Stewardship Spotlight: James Corah, Head of Ethical & Responsible Investment at CCLA

Strategic Leadership & Vision

Darshita: James, you’ve overseen CCLA’s responsible‑investment work for more than a decade. What shifts have you seen in stewardship expectations from clients and regulators?

James: Thanks. I took over the team ten years ago, having worked in it for the five years before that. My answer would have been slightly different three months ago; the world feels as though it’s changing very quickly. But, in essence, I see three stages:

• Stage 1 (first six or seven years). Stewardship was evolving. In 2012 the UK Stewardship Code arrived, yet the whole idea still felt like an optional extra. Anything an investment manager did was viewed as good. Incremental improvement was applauded.
• Stage 2 (the “boom times”). Stewardship became embedded, particularly among thematic or responsible‑investment leaders. Clients started asking detailed questions; stewardship felt central to the industry’s purpose, helping to refocus us on building better markets. The downside was that we began, industry‑wide, to imply we had more power than we actually do, as though companies would automatically do what we asked. That set an unrealistically high bar and people started demanding proof of causality: “What did your engagement make this company do?”
• Stage 3 (now). A more sceptical period. People question some of the bold claims. The industry is rightly rowing back, trimming the bloated bits, rather like my fitness regime, finally leaning down and focusing on what genuinely adds value.

So, three stages—and potentially a healthier place ahead.

Darshita: LinkedIn polls you’ve run suggest investors may have less influence than many assume. How do you balance values‑driven stewardship with fiduciary duty, and how does that shape your priorities?

James: There’s growing recognition, echoing what I just said that we may have over‑promised. Rather than claiming causality, we should see ourselves as ‘positive agitators’ within a wider ecosystem of change. That does not lessen the industry’s responsibility; if anything, it sharpens it. Regarding values versus fiduciary duty:
Fiduciary baseline: No investor can ignore financially material issues.
Values‑led edge: We’re likely to see a retrenchment to truly values‑driven investors taking the lead while some bigger houses step back. Asset owners must signal clearly that they want interesting, innovative engagement; otherwise, managers will default to box‑ticking.

Darshita: So what does “good stewardship” look like in 2025?

James: Outcome‑driven but honest: That we aren’t solely responsible for causality. We marshal levers outside the investment community, NGOs, media, civil society and focus on genuine gaps others aren’t covering, concentrating on issues others ignore, so our work is additive rather than duplicative.

Engagement Impact & Systemic Risk at CCLA:

Darshita: Your thematic programmes: mental health, climate, modern slavery, the Living Wage – are distinctive. Looking back, what has worked and what hasn’t? What can the sector do to tackle these deep-rooted systemic risks more effectively?

James: We oscillate between two engagement models:

• Framework‑based, data‑rich asks (e.g., Living Wage). Easy to measure, clear accreditation, large external resources.
  Success: one campaign led to 600 low‑paid staff receiving pay rises.
• Systemic, harder‑to‑measure topics (mental health, modern slavery). Progress is fuzzier but may be more transformative because we open entirely new fronts.

I wrestle with which works better. Focusing only on what’s measurable risks missing bigger systemic change. Both are necessary. The key is recognising when awareness‑raising itself is a legitimate outcome?!

Darshita: How do you keep stewardship reporting credible amid greenwashing scrutiny and evolving regulations?

James: Regulation such as the FCA’s SDR is positive. It curbs unjustified claims and allows comparability. My worry is prescriptive interpretations that reduce active ownership to a step‑by‑step assembly line: Step A letter, Step B escalation, Step C divest. Engagement is a relationship, not a flow‑chart; it ebbs and flows. We need flexibility to innovate while still meeting disclosure standards.

Data, Innovation & Standards:

Darshita: Are there specific industry standards, initiatives or policy shifts you’d like to see that would raise the bar for meaningful stewardship? 

James: Nuance is hard to regulate. The real soft‑regulators should be asset owners. Frameworks like those from the Church Investors Group help owners assess and push their managers. Owner education and willingness to move mandates, as People’s Pension did recently, will raise the bar faster than any rulebook.

Darshita: What role can technology play in bridging the gap between stewardship ambition and real-world outcomes?

James: Huge, on two fronts:

1. Enablement platforms – tools (including yours – Maanch) that replace spreadsheets, centralise engagement data and let us “cut the faff” so conversations are faster and more transparent.
2. AI for insight – e.g., we’re piloting AI with Canbury Solutions to screen companies for modern‑slavery risk. Once trained, it can cover far more firms for a fraction of the cost.

Values and Long-Term Thinking

Darshita: How does CCLA set engagement priorities?

James: A Venn diagram of three circles: 

1. client concerns, 
2. industry gaps, 
3. long‑term investment risk.

The overlap gives a concise list. Then we run a top‑down programme, building deep expertise (e.g., hiring the former UK Anti‑Slavery Commissioner) and approaching companies with that know “how”. That flips the dynamic: companies now come to us.

Darshita: Balancing short‑term financial pressures with long‑term systemic risk can be tricky, you only get one vote per company. How do you navigate that?

James: We separate responsibilities: analysts and PMs own 0‑5‑year, financially material issues; the stewardship team tackles the longer‑term systemic ones. That frees engagement specialists from quarterly earnings noise.

Personal Insight & Future Vision

Darshita: What’s one stewardship success story that stands out for you personally?

James:  Two actually. 

Living‑Wage campaign with a major UK pharma: moved from “never” to accreditation, lifting pay for 600 contractors, literally life‑changing.
Modern‑slavery work with a catering firm: helped uncover and remedy forced‑labour risks in their supply chain.

Darshita: Advice for next‑gen stewardship professionals?

James:  Don’t expect an easy ride. The consensus tail‑wind is gone. Bring grit, purpose and resilience.

Darshita: Question asset owners should ask managers (but rarely do)?

James: “Why exactly are you doing this engagement, and how is it in our beneficiaries’ interests?” Simple, but it forces clarity of purpose.

Darshita: Milestone for the next decade?

James: In the next five years: keep the lights on, survive the backlash. Play defensive cricket, see off the fast bowlers. Then we can score runs again and push forward once the ball gets softer (to borrow a cricket metaphor).

Darshita: Any final thoughts?

James: Just that our industry can do remarkable things when we remember no company is perfect and we all work together – owners, managers and beneficiaries – on the journey of change.