VOICE FAQs

The VOICE method does not specify how often the results associated with a particular objective should be measured. However, it does stipulate that the deadline for the objective must be set in advance and that reporting on the achievement of the objective must be carried out at least in line with this deadline. The engager is nevertheless expected to regularly review the progress of their various engagement objectives and the actions to be implemented in case where an engagement fails to progress.

The method was developed in response to an observation: engagement practices are currently not sufficiently standardised, sometimes leading to engagement reporting that focuses on quantity rather than quality. In this context, the VOICE method provides tools to help shift the focus towards quality: engagement must include one or more formalised objectives that are monitored over time, and the request must be substantiated and contain an explicit expectation of interaction with the company on the issue. Furthermore, through the proposed influence scale in particular, the VOICE method enables the resources allocated to be accounted for in relation to the results achieved. It therefore provides an opportunity for the engagers to explain, beyond the mere number of engagements, the effectiveness of their engagements. It is also important to clearly distinguish between dialogues (particularly those aimed at gathering existing information) and engagement.

As the VOICE method provides for several levels of objectives (transparency, operational and strategic) and levels of influence (no influence to recognised influence), it does not prevent organisations from making a significant number of engagements if the approach adopted by the engager places importance on the quantity of engagements made.

In summary, VOICE aims 1/ to facilitate the comparability of engagement reporting by harmonising definitions and accounting scales (e.g. influence measured at the level of the engagement’s objective), and 2/ to highlight the resources allocated in relation to the results achieved.

It should be noted that three categories (signal, contributory, transformation) serve to link three dimensions developed in the study: the ambition of the objective, the level of influence of the engager, and the role of the engager within a coalition (see pp. 22 and 32 of the report). This categorisation therefore captures the efforts made by the engager and not merely the outcome.

It does not seek to rank the different types of engagement but is rather a means of providing an overview of the engagements undertaken according to levels of ambition, influence and role within the coalition.

Each category of engagement is considered important and worthy of recognition, as transformative engagement is sometimes only possible following signal or contributory engagement.

This categorisation can be used by asset owners, asset managers and engagers in general to gain a comprehensive overview of their engagement practices.

It should be noted that the framework was designed to cover all engagement activities carried out with a company, regardless of whether the investor is a bondholder or a shareholder.

All engagement activities, whether they take place in the context of annual general meetings, are covered by the VOICE method.

However, the act of voting itself is not counted as an engagement activity if it does not form part of an iterative and intentional cycle of interactions with the company, involving an objective set-in advance by the investor or engagers (see the definition of engagement, pp. 3 and 6 of the report). And so on, a simple vote against a resolution, if it does not form part of a broader engagement process, cannot be counted as an engagement activity.

However, the method provides that actions taken at annual general meetings, such as voting against a resolution, may be counted as escalation measures if they are linked to a pre-existing engagement (see categories in the reporting tool, p. 21 of the report).

The VOICE method’s definition of engagement clearly distinguishes engagement from dialogue. Dialogue is defined as a form of interaction with companies—whether occasional or recurring—that is open in nature, generally for the purposes of gathering information or building knowledge, and whose objective is not to bring about change within the company. 

The VOICE method does not deny the value of dialogue activities, which, for example, enable investors to gather information useful for analysing the risk profile of the company in which they have invested, to better understand the company’s context, and also to build a relationship of trust with the company over time (the establishment of a dialogue channel being one of the outputs of engagement, for instance). Dialogue activities therefore often contribute to the chances of success of an engagement and, when they are part of a structured engagement process, can be counted towards the ‘number of activities’ (see definition of activities on p. 7 and reporting on p. 21). 

Asset managers can train the various employees involved in engagement activities so that they incorporate the key principles of the VOICE method. 

The operational application of the method does not require development of new tools; it can be carried out using an Excel spreadsheet, facilitating monitoring from the launch right through to the final reporting for each engagement. 

Furthermore, the framework enables the optimisation of resource allocation and allows a focus on engagements that are more likely to succeed (e.g. identifying converging loops). Finally, the method also covers collaborative engagements, which can be an effective way of participating in engagements despite limited resources.  

This framework has been designed to facilitate the collection of data relating to engagement activities by asset owners : once adopted, the framework will enable asset managers to reduce the time spent preparing reports that vary from one client to another.    

Companies were not consulted during this initial phase of the work (2025–2026). However, the ESG workshops held as part of the FIR’s activities between investors and companies during 2025 provided the insights and reflections that led to the development of the VOICE method. Furthermore, discussions are currently taking place via various market networks and organisations (ORSE, Global Compact, Euronext, etc.). Finally, companies will also have the opportunity to ask questions and submit comments via the FAQs section on the FIR website. 

At this stage, VOICE is not intended to assess advocacy activities. However, the approach could be extended to assess the effectiveness and influence of engagement initiatives with sovereign issuers.

It should be noted that the framework was designed for all engagement activities carried out with a company, regardless of whether the investor is a bondholder or a shareholder.

Stewardship codes aim to provide a framework for active shareholding practices that go beyond engagement alone. They are not intended to impose a specific approach to engagement but do require signatories to be transparent about how they implement their approaches. The principles of stewardship codes are generally not very prescriptive or detailed regarding how signatories should report on their engagement activities. The VOICE method is therefore a useful complement to help signatories improve the quality of the information provided in their stewardship or engagement reports and to harmonise practices, particularly in terms of reporting, thereby promoting comparability.

To encourage asset managers to adopt the VOICE method, an asset owner has two main levers at its disposal:

– Strengthening the monitoring of engagements made by asset managers and revising the expected reporting format
– Identifying their own needs whilst raising awareness amongst asset managers of the need for standardised and clear information.

The adoption of a single reporting format and accounting system by all asset managers will enable asset owners using delegated asset management to consolidate all engagement activities carried out on their behalf into a single document.