The Future of Finance Podcast

What happens when a pension investor stops treating sustainability as an add-on and makes it a third dimension alongside risk and return? Host Georges Dyer is joined by Geraldine Leegwater, CEO of PGGM Investment Management, and Colin Tissen, Sustainability Lead within PGGM’s Mandate Management team, along with handbook co-editor Bill Burckart. They discuss the PGGM chapter in The Handbook of System-Level Investing, “From 2D to 3D Investing.” PGGM manages roughly €250 billion for PFZW, the Dutch pension fund for the healthcare and welfare sector. Its experience offers a practical reference point for any long-horizon investor working out how to address systemic risk across a whole portfolio.

Key themes:

A candid look at what it takes to change how a large institution invests, and what is still hard.

IEN's 2026 Annual Forum is November 18–20 in Toronto, ON. Register here: https://www.intentionalendowments.org/ien_2026_annual_forum

Become a Member: https://www.intentionalendowments.org/join_us

–

Resources:

The Handbook of System-Level Investing: https://www.amazon.com/Handbook-System-level-Investing-Trillions-Rethinking/dp/1939282594

PGGM, "From index tracker to conscious investor: the equity portfolio in 3D": https://www.pggm.nl/en/blogs/from-index-tracker-to-conscious-investor-the-equity-portfolio-in-3d

Top1000funds, "PGGM advances 3D investing strategy balancing impact, risk and return": https://www.top1000funds.com/2025/04/pggm-advances-3d-investing-strategy-balancing-impact-risk-and-return/

IPE, on PGGM dissolving its responsible investment team: https://www.ipe.com/news/pggm-ditches-responsible-investment-team-with-new-impact-strategy/10127805.article

--

General Timestamps:

00:00 Introduction

The SEC's proposal to rescind Rule 14a-8 could change how investors and companies talk to each other. Georges Dyer speaks with Andrew Collier, Senior Director of Freedom to Invest at Ceres, about what the change would mean in practice. Andrew leads Ceres' effort to educate lawmakers on how restrictions on considering financially material risk affect investors, beneficiaries, and companies. The conversation is useful for anyone responsible for stewardship, proxy voting, or fiduciary oversight.

Key themes:

The SEC is accepting public comments on the proposal through November 20, 2026: https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/2026/09/s7-2026-32

A look at shareholder rights, fiduciary duty, and the case for letting investors and companies manage risk on their own terms.

Join us at the IEN 2026 Annual Forum, November 18 to 20, in Toronto. Register here: https://www.zeffy.com/en-US/ticketing/2026-annual-forum

Become a member of the Intentional Endowments Network: https://www.intentionalendowments.org/join_us

#FutureofFinance #ShareholderRights #FiduciaryDuty

–

Resources:

–

General Timestamps:

00:00 Introduction

02:29 What Rule 14a-8 is and why rescission matters

05:49 What is driving opposition to shareholder proposals

09:02 The origins of Freedom to Invest

10:14 Fiduciary duty and financially material risk

12:34 A bipartisan, free market coalition

15:05 Targeted state bills and proxy advisors

19:06 How investors are engaging with policymakers

23:28 Asset owners, managers, and the arguments that work

26:53 Rapid-fire questions and the future of finance

This episode is part of the ongoing System-Level Investing series, produced alongside The Handbook of System-Level Investing.

A trillion-dollar index manager and a $15 billion family office can both practice system-level stewardship, but the leverage points, and the duties behind them, are not the same.

Host Georges Dyer is joined by John Hoeppner, Head of Strategic Relationships & Active Ownership at Builders Vision, who previously led U.S. stewardship and sustainable investment at Legal & General Investment Management America (LGIM America). Hoeppner is the author of Chapter 5, "Different Organizations, Different Leverage Points," in The Handbook of System-Level Investing, edited by Jon Lukomnik and William Burckart. The chapter asks a foundational question: does system-level stewardship look different depending on whether you represent thousands of index fund clients or a single family's mission, and if so, what does each seat actually make possible?

Key themes:

A candid look at what changes, and what doesn't, when stewardship moves from a trillion-dollar index shop to a single family's mission.

Catch the rest of the System-Level Investing series on the channel.

Join us at the IEN 2026 Annual Forum, November 18-20 in Toronto, ON. Register: https://www.zeffy.com/en-US/ticketing/2026-annual-forum

Become a Member: https://www.intentionalendowments.org/join_us

–

Resources:

The Handbook of System-Level Investing (ed. Jon Lukomnik and William Burckart): https://www.amazon.com/Handbook-System-level-Investing-Trillions-Rethinking/dp/1939282594

Builders Vision: https://www.buildersvision.com/

–

General Timestamps:

0:00 Cold open

0:22 Welcome & episode intro

1:22 Hoeppner's career arc: Cambridge Associates to Builders Vision

3:25 Discovering system-level investing: The Shareholder Commons and universal ownership

4:33 Legal & General as a universal owner: taking a point of view

9:13 The jump to Builders Vision: mission, structure, and the three systems

11:34 Manager versus asset owner: fiduciary duty and "better beta"

15:01 Prioritizing risk and pushing managers for more

20:40 Where Builders Vision focuses: energy, oceans, and cement

24:35 Public and private capital, and the Walton name

29:15 Convening investors and engaging on policy

34:53 Rapid fire and closing thoughts

This episode is part of our ongoing System-Level Investing series, featuring the chapter authors of The Handbook of System-Level Investing. Host Georges Dyer is joined by Max Messervy, founder of Oakledge Advisors and former Head of Sustainable Investment, Americas at Mercer.

They dig into Chapter 12, "How to Work with Your Consultant on System-Level Issues," authored by Messervy. This chapter is built around one foundational question for institutional investors: is your consultant relationship actually structured to serve your interests, or theirs?

Key themes:

This episode offers a candid look at one of the most consequential, and least examined, relationships in institutional investing.

Don’t forget to subscribe to catch the rest of the System-Level Investing series on the channel.

IEN's 2026 Annual Forum is November 18–20 in Toronto, ON. Register here: https://www.intentionalendowments.org/ien_2026_annual_forum

Become a Member: https://www.intentionalendowments.org/join_us

–

Resources:

General Timestamps:

00:00 – Intro 

01:04 – Max's path through Ceres, Mercer, and founding Oakledge Advisors 

05:50 – Why asset owners use consultants, and the different types of mandates 

09:11 – How consultants are paid: retainer vs. discrete project 12:20 – Where conflicts of interest can arise between a consultant's business model and a client's interests 

16:37 – Discretionary vs. non-discretionary consulting, and the rise of OCIO 

19:21 – When a consultant becomes a "barrier": field consultants vs. in-house specialists 

25:18 – Is consultant expertise on system-level investing catching up?

30:40 – Sticking with your existing consultant vs. issuing an RFP

34:39 – Specific ways to engage your consultant on system-level investing

36:44 – Three ways to evaluate a consultant's readiness

If system-level investing is now an operating imperative, the next question is how institutions actually see and manage these risks across the whole portfolio. Lynn Paquin (CalSTRS) and Adam Connaker (Surdna Foundation) introduce the Total Portfolio Dashboard—a new decision-support tool designed to help institutional investors identify, manage, and act on system-level risks and opportunities across asset classes and strategies. Built for CIOs and investment teams operating in a world where beta is increasingly shaped by system health, the Dashboard translates complex system dynamics into a portfolio-wide view that connects asset allocation, stewardship, risk management, and governance.

With frameworks in place, attention turns to the realities of long-term implementation. Carole Laible of Domini Impact Investments recounts what began as a seemingly straightforward task—setting goals for forest asset management—and evolved into a complex systems challenge. As subsystems collided and objectives conflicted, the path forward proved nonlinear and at times confounding. This session offers a candid account of detours, trade-offs, and lessons learned, highlighting the practical complexity investors face when managing real assets within interconnected systems.

This episode is part of our ongoing System-Level Investing series, featuring the chapter authors of The Handbook of System-Level Investing. Most capital market assumptions used across the investment industry are built almost entirely on historical data, which is a methodology that's worked for decades but may be reaching its limits as climate change reshapes long-term economic trends.

Host Georges Dyer is joined by Scott Kalb, former CIO and Deputy CEO of the Korea Investment Corporation and now Director of the Responsible Asset Allocator Initiative at Tufts University's Fletcher School, along with William Burckart, CEO of The Investment Integration Project and an associate editor of the Handbook.

They dig into Chapter 14, co-authored by Kalb and Paul O'Brien (Wyoming Retirement System board; former Deputy CIO of the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority). This chapter is built around one foundational question for institutional investors: do your capital market assumptions account for systemic risk?

--

Key themes:

- What capital market assumptions (CMAs) are, and why they're the foundation of every institutional asset allocation model

- How Kalb and O'Brien built a climate-adjusted CMA by running 40 major providers' assumptions through NGFS climate scenarios

- Why most CMA providers still lean heavily on backward-looking historical data, and what that means for long-term risk

- How asset owners can start the conversation with their own CMA providers about integrating climate risk

This episode offers a candid look at one of the least-discussed building blocks of institutional portfolio construction, and why it may need updating. Catch the rest of the System-Level Investing series on the channel. #responsibleinvesting

Join us at IEN's 2026 Annual Forum, November 18–20, 2026, in Toronto, ON. Register here: https://www.intentionalendowments.org/ien_2026_annual_forum

--

Resources:

The Handbook of System-Level Investing (Jon Lukomnik & William Burckart): https://us.amazon.com/Handbook-System-level-Investing-Trillions-Rethinking/dp/1939282594

Responsible Asset Allocator Initiative (RAAI), The Fletcher School at Tufts: https://raai.tufts.edu/about

TIIP (The Investment Integration Project): https://tiiproject.com/

The Predistribution Initiative  (PDI): https://www.predistributioninitiative.org/

Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS): https://www.ngfs.net/en

Many institutional investors are caught in a bind: fiduciary duty requires them to weigh material risks like climate and workforce stability, while political pressure increasingly discourages them from naming those risks at all. Tynesia Boyea-Robinson, President & CEO of CapEQ and author of Just Change, joins Georges Dyer to unpack that tension, and what boards, CIOs, and asset owners can actually do about it.

Key themes:

IEN's 2026 Annual Forum is November 18–20 in Toronto, ON. Register here: https://www.intentionalendowments.org/ien_2026_annual_forum

–

Resources:

–

General Timestamps:

00:00 – Introduction

Physical climate risks such as wildfires, floods, extreme heat, are generating more data than ever, but institutional investors still struggle to translate it into decisions. In this episode, Eric Collins, co-founder of CRX.pro and former tech lead at the University of Washington's Climate Risk Lab, joins Georges Dyer to unpack why the physical risk data industry has a "last mile" problem, and what it actually takes to price this risk into portfolios.

Key themes:

Georges Dyer and Eric Collins also cover CRX.pro's Resilience Benchmark tool for REITs, the shifting political language around "climate" versus "resilience," and the risk of losing foundational public climate data.

Join us at the IEN 2026 Annual Forum, November 18–20 in Toronto. Register here: https://www.intentionalendowments.org/ien_2026_annual_forum

--

Resources:

CRX.pro: https://www.crx.pro/

UW Climate Risk Lab: https://foster.uw.edu/uw-climate-risk-lab/

GARP, "A Risk Professional's Guide to Physical Risk Assessments: A GARP Benchmarking Study of 13 Vendors" (2025): https://www.garp.org/white-paper/risk-professionals-guide-251023

Fire Weather by John Vaillant: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/554938/fire-weather-by-john-vaillant/

--

General Timestamps:

00:01:28 – Introducing Eric Collins and CRX.pro

00:01:44 – The gap in physical climate risk data

00:04:38 – Eric's path: Vanguard, Grow Intelligence, UW Climate Risk Lab

00:13:11 – Inside CRX.pro's Resilience Benchmark for REITs

00:18:43 – Priced vs. unpriced risk: three transmission channels

00:24:13 – Utilities as a case study in repricing

00:26:44 – Who uses this data: asset owners, consultants, and managers

00:38:46 – Climate risk in a shifting political environment

00:41:55 – Public data access and the foundational data layer

00:43:54 – What's next for CRX.pro

--

This conversation is intended to inform institutional decision-making and does not constitute investment advice. Listeners should consult a qualified professional before making investment decisions.

Internal guardrails and standards achieve scale only when supported by coordinated field-level action. Featuring Cambria Allen-Ratzlaff (PRI), Fran Seegull (USIIA), Georges Dyer (IEN), and Josh Zinner (ICCR), this session examined field building as a critical—but often underappreciated—lever for system-level investing. Moderated by Chavon Sutton of Cambridge Associates, panelists explored how investors can shape shared norms, information flows, and policy environments, and why collaboration with peers—including competitors—is often essential to addressing risks no single investor can manage alone.