PRI in Person 2026 Reflections

In 2024 at PRI in Person Toronto, the conversation focused on bold defence; sustainability practitioners were energised and ready to defend the need for sustainability in a new political environment. Ready to set goals, make change and motivate. Two years on, at PRI in Person (PIP) Amsterdam, whilst the ambition remains, practicality is the overarching theme. The conversation in Amsterdam focused on the pragmatic, the measurable and the material.  

Over the past two years, in the wake of the ESG backlash, organisations have been under ever increasing pressure to justify sustainability, quantify its financial contribution, and identify the business case to persevere. This exercise has led to more targeted and relevant sustainability programmes that are driven by business resilience and financial materiality. This is all good. But there is a risk in assuming that all actions we take as investors need to be financially motivated. It may not make economic sense to establish a living wage or even to protect workers against human rights violations, but it’s still the right thing to do, surely. Yet, according to the World Benchmarking Alliance, fewer than 5% of companies disclose that they guarantee a living wage for their direct workforce, and only 3% report taking action to support living wages in their supply chains. The ever-delicate balance between ‘sustainability integration’, defined as incorporating ESG signals with quantifiable financial impacts, and values-driven investing was brought into sharp relief in Amsterdam.  

One thing that delegates at PIP seemed to agree on was that we’re living through an unprecedented period of change. AI disruption, geopolitical conflict, electrification and growing pressure on energy grids are reshaping economies and developing new risks around energy security and inequality. These are sustainability issues, affecting people and the planet. But they are also fundamentally financial issues. The PRI turned 20 this year, and perhaps now more than ever, investors need to understand and integrate these concepts into investment decisions. This is after all their fiduciary duty.  

Seven themes shaping responsible investment

AI needs governance now, not disclosure later 

AI was perhaps the most urgent developing responsible investment issue discussed. Speakers repeatedly cautioned against simply replicating the climate journey (i.e. spending years developing disclosure frameworks before moving from transparency to action). 

The message from PIP was clear: investors need to act now on AI risk. Do portfolio companies understand how AI is affecting their business? Is there appropriate governance? Is there AI training and is that training working? How will AI use affect the skills needed today? What about into the future? Is there any mechanism for quantifying how AI is affecting employees’ day to day jobs? Companies unable to answer these questions may find themselves asleep at the self-driving wheel and their investors will find themselves exposed to risk that didn’t exist yesterday. That’s before we begin to consider the cost and the potential financial impact on firms reliant on AI when externalities inevitably get priced in. For investors, AI should already be a due diligence and stewardship issue.  

The energy transition is about resilience and energy security 

Energy security, electrification, AI-driven power demand, infrastructure resilience and affordability are increasingly part of the same investment conversation with decarbonisation increasingly feeling like the answer. Research from the Banca Espana shows that electricity costs have come down as renewables have increased and geopolitical crises mean governments are increasingly seeking local energy solutions. But policy uncertainty deters private investment; it is crucial that policymakers globally enable energy security with decarbonisation at its centre.    

As the transition begins in earnest, investors must continue to manage the physical as well as the transition risk. All sectors are now exposed, and investment teams should not underestimate physical climate risks impacting their investments, including tech: 60% of data centres in the US are built on flood planes.  

Defence and dual-use technology require more nuanced due diligence 

The defence conversation has also become considerably more complex. As technology increasingly crosses between civilian and military applications, broad weapons exclusions may not always provide enough information to understand the underlying risk. 

Dual-use discussions explored whether a product is specifically designed or adapted for military use, its intended application, customer and contractual controls, International Human Rights Law and potentially high-risk features within business models. The Shift Business Model Red Flags framework was highlighted as one possible approach. For managers exposed to dual-use technologies, the implication is about considering whether existing due diligence is sufficiently granular.  

The sentiment being that potential severity of harm is so high that if you are going to include dual use technologies in your portfolio, you need to be willing to spend the time on the due diligence. 

Asset owners are becoming more specific about what they expect from managers 

A recurring message was that effective responsible investment depends on better alignment between asset owners and managers. The answer is not necessarily another DDQ. LP speakers discussed embedding detailed responsible investment expectations within mandates and concentrating monitoring on areas where they can add most value; engaging managers on issues such as workers rights and leadership; and the importance of aligning asset-owner questions with the reporting frameworks emerging in private markets. 

There seems to be a gradual shift from broad ESG information gathering towards more targeted conversations about the issues an asset owner cares most about, and how these translate into a manager’s investment approach. 

One of the clearest messages was the expectation of sustainability embedding further into the investment process itself. LSEG described ESG as a “CIO issue” rather than the responsibility of a separate team; Aviva shared a case study on the deep integration of sustainability into fixed income research; and People’s Pension questioned whether financially material sustainability factors even need a separate responsible investment policy at all. 

Financial materiality matters, but it isn’t the whole conversation 

Perhaps the most interesting tension was around financial materiality. The industry has become much better at articulating the financial case for sustainability, albeit more work to do there.  

But not every issue fits neatly within that framework. Living wages, worker rights, biodiversity and Indigenous Peoples’ rights raise questions of values, impact and responsibility. Robeco drew a useful distinction between integration, which informs whether and how you invest in a company, and impact, where investors need to be clear about the outcome they are seeking. 

That distinction may become increasingly important. Being clearer about when sustainability is about managing investment risk, when it is about pursuing an intentional outcome, and when it reflects the values or expectations of clients could ultimately make responsible investment easier, rather than harder, to explain. 

Climate analysis needs to be forward-looking 

There is considerable scepticism about relying on historic data to manage inherently forward-looking risks. This came through particularly strongly in discussions on climate issues, where backward-looking approaches risk leaving investors exposed to both physical and transition risk and, perhaps more concerningly, believing that risk is appropriately managed. Forward-looking climate scenario analysis, capturing both the physical climate risk at different temperature rises and the potential policy scenarios determining the transition, is important research investors have when it comes to understanding and managing the risk.    

Policy is more important than ever 

Policy must exist to plug this gap between financials and values. The need for adaptation investment is clear; this summer alone has all too clearly shown the risk associated with unmanaged physical climate impacts, particularly for EMDEs. And yet, investors are clear too: adaptation technologies and infrastructure, are all too often, not investable; the risk is too high and the returns are too low. We know we need adapted infrastructure as part of the transition, asset owners and investors with long-time horizons know they need adapted infrastructure to ensure the value of their assets over the next 50 years, and yet investors today are struggling to allocate capital. If the assets we know we need are not yet investable, the onus is on investors to engage with regulators and sovereigns to ensure national adaptation plans can be achieved with viable investment solutions such as blended finance.  

Attendees at PIP were also clear on the urgent need for regulatory action on AI. The self-regulation some firms have tentatively adopted risks both leaving them uncompetitive and the most egregious social risks of AI potentially unmanaged. If investors want their values to match their returns, they need regulation that aligns it for them.  

So where to from here?  

A common thread throughout the issues discussed was their systemic nature. The sustainability risks (and opportunities) most discussed are global, macro themes, not unique to one sector, industry or company. Energy security, AI transformation, geopolitical challenges – these are all sustainability issues with material potential economic impacts. Few investors or portfolios are likely to be entirely immune from these trends. The pragmatic response is not to treat sustainability as something separate, but to understand where these issues create material risks and opportunities and integrate them into investment decision-making accordingly. 

If you’d like to discuss any of these themes in more detail, do get in touch! We’d be happy to share more detailed notes from the PRI in Person 2026.   

Photo by @eskarstein