Nesta Trust has divested from Northern Trust Asset Management, moving its global passive equity mandate to Amundi after Northern Trust exited Climate Action 100+ and the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative.

Nesta Trust is a £420 million UK endowment that funds the research and innovation foundation Nesta. The mandate represents more than a quarter of its total assets. 

This piece covers what happened, why a passive mandate was screened on manager conduct rather than fund holdings, and what that means for asset managers.

Key takeaways

• Nesta Trust, a £420 million UK endowment, has divested from Northern Trust Asset Management, moving its global passive equity mandate, more than a quarter of its total assets, to Amundi
• Northern Trust exited Climate Action 100+ and the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative (NZAM) in January 2025
• NZAM suspended its own activities that same month, following departures that also included BlackRock and Vanguard, before relaunching in February 2026
• The move follows a trend including The People's Pension's £20 billion reallocation to Amundi, PFZW's €14 billion withdrawal from BlackRock, and Camden Pension Fund's £105 million divestment from Harris Oakmark

What happened at Nesta Trust?

Nesta Trust holds the endowment that funds Nesta. Its investment committee places explicit weight on active stewardship of its public equity holdings, as a matter of standing policy rather than a one-off reaction.

Northern Trust Asset Management confirmed its exit from Climate Action 100+ and NZAM in January 2025. NZAM suspended its own activities that same month, following departures that also included BlackRock and Vanguard. The initiative relaunched in February 2026 with a signatory base weighted toward Europe, the UK and Australasia. Amundi, a member since 2021, backed the relaunch.

Nesta raised concerns with Northern Trust directly before the exits went ahead, according to Net Zero Investor. When Northern Trust's withdrawal proceeded regardless, Nesta moved its mandate.

"Asset managers that step back from climate action initiatives risk compromising their stewardship and so we took the decision that Amundi was a better home for Nesta's global equity investments," said Nesta Trust CIO Jenny Segal.

Amundi UK chief executive Eric Bramoullé said stewardship, engagement and voting sit at the centre of the firm's approach. "Clients are increasingly seeking to ensure that their assets are invested in a way that reflects their responsible investment commitments and supports the transition to a more sustainable economic system," he said.

Why did a passive mandate get screened on this?

An index-tracking fund holds whatever the benchmark holds. A passive global equities mandate does not select stocks on ESG criteria, so there was nothing in the fund's composition for Nesta to screen.

Nesta screened the manager instead. Northern Trust's exit from CA100+ and NZAM signalled a shift in its institutional stewardship posture, and that alone was enough to trigger a review.

Passive and index-tracking mandates are typically judged on tracking error and cost, not stewardship. 

Nesta's decision shows manager-level conduct now sits inside that same review, for any asset manager serving UK and EU institutional clients, whatever market that manager is headquartered in.

Is this part of a wider pattern?

Yes. UK and EU asset owners have applied the same test across several mandates over the past 18 months.

• The People's Pension moved a £20 billion passive equity portfolio to Amundi in February 2025, after State Street Global Advisors left Climate Action 100+ in early 2024
   
• PFZW withdrew €14 billion from BlackRock over limited climate engagement and transparency. It later awarded £13 billion to Man Group, citing Man Group's sustained investment in stewardship and climate research
   
• The London Borough of Camden Pension Fund reviewed a £105 million mandate with Harris Oakmark, later voting to divest, citing underperformance alongside limited ESG integration

Separately, 38 asset owners managing more than $2.3 trillion had signed the Asset Owner Statement on Climate Stewardship as of October 2025, setting out shared expectations for engagement, escalation and voting transparency from the managers they appoint.

The mandate sizes here range from £105 million to £20 billion. The standard being applied does not change with the size.

What should asset managers do about it?

Coalition membership alone is no longer enough to demonstrate stewardship commitment, since it can be reversed under external pressure.

A few practical steps follow from that:

• Treat passive and index-tracking mandates as exposed to stewardship review, not exempt from it
   
• Maintain engagement and voting records that can be evidenced independently of coalition membership, since membership itself has proven reversible
   
• Communicate any change in coalition status or stewardship positioning to clients directly, rather than leaving them to find out from a news report
   
• Expect this standard to apply across all mandate sizes, with existing examples ranging from Camden's £105 million review to PFZW's €14 billion reallocation

Managers able to produce this evidence directly, rather than point to a coalition badge, are the ones holding on to these mandates.

How Integrum ESG helps asset managers protect mandates

Integrum ESG's wide range of AI-powered solutions gives asset managers (and asset owners) auditable stewardship and climate data across 6mn+ ISINs, so mandate reviews can be answered with evidence rather than coalition membership alone.

ESG Intelligence which is fast, transparent and affordable - only on the Integrum Platform.

Speak to an Integrum ESG Expert today.