Now the Dust has Settled: PRI in Person in Perspective
Rory Sullivan and Gemma James reflect on PRI in Person 2025, held in São Paulo, Brazil in November 2025.
1. Mining is at the heart of ‘what’s next’ for responsible investment
In November, we travelled to Brazil to support the launch of the 10 Year Vision and Recommendations from the Global Investor Commission on 2030. These were presented to President Lula and his cabinet and subsequently launched at PRI in Person. Unsurprisingly, given our focus (Chronos is secretariat to the Commission) and the central role that mining plays in Brazil’s development strategy, mining seemed to be a theme at virtually every session at PRI in Person.
Investors are acutely aware that virtually every economic activity depends in some way on mining. This dependence on mining means that all investors are exposed to the range of sustainability issues and impacts associated with mining – climate change, water, human rights, governance and ethics, to name but a few – and that all investors therefore have a responsibility to ensure these issues are effectively managed.
2 Investors are looking forward, but with a risk rather than an impact lens
For the past year, the responsible investment industry has been stunned by the scale and intensity of the ESG backlash. It felt that investors – globally, not just in the US – had been stunned into silence or submission and, for most, the objective was simply to stay out of the crosshairs of the US government. That seems to have changed. Many of the investors we spoke to stressed that the scale of the threats and challenges presented by climate change, biodiversity loss, social dislocation and, yes, geopolitics, are so great that inaction is not an option.
That said, many were clear that the basis on which they act needs to be clearly and explicitly aligned with the duties and obligations they owe to their clients and their beneficiaries and that the main justifications for action need to be risk management and fiduciary duty rather than impact mitigation. While this represents a sensible course forward, it does raise questions around whether it will see a weakening of the ambition underpinning responsible investment, and a move away from a focus on delivering positive social and environmental impacts.
3 Some asset owners are stepping up, but they need to build support
The importance of asset owners as the ‘head of the investment chain’ was repeated many times, by asset owners themselves, by the PRI and by asset managers. Some asset owners have clearly signalled their interest in taking a leadership role, defining the issues they want to focus on and setting out their expectations of the PRI and of their investment managers. It is, however, also clear that many of PRI’s asset owner members do not have the resources or the expertise to fully engage in these efforts. In the meetings we attended, there were recurring discussions about how to engage the majority of PRI’s asset owner members, how to ensure that leadership agendas are relevant across geographies and institution types and how to ensure that asset owners are effectively supported in these efforts.
A fault line that emerged through the conference was the apparent disconnect between asset owners and asset managers. Some asset owners were critical of asset managers for not engaging on issues that were of concern to the asset owners, for taking an overly short-term approach to the assessment of social and environmental issues, or for making voting recommendations that ran counter to the wishes of asset owners. Asset managers argued that they face practical challenges including inconsistent demands from their asset owner clients, a lack of incentive to invest in engagement, and a difficult political environment. Both sides agreed that there is a need to work in partnership with each other, but the tone of many discussions was often adversarial rather than collaborative.
4 Systems rhetoric was everywhere
The buzz words of the conference were ‘systems thinking’ and ‘systemic issues’. While the terms were widely used, it wasn’t clear what people meant other than ‘we need to focus on big issues’ or ‘there is some vague relationship between long-term financial performance, the health of the planet and the wellbeing of people’.
Many of the discussions seemed to zoom in on public policy and the need to engage with policymakers. Of course, many systemic issues do require policy interventions but too often it felt like investors were making excuses and pushing responsibility elsewhere. In an ideal world, yes, public policy is key. But in the second-best world that we work in, policy solutions/interventions are often piecemeal, often less ambitious than what is needed and tend to take a long time to implement. That isn’t to say that public policy isn’t important but in the rush to systems thinking investors need to ensure that they continue to deliver their core duties properly and resolutely: they need to engage with investee companies to encourage high standards of corporate governance and of social and environmental performance, they need to work together, they need to ensure that their investment decisions take full account of social and environmental risks. And, yes, they also need to engage with policymakers much more seriously, resolutely and ambitiously than they have done to date.
5 Attention is being focused on big issues, but investors need to think beyond reporting and transparency
One of the encouraging features of PRI in Person was that so much attention was focused on the issues that are front of mind for investors. There were panels and discussions on defence, artificial intelligence and nature/biodiversity to name just a few. It was also hugely welcome to hear from those stakeholders whose voices are not normally seen at these conferences. Two examples that jump out were the panel discussion on risk, responsibility, and impact in mining with Vagner Diniz, Andressa Lanchotti and Adam Matthews discussing the Brumadinho tailings dam failure and the human and environmental consequences of getting it wrong, and the session on deforestation in Brazil where Vanda Witoto, an indigenous leader and the Executive Director of the Witoto Institute. Vanda made a compelling case on what was needed to ensure that she and other indigenous communities are not excluded from decision-making processes that affect their lives.
While the fact these issues were on the agenda was hugely encouraging, it was worrying that so many of the discussions concluded by pointing to corporate reporting and transparency, governance and management processes and stakeholder engagement as key elements of the investor and corporate response. Of course, these are important. However, they need to be recognised as ‘necessary but not sufficient’ parts of the solution. Much greater focus is needed on the outcomes or impacts that are desired. Otherwise we face a decade of inaction or, at best, slow progress.
Read more about the work of our responsible investment team here: https://www.chronossustainability.com/bespoke-expertise-for-investors
Notes
1. Adam Matthews (the Chief Responsible Investment Officer (CRIO) Church of England Pensions Board and the Chair of the Global Investor Commission on Mining 2030) wrote a series of LinkedIn posts describing the Commission’s visit to Brazil. See, in particular:
