say on Climate," involves investors requesting companies to provide a comprehensive net zero plan with short-term targets, which will then be subject to an annual non-binding vote. If shareholders are not satisfied with the plan, they may have grounds to vote against directors. Early indications suggest that this movement is gaining traction. Hohn has filed a minimum of seven resolutions through TCI. The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, established by Hohn, is collaborating with various organizations and asset managers to submit over 100 resolutions during the upcoming two AGM seasons in several countries. Hohn mentioned to pension funds and insurance companies in November that while not all companies will back the Say on Climate, they are prepared for potential opposition and believe they can secure the necessary votes.