24 September 2026
3 min
Regulation, market practice and changing investor priorities continue to shape the sustainability landscape. With this, expectations for asset owners, investment managers and companies are also changing. In our monthly sustainability blog, we focus on the developments we believe have the greatest relevance for investors.
Meta has agreed to pay up to $17.1 billion over ten years to settle claims over the safety of children using Instagram and Facebook. The lawsuits alleged that the company designed features that encouraged compulsive use among young people, exposed them to mental health harms and misled the public about the safety of its platforms. Meta denied wrongdoing as part of the settlement.
The case illustrates how social issues have the potential to become financially material. Companies can be exposed to legal liabilities, regulatory intervention, operational disruption and reputational damage. Asset owners should ask their asset managers how they identify these risks and use stewardship to challenge companies whose business models may create or depend on harmful outcomes.
The United Nations’ biodiversity chief has warned that many companies and financial institutions are moving too slowly to assess their impacts and dependencies on nature. Part of the challenge is that nature-related risks are generally location-specific and extend across complex supply chains, making them harder to assess and meaningfully incorporate into investment decisions.
Recent analysis1 by the World Benchmarking Alliance found that 66% of 750 companies identify nature-related risks, but only 42% take concrete action and just 9% quantify the potential impact on their operations, finances or reputation. This suggests that, although awareness is growing, many companies still do not understand how nature-related risks could affect them.
Failing to understand and manage these risks can have financially material consequences. For example, research2 from Banque de France found statistically significant falls in company valuations following both the filing of nature-related complaints and rulings or settlements. It also identified spill-over effects across sectors, suggesting that litigation against one company can prompt investors to reassess similar risks facing its peers.
Understanding which elements of asset portfolios are likely to be most exposed to nature-related dependencies would allow asset owners to take a more targeted approach to addressing nature-related risks. Dialogue with asset managers can support this, but knowing where to look will help asset owners ask better questions.
Asset owners should also challenge managers to consider nature alongside other systemic risks, including climate change, to identify trade-offs and interdependencies that may be missed when each issue is assessed in isolation.
The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has withdrawn from the no-action process for shareholder proposals, extending an approach introduced for the 2025–2026 proxy voting season. Previously, SEC staff would consider arguments from both the company and the shareholder proponent before giving an informal view on whether the company had valid grounds to exclude the proposal. Following the SEC’s withdrawal, companies must still notify the regulator when they intend to omit a proposal, but staff will no longer assess or respond to these notices.
Although the SEC’s view was not legally binding, the process provided an independent regulatory perspective and helped resolve disagreements without the need for litigation. Companies must now decide for themselves whether to omit contested proposals, leaving shareholders to challenge those decisions through other forms of escalation.
The change may not result in more exclusions, but it creates greater uncertainty and could push more disputes towards public challenge or litigation. Shareholder advocates have warned that it could make it harder for investors to raise material environmental and social concerns and hold companies accountable through the shareholder proposal process.
By removing an accessible route for resolving disputes, the SEC’s withdrawal risks weakening the shareholder proposal process. This could reduce shareholders' ability to hold company management to account, increasing the risk of material governance failures. Asset owners should ask their asset managers how they are engaging with regulators and policymakers to support a fair and effective process that protects shareholders’ ability to raise material issues. This should include responding to relevant consultations, engaging policymakers directly and collaborating with other investors to strengthen their collective influence.
If you’d like to discuss these developments or explore how we can support you, please get in touch.
1 The decisions that will shape the global transition | World Benchmarking Alliance
2 Jus naturale : The Impact of Nature-Related Litigation on Corporate Valuation | Banque de France
This blog is based upon our understanding of events as at the date of publication. It is a general summary of topical matters and should not be regarded as financial advice. It should not be considered a substitute for professional advice on specific circumstances and objectives. Where this blog refers to legal matters please note that Hymans Robertson LLP is not qualified to provide legal opinion and therefore you may wish to obtain independent legal advice to consider any relevant law and/or regulation. Please read our Terms of Use - Hymans Robertson.
We pride ourselves on being thought leaders and are constantly discussing the many issues facing and shaping our industry. Sign up to find our current thinking on topical issues.
Opens in new window Subscribe
