1. 2016 SURVEY CHARTBOOK PRI SIGNATORY SATISFACTION AND ENGAGEMENT
Prepared for PRI
18 February 2016

2. CONTENTS
This document provides further details on the results of the PRI Satisfaction and Engagement Survey It should be read alongside the full report.
SIGNATORY TYPE 3
COUNTRY 17
REGION 37
ASSETS UNDER MANAGEMENT 51
SIGNATORY TERM 65

3. SIGNATORY TYPE
Summary

4. Summary by Signatory type
All signatory types are equally satisfied with the PRI.
Overall, asset owners and investment managers have similar perceptions of the PRI, though asset owners tend to be the most favourable. In particular asset owners are highly favourable towards the PRI in terms of its activities being aligned with the Principles, for it effectively contributing to the public debate about responsible investment and that it is focussed on the responsible investment issues that matter most to their organisation.
Compared to investment managers, asset owners are also particularly favourable towards the Clearinghouse and reporting and frameworks.
Perhaps because of lower awareness and involvement, service providers tend to be less favourable overall towards the PRI. Service providers indicate a slightly lower awareness and usage of the PRI, such as communications, staff and the role of the board.

5. Engagement is fairly consistent among Signatory categories
Components of engagement % Net: Agree
Cognitive
Think
Affective
Feel
Behavioural
Act
Think: Value of the PRI
Feel: Recommend becoming a PRI Signatory
Act (Stay): Intention to remain a Signatory
Base: Asset Owners (92); Investment Managers (198); Service Providers (55)

6. Asset Owners and Investment Managers are slightly more favourable than Service Providers towards the PRI
Section One: The PRI
Base: Asset Owners (92); Investment Managers (198); Service Providers (55)

7. Support of the PRI’s aspirations is pretty unanimous, but Assets owners more strongly believe that the PRI’s activities are aligned with the principles
Section Two: PRI Alignment
Base: Asset Owners (92); Investment Managers (198); Service Providers (55)

8. Asset owners and Investment Managers feel more strongly that being a Signatory enables public commitment to responsible investment, and Asset Owners believe more strongly that the PRI is focused on issues that matter to them
Section Three: The PRI’s Role In The Promotion Of Responsible Investment
Base: Asset Owners (92); Investment Managers (198); Service Providers (55)

9. In terms of implementation support, there are no major differences between the three Signatory categories. However, Investment Managers are slightly less in the belief that the PRI helps them challenge the status quo
Section Four: Implementation Support
Base: Asset Owners (92); Investment Managers (198); Service Providers (55)

10. Overall, Asset Owners are the most positive about the ESG Clearinghouse platform, while there are potential issues around collaboration for Investment Managers and Service Providers
Section Five: ESG Clearinghouse Platform
Base: Asset Owners (92); Investment Managers (198); Service Providers (55)

11. Overall, Investment Managers are happier with the Reporting and Assessment framework than Asset Owners, particularly around dialogue between the two groups, and integration of ESG issues into investment practise
Section Six: Reporting and Assessment Framework
Base: Asset Owners (55); Investment Managers (114); Service Providers (2*) *base too low

12. There are no major differences in views on local PRI contacts, and the majority believe they are valuable, with those who don’t have one believing one is needed
Section Seven: Networks
% Yes
Base: Asset Owners (92); Investment Managers (198); Service Providers (55)

13. Asset Owners and Investment Managers are more positive about the effectiveness of communication channels between the PRI and its signatories
Section Eight: Communications and Platforms
Base: Asset Owners (92); Investment Managers (198); Service Providers (55)

14. Asset Owners and Service Providers find Regional / local PRI events more valuable for their organisation than Service Providers
Section Nine: Events
Base: Asset Owners (92); Investment Managers (198); Service Providers (55)

15. Asset Managers have a better understanding of the role played by the PRI board than Investment Mangers and Service Providers
Section Ten: PRI Governance
Base: Asset Owners (92); Investment Managers (198); Service Providers (55)

16. Service Providers are the group most likely to believe that Signatories should be de-listed and there should be a framework in place to do this
Section Eleven: Consultation/ Forward Looking
Base: PRI Signatories (346)

17. Country
Summary

18. Summary by country Canada UK and France
Most countries rate the PRI fairly similarly. However, Canada stands out for its consistently higher levels of favourability, while the UK and France stand out for being consistently less favourable.
Canada
Canadians are some of the most positive signatories. They show the highest levels of favourability in terms of being a PRI signatory in terms of it enabling them to publically demonstrate their commitment to responsible investment and that the PRI is effectively contributing to the public debate about responsible investment. They are also the most likely to say that the PRI is a leading global source of knowledge regarding responsible investment and that resources are useful in helping their organisation implement the Principles or challenge the status quo.
Canadian Signatories have the highest favourability towards the Clearinghouse.
Canadian Signatories also show higher levels of favourability towards the reporting and assessment frameworks.
UK and France
UK signatories are some of the most critical. Along with those in France, signatories in the UK are the least likely to be satisfied. The UK are also the least likely to say being a signatory brings value to their organisation and the least likely to recommend the benefits of being a PRI signatory. Both UK and French Signatories have the least likely to say resources are useful in helping their organisation implement the Principles or challenge the statues quo.
Both France and the UK have the lowest favourability towards the Clearinghouse.
France and the UK also show lower levels of favourability towards the reporting and assessment frameworks.

19. Value & Recommendation - By Country
Section One: The PRI
Base: UK (54); US (50); Canada (24); Brazil (23); Australia (42); France (22); Germany (13); Japan (7); Netherlands (17); South Africa (10); Spain (12); Sweden (17); Switzerland (12) * NB. Low base sizes in some countries

20. Action and Satisfaction - By Country
Section One: The PRI
Base: UK (54); US (50); Canada (24); Brazil (23); Australia (42); France (22); Germany (13); Japan (7); Netherlands (17); South Africa (10); Spain (12); Sweden (17); Switzerland (12) * NB. Low base sizes in some countries

21. Support & Alignment - By Country
Section Two: PRI Alignment
Base: UK (54); US (50); Canada (24); Brazil (23); Australia (42); France (22); Germany (13); Japan (7); Netherlands (17); South Africa (10); Spain (12); Sweden (17); Switzerland (12) * NB. Low base sizes in some countries

22. Commitment & Contribution - By Country
Section Three: The PRI’s Role In The Promotion Of Responsible Investment
Base: UK (54); US (50); Canada (24); Brazil (23); Australia (42); France (22); Germany (13); Japan (7); Netherlands (17); South Africa (10); Spain (12); Sweden (17); Switzerland (12) * NB. Low base sizes in some countries

23. Focus & Influence - By Country
Section Three: The PRI’s Role In The Promotion Of Responsible Investment
Base: UK (54); US (50); Canada (24); Brazil (23); Australia (42); France (22); Germany (13); Japan (7); Netherlands (17); South Africa (10); Spain (12); Sweden (17); Switzerland (12) * NB. Low base sizes in some countries

24. Knowledge & Resource - By Country
Section Four: Implementation Support
Base: UK (54); US (50); Canada (24); Brazil (23); Australia (42); France (22); Germany (13); Japan (7); Netherlands (17); South Africa (10); Spain (12); Sweden (17); Switzerland (12) * NB. Low base sizes in some countries

25. Challenging Status Quo - By Country
Section Four: Implementation Support
Base: UK (54); US (50); Canada (24); Brazil (23); Australia (42); France (22); Germany (13); Japan (7); Netherlands (17); South Africa (10); Spain (12); Sweden (17); Switzerland (12) * NB. Low base sizes in some countries

26. Discussion & Collaboration - By Country
Section Five: ESG Clearinghouse Platform
Base: UK (54); US (50); Canada (24); Brazil (23); Australia (42); France (22); Germany (13); Japan (7); Netherlands (17); South Africa (10); Spain (12); Sweden (17); Switzerland (12) * NB. Low base sizes in some countries

27. Co-ordination - By Country
Section Five: ESG Clearinghouse Platform
Base: Africa & the Middle East (12); Asia (13); Europe (159); Latin America (25); North America (73); Oceania (47) * NB. Low base sizes in some regions

28. Integration & Implementation - By Country
Section Six: Reporting and Assessment Framework
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Base: UK (39); US (29); Canada (6); Brazil (0); Australia (29); France (0); Germany (1); Japan (0); Netherlands (13); South Africa (6); Spain (5); Sweden (10); Switzerland (9) * NB. Low base sizes in some regions

29. Disclosure & Dialogue - By Country
Section Six: Reporting and Assessment Framework
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Base: UK (39); US (29); Canada (6); Brazil (0); Australia (29); France (0); Germany (1); Japan (0); Netherlands (13); South Africa (6); Spain (5); Sweden (10); Switzerland (9) * NB. Low base sizes in some regions

30. Local Region Value & Need - By Country
Section Seven: Networks
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Base: UK (54); US (50); Canada (24); Brazil (23); Australia (42); France (22); Germany (13); Japan (7); Netherlands (17); South Africa (10); Spain (12); Sweden (17); Switzerland (12) * NB. Low base sizes in some countries

31. Communication & Effectiveness- By Country
Section Eight: Communications and Platforms
Base: UK (54); US (50); Canada (24); Brazil (23); Australia (42); France (22); Germany (13); Japan (7); Netherlands (17); South Africa (10); Spain (12); Sweden (17); Switzerland (12) * NB. Low base sizes in some countries

32. Thought Leadership - By Country
Section Eight: Communications and Platforms
Base: UK (54); US (50); Canada (24); Brazil (23); Australia (42); France (22); Germany (13); Japan (7); Netherlands (17); South Africa (10); Spain (12); Sweden (17); Switzerland (12) * NB. Low base sizes in some countries

33. PRI in Person & Local/Regional Events Value - By Country
Section 9: Events
Base: UK (54); US (50); Canada (24); Brazil (23); Australia (42); France (22); Germany (13); Japan (7); Netherlands (17); South Africa (10); Spain (12); Sweden (17); Switzerland (12) * NB. Low base sizes in some countries

34. Education - By Country Section Nine: Events
Base: UK (54); US (50); Canada (24); Brazil (23); Australia (42); France (22); Germany (13); Japan (7); Netherlands (17); South Africa (10); Spain (12); Sweden (17); Switzerland (12) * NB. Low base sizes in some countries

35. Understanding of the PRI Board & Disclosure - By Country
Section Ten: PRI Governance
Base: UK (54); US (50); Canada (24); Brazil (23); Australia (42); France (22); Germany (13); Japan (7); Netherlands (17); South Africa (10); Spain (12); Sweden (17); Switzerland (12) * NB. Low base sizes in some countries

36. Opinions on the Concept of Delisting & Accountability - By Country
Section 11: Consultation/ Forward Looking
Base: UK (54); US (50); Canada (24); Brazil (23); Australia (42); France (22); Germany (13); Japan (7); Netherlands (17); South Africa (10); Spain (12); Sweden (17); Switzerland (12) * NB. Low base sizes in some countries

37. REGION
Summary

38. Summary by region
Signatories in the Nordics, North America and Latin America tend to be the most positive regions in terms of engagement, satisfaction and most other measures.
Nordics
Nordic Signatories show very high levels of engagement with the PRI. All Nordic Signatories are committed to continue as a Signatory and say being a Signatory brings value to their organisation.
Nordic Signatories are not as favourable as some other regions when it comes to the reporting and assessment frameworks, the Clearinghouse or PRI staff adding value.
North America
North American Signatories also show high levels of favourability in terms of being a PRI signatory and that the PRI is effectively contributing to the public debate about responsible investment.
North American Signatories are also the most likely to say the PRI provides their organisation with a forum to engage on ESG issues.
The higher levels of favourability is in part due to Canadian Signatories being very highly favourable towards the PRI.
Latin America
While not the most satisfied Signatories, those in Latin America stand out for being highly likely to recommend being a Signatory and for the PRI being a global source of knowledge, the local PRI staff adding value and the PRI in Person conference and events being valuable.

39. North America & the Nordics are the most engaged regions overall
Components of engagement % Net: Agree
Cognitive
Think
Affective
Feel
Behavioural
Act
Think: Value of the PRI
Feel: Recommend becoming a PRI Signatory
Act (Stay): Intention to remain a Signatory
Base: Latin America (25); North America (73); Australasia (47) Asia (13); Continental Europe (67); Nordics (28); Africa (9) * NB. Low base sizes in some regions

40. North American & Nordic Signatories are slightly more favourable towards the PRI than those in other regions
Section One: The PRI
Base: Latin America (25); North America (73); Australasia (47) Asia (13); Continental Europe (67); Nordics (28); Africa (9) * NB. Low base sizes in some regions

41. There is little difference between regions in terms of alignment
Section Two: PRI Alignment
Base: Latin America (25); North America (73); Australasia (47) Asia (13); Continental Europe (67); Nordics (28); Africa (9) * NB. Low base sizes in some regions

42. The PRI are seen as less influential in Latin America and the Nordics, and more so in Australasia
Section Three: The PRI’s Role In The Promotion Of Responsible Investment
Base: Latin America (25); North America (73); Australasia (47) Asia (13); Continental Europe (67); Nordics (28); Africa (9) * NB. Low base sizes in some regions

43. Australasia have less of a perception of PRI being a leading source of knowledge around responsible investment compared with other regions
Section Four: Implementation Support
Base: Latin America (25); North America (73); Australasia (47) Asia (13); Continental Europe (67); Nordics (28); Africa (9) * NB. Low base sizes in some regions

44. On the whole, those in Latin America and Asia are less positive about the ESG Clearinghouse platform
Section Five: ESG Clearinghouse Platform
Base: Latin America (25); North America (73); Australasia (47) Asia (13); Continental Europe (67); Nordics (28); Africa (9) * NB. Low base sizes in some regions

45. Continental Europe scored slightly more favourably than other regions in terms of the Reporting and Assessment framework
Section Six: Reporting and Assessment Framework
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Base: Latin America (0); North America (34); Australasia (35) Asia (1); Continental Europe (24); Nordics (18); Africa (6) * NB. Low base sizes in some regions

46. Those in the Nordics, North America and Continental Europe see the PRI staff members as less valuable than those in other regions
Section Seven: Networks
N/A
N/A
% Yes
Base: Latin America (25); North America (73); Australasia (47) Asia (13); Continental Europe (67); Nordics (28); Africa (9) * NB. Low base sizes in some regions

47. PRI is seen more highly as a thought leader around responsible investment among those in North America and Australasia, and less so in the Nordics
Section Eight: Communications and Platforms
Base: Latin America (25); North America (73); Australasia (47) Asia (13); Continental Europe (67); Nordics (28); Africa (9) * NB. Low base sizes in some regions

48. Those in Latin America and Oceania found Regional/Local PRI events more valuable for their organisation than other regions, and those in Latin America were the most positive around the PRI in Person conference
Section Nine: Events
Base: Latin America (25); North America (73); Australasia (47) Asia (13); Continental Europe (67); Nordics (28); Africa (9) * NB. Low base sizes in some regions

49. The role of the board is higher in North America, and has a similar level of understanding in all other regions. Those in Continental Europe and the Nordics have a lesser feeling that the level of disclosure around the PRI Board Governance is appropriate
Section Ten: PRI Governance
Base: Latin America (25); North America (73); Australasia (47) Asia (13); Continental Europe (67); Nordics (28); Africa (9) * NB. Low base sizes in some regions

50. Latin America was the region most in favour of differing categories of Signatory membership, and the Nordics felt that publishing the annual Signatory assessment would increase accountability
Section Eleven: Consultation/ Forward Looking
Base: Latin America (25); North America (73); Australasia (47) Asia (13); Continental Europe (67); Nordics (28); Africa (9) * NB. Low base sizes in some regions

51. Assets Under Management Summary
AUM
Assets Under Management Summary

52. Summary by assets under management
Engagement and satisfaction peaks among Signatories with assets under management between $0.1bn and $29.99bn. Those with more than $30bn tend to be less positive.
The Signatories with the largest assets under management, of more than $50bn are the least likely to think the PRI's activities are aligned with the Principles, that the PRI has a role in influencing public policy and the that the PRI is focussed on the responsible investment issues that matter most to organisations. They are also the least likely to say that the resources are useful and help challenge the status quo.
However, the largest organisations are the most favourable towards the PRI in Person conference.

53. Overall, there is little difference in Satisfaction with AUM, although it decreases within the lowest and highest bands
Components of engagement % Net: Agree
Think: Value of the PRI
Feel: Recommend becoming a PRI Signatory
Act (Stay): Intention to remain a Signatory
Base: Africa & the Middle East (12); Asia (13); Europe (159); Latin America (25); North America (73); Oceania (47)

54. Section One – By AUM Section One: The PRI
Assets Under Management (AUM) US$bn
Base: 0 – 0.09 (18); (58); (55); (23); (41); (25); >50 (79)

55. Section Two – By AUM Section Two: PRI Alignment
Base: 0 – 0.09 (18); (58); (55); (23); (41); (25); >50 (79)

56. Section Three – By AUM
Section Three: The PRI’s Role In The Promotion Of Responsible Investment
Assets Under Management (AUM) US$bn
Base: 0 – 0.09 (18); (58); (55); (23); (41); (25); >50 (79)

57. Section Four – By AUM Section Four: Implementation Support
Assets Under Management (AUM) US$bn
Base: 0 – 0.09 (18); (58); (55); (23); (41); (25); >50 (79)

58. Section Five – By AUM Section Five: ESG Clearinghouse Platform
Assets Under Management (AUM) US$bn
Base: 0 – 0.09 (18); (58); (55); (23); (41); (25); >50 (79)

59. Section Six – By AUM Section Six: Reporting and Assessment Framework
Assets Under Management (AUM) US$bn
Base: 0 – 0.09 (3); (39); (33); (15); (29); (17); >50 (35)

60. Section Seven – By AUM Section Seven: Networks
Assets Under Management (AUM) US$bn
Base: 0 – 0.09 (3); (39); (33); (15); (29); (17); >50 (35)

61. Section Eight – By AUM Section Eight: Communications and Platforms
Assets Under Management (AUM) US$bn
Base: 0 – 0.09 (3); (39); (33); (15); (29); (17); >50 (35)

62. Section Nine – By AUM Section Nine: Events
Assets Under Management (AUM) US$bn
Base: 0 – 0.09 (3); (39); (33); (15); (29); (17); >50 (35)

63. Section Ten – By AUM Section Ten: PRI Governance
Base: 0 – 0.09 (3); (39); (33); (15); (29); (17); >50 (35)

64. Section Eleven – By AUM Section Eleven: Consultation/ Forward Looking
Assets Under Management (AUM) US$bn
Base: 0 – 0.09 (3); (39); (33); (15); (29); (17); >50 (35)

65. Signatory Term
Summary

66. Summary by length of Signatory term
Those signatories who have been signed up since the beginning and those who have recently become Signatories tend to be more favourable to the PRI in terms of engagement and on many measures.
However, satisfaction decreases with the length of Signatory term.
Low familiarity with the PRI may mean that new Signatories are unsure of exactly what value the PRI provides in terms of conferences and events, and PRI staff in the their region.
Understanding of the board is highest among the oldest and newest Signatories, perhaps because established relationships with the former and more recent communications with the latter.

67. Overall, there is little difference in Satisfaction with AUM, although it decreases within the lowest and highest bands
Components of engagement % Net: Agree
Think: Value of the PRI
Feel: Recommend becoming a PRI Signatory
Act (Stay): Intention to remain a Signatory
Base: (71); (62); (74); (65); (74)

68. The longer organisations have been Signatories, the less likely they are to be engaged or satisfied
Section One: The PRI
Base: (71); (62); (74); (65); (74)

69. Those who have been Signatories longest, are less likely to believe the PRI’s activities are aligned with the Principles
Section Two: PRI Alignment
Base: (71); (62); (74); (65); (74)

70. Those who have joined as Signatories more recently are more likely to believe that being a Signatory of the PRI demonstrates commitment to responsible investment than those who have been Signatories for longer…
Section Three: The PRI’s Role In The Promotion Of Responsible Investment
Base: (71); (62); (74); (65); (74)

71. And those who have joined as Signatories more recently are more likely to believe that the PRI are a leading global source of knowledge around responsible investment
Section Four: Implementation Support
Base: (71); (62); (74); (65); (74)

72. However, those who have been Signatories for a longer length of time are more positive about the ESG Clearinghouse Platform
Section Five: ESG Clearinghouse Platform
Base: (71); (62); (74); (65); (74)

73. However, those who have been Signatories for a longer length of time are more positive about the ESG Clearinghouse Platform
Section Six: Reporting and Assessment Framework
Base: (71); (62); (74); (65); (74)

74. There are no major differences in the value or need of Local/ Regional staff members dependent on Signatory length
Section Seven: Networks
Base: (71); (62); (74); (65); (74)

75. Those who had only recently become a Signatory were more positive about the effectiveness of the PRI’s communications and it’s position as a thought leader
Section Eight: Communications and Platforms
Base: (71); (62); (74); (65); (74)

76. However, those who have been Signatories for a longer length of time are more positive about the PRI in Person
Section Nine: Events
Base: (71); (62); (74); (65); (74)

77. There is little variation on understanding and opinion on the PRI Board depending on Signatory length
Section Ten: PRI Governance
Base: (71); (62); (74); (65); (74)

78. Those who have been Signatories for a longer length of time are more in favour of delisting Signatories who make no effort to implement them, but less in favour of delisting in the event of scandal
Section Eleven: Consultation/ Forward Looking
Assets Under Management (AUM) US$bn
Base: 0 – 0.09 (3); (39); (33); (15); (29); (17); >50 (35)

79. FOR ANY QUERIES CONTACT:
Thank you
FOR ANY QUERIES CONTACT:
+44 (0)
24a st john street | London | ec1m 4ay
ADAM WILSON
RESEARCH MANAGER
+44 (0)
24a st john street | London | ec1m 4ay
RACHAEL CAMP
SENIOR RESEARCH EXECUTIVE
What people think,
feel and do.