To mark the launch of our 2025 Stewardship & Responsible Investment Report, we sat down with Niall O'Leary, Chief Sustainability Officer and Managing Partner at ILIM, to discuss how our stewardship work is evolving, what it means for client portfolios, and the issues we are watching most closely in 2026.
Below, Niall answers some of the questions we are hearing most often from clients.
Q1. Why does stewardship matter, and how do you define it at Keyridge?
Niall O’Leary: For us, stewardship is how we vote and engage with investee companies on behalf of our clients.
It matters because it is one of the most direct levers we have to influence material issues in companies, from board structure and executive pay to climate related-risk and human rights. By using our voice and our vote, we aim to reduce risks in portfolios and support better long‑term, risk‑adjusted returns for clients.
Q2. Your report focuses on four themes: climate, natural capital, human rights and governance. How do these show up in actual investment decisions?
Niall: We run strategies that broadly track market benchmarks, but we look to manage portfolio risk through a focus on our four themes.
On climate related-risk and natural capital, we reduce portfolio carbon intensity and avoid some of the most exposed business models.
On human rights, we use the UN Global Compact as a reference and exclude companies in clear breach where they are not prepared to engage with us on the issue.
On governance, we focus on quality of boards, diversity, pay structures and disclosure, and we are prepared to vote against management where we see meaningful issues.
So these themes are not just policy statements; they shape how we allocate capital and, in some cases, which companies we will not own.
Q3. Can you give a couple of concrete examples where voting or engagement has made a difference?
Niall: You rarely get a neat “before and after” that you can attribute to one interaction, but there are clear cases where pressure from investors like us has moved the dial.
At a UK company, we voted against a proposed executive pay package. Over 20% of shareholders also voted against, which under the UK Stewardship Code forces the company to come back and engage with investors on remuneration.
At a UK bank, we voted against the chair of the nomination committee because the board was not ethnically diverse. That prompted a detailed conversation with the company about expectations on diversity.
At companies such as Vale and a large Italian utility, sustained engagement has contributed to stronger policies on human rights and improved ESG disclosure.
These are incremental steps, but across a large number of holdings and over many years, they add up to real shifts in how companies manage risk and align with our objective to maximise risk-adjusted returns for our clients.
Q4. You have cut carbon intensity by 25% on in‑scope assets since 2019. How will you tackle the next phase towards your 2030 ambition?
Niall: The first 25% reduction is usually more straightforward but going further will be harder.
For the in‑scope assets we committed to in 2019, our ambition is a 50% reduction in carbon intensity by 2030. We have already exceeded the interim 25% goal, helped by both our own portfolio tilts and real‑world emissions cuts by investee companies.
The next phase will require more targeted decisions, especially as structural trends like the growth of AI and data centres drive up demand for electricity. Balancing that additional demand with the need to keep reducing emissions is going to be a central challenge for our stewardship and investment activity over the rest of the decade.
Q5. How are client expectations on ESG and stewardship shaping your product development?
Niall: Many clients now want to see two things:
Robust stewardship on their existing assets: clear voting policies, credible engagement and evidence of outcomes.
Portfolio solutions that reflect their climate and sustainability goals: not simply exclusions, but thoughtful re‑design of benchmarks and strategies.
For example, we have designed climate transition benchmarks for a major global consultancy across developed and emerging markets, with emerging market assets now exceeding €1 billion. We have also worked with a large Irish defined benefit scheme to move to a climate transition benchmark.
Today, over half of our assets under management are in Article 8 and 9 funds, which underlines that the direction of travel for many clients is towards stronger ESG integration backed by credible stewardship.
Q6. Looking ahead to 2026, what will you be watching most closely from a stewardship perspective?
Niall: The big one is the increasing politicisation of ESG in the US.
We are seeing it become harder to get shareholder proposals onto the ballot and more regulatory support for companies than for asset owners on some ESG issues. In certain states there is also pushback against ESG‑related disclosure.
Interestingly, many companies are still committed to the ambitions they have shared with us in the past, but we are seeing some reduction in the breadth and consistency of data. That makes our job of assessing risk more difficult.
At the same time, there is discussion about moving from quarterly to semi‑annual reporting. For slow‑moving ESG metrics, we do not see that as a major issue. The more important question is: will investors continue to get the depth and quality of information they need to assess long‑term risk and opportunity?
Find out more
Stewardship is central to how we aim to manage risk and deliver long‑term value for clients. From carbon intensity reductions and climate transition benchmarks to board diversity, human rights and corporate disclosure, the 2025 Stewardship & Responsible Investment Report sets out the data, case studies and voting records behind our approach.
To explore these themes in more detail and see how they relate to your own portfolios, we invite you to read the full report here.