Hiring a head of stewardship in 2026: what has changed
By Farrell Associates — B Corp-certified sustainability & ESG recruitment specialists
A few years ago, most briefs I received for a head of stewardship read much the same. The person would run the voting programme, lead engagement with companies, publish the stewardship report and represent the firm in collaborative initiatives. They would usually sit in a responsible investment team alongside the portfolio managers rather than within them.
The briefs I see now are different, and the people who do the job well are different too. If you are about to hire into one of these roles, it is worth understanding what has moved before you write the job description.
Stewardship is moving closer to the investment decision
The clearest change is where stewardship sits. More investors want engagement to be led by people the portfolio managers listen to, and some have restructured to make that happen. Norway's sovereign wealth fund is one of the larger examples this autumn, folding its ownership work into its active management, and several asset managers have made similar moves with less fanfare.
The practical effect on hiring is that the pool narrows. A candidate who has run an excellent voting operation, but who cannot hold their own in a conversation about a company's balance sheet, now struggles to get through an interview with the investment team. The people firms want can talk about governance, capital allocation and the financial case for an engagement in the same breath. There are not many of them, and most are well looked after where they are.
The US has changed the risk
The second change is regulatory. Collaborative engagement, which was the backbone of many stewardship programmes, now carries more legal and political risk for anyone with US clients or US holdings. Regulators there have signalled closer attention to how investors coordinate, and shareholder proposal rules are under review.
That has made firms more careful about who they hire. They want someone who knows where the lines are, can explain them to the board, and can still run a credible programme within them. Experience of navigating that environment has become one of the first things clients ask me about, including clients based in the UK and Europe.
Asset owners and managers are hiring from the same small pool
Pension schemes and other asset owners have become much more active in stewardship, partly because their own members and regulators expect it and partly because they want more say over how their managers engage. Many are building teams for the first time.
The difficulty is that they are competing for the same people as the asset managers, and the managers usually pay more. An asset owner can still win, but it needs a clear case for why the role is worth moving for. The strongest arguments I have seen are the chance to set policy rather than follow a client's, direct influence over very large mandates, and a steadier working environment than a commercial firm can offer. Where that case is made well, good candidates do move.
Job titles no longer tell you much
One of the first things I do on a stewardship search is ignore the titles. A head of stewardship at one firm leads a team of ten and sits on the investment committee. At another, it is one person with a voting platform and a reporting deadline. Associate directors at large managers often have broader responsibilities than heads at smaller ones.
If you shortlist by title, you will miss some of the best people and include some who are not ready. It is much more useful to ask candidates what they have actually done: which engagements they led, what changed as a result, who they had to persuade inside their own firm, and how they handled a vote that their portfolio managers disagreed with.
What to put in the brief
Given all this, a few things make a stewardship search go better.
Be clear about where the role sits and who it answers to. Candidates will ask, and the answer tells them how seriously the firm takes the work. A role that reports into the CIO or a head of investment attracts a different calibre of applicant from one buried in a reporting function.
Describe the work rather than the background. What does the voting programme look like, which engagements matter most to you, and what should this person have changed in their first eighteen months? A brief written that way lets strong candidates from adjacent roles see themselves in it.
Decide early how much investment experience you need. It is the hardest combination to find, and sometimes the right answer is a strong stewardship specialist paired with a portfolio manager who champions the work. It is better to make that choice before the search than to discover it at final interview.
Be realistic about notice periods. At this level they are often three to six months, and counter-offers are common because the people you want are valued where they are.
Where the good people are
Almost none of the strongest candidates for these roles are applying to adverts. They are in post, often doing well, and they will move only for a role that is clearly a step forward. Finding them means approaching them directly and having a credible conversation about what the job really involves. That takes time, but it is where nearly all of the best stewardship appointments I have been part of have come from.
If you are planning a stewardship or responsible investment hire, you can read more about how we run these searches or see some of the roles we have filled. I am always happy to talk through a brief before you commit to it, so do get in touch.
FAQ
What does a head of stewardship do? A head of stewardship leads how an investor votes at company meetings and engages with the companies it owns, and reports on both. In 2026 the role increasingly sits close to the portfolio managers, so the job involves influencing investment decisions as well as running the voting and engagement programme.
Should a head of stewardship have investment experience? It helps a great deal, because more firms want engagement led by people portfolio managers respect. It is also the hardest combination to find. Decide before the search whether you need it in one person or can pair a stewardship specialist with an investment champion.
Why is it harder for pension schemes to hire stewardship leaders? Asset owners compete for the same small pool as asset managers, which usually pay more. They can still attract strong people by making a clear case: the chance to set policy, direct influence over large mandates and a steadier working environment.
How long does it take to hire a head of stewardship? With a direct search you can expect a shortlist within one to two weeks of the brief. The overall timing then depends on your interview process and on notice periods, which are often three to six months at this level.
LinkedIn post copy (14 Oct 2026; pillar: how the work gets done; about 1,250 characters)
The head of stewardship briefs I'm seeing now look very different from three years ago.
Then, the job was voting, engagement, the annual report and a seat in a few investor initiatives. It usually sat beside the portfolio managers rather than among them.
Now, more firms want stewardship led by someone the PMs listen to. Some have restructured to make that happen.
That changes who you can hire. Running a strong voting operation is no longer enough on its own. The people firms want can talk governance and capital allocation in the same conversation.
Add the US, where collaborative engagement now carries real legal and political risk, and the pool gets smaller again.
Asset owners feel it most. They're building teams for the first time and competing with managers who usually pay more. The ones who win make a clear case: set the policy, steer large mandates, a steadier seat.
My advice if you're hiring one this year: ignore job titles, describe the work, and decide early how much investment experience you really need.