Talk:Engine No. 1

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that investment fund Engine No. 1 waged a successful proxy battle against ExxonMobil despite owning only 0.02% of the oil company's shares? Source: Engine No. 1, won a victory over one of America’s most iconic companies. Its acrimonious six-month proxy battle [...] Engine No. 1 had only a 0.02% stake... [1]

• Reviewed: Not needed, fewer than 5 DYK credits.

Created by 15 (talk). Self-nominated at 19:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Good to go, nice work! Fascinating article, too. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

T:DYK/P1

Introduction of Engine No. 1

I work for Rubenstein and on behalf of Engine No. 1, I’m requesting an edit to the introductory portion of the page. Engine No. 1 is miscategorized as an “activist and impact investing hedge fund,” the firm is instead an investment firm, with assets that stretch outside of the definition of “hedge fund.” See sources that describe the firm as an “investment firm” below.

Additionally, see sources covering the firm’s ETFs below.

Hedge funds do not offer ETFs, only investment firms offer ETFs.

I believe it would be more accurate and in line with the existing supporting citations to state: “Engine No. 1 is an American investment firm.”

Nbaderrubenstein (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Hi Nbaderrubenstein, thank you for engaging on the talk page. I agree that investment firm probably fits it better, it might have started out closer to a hedge fund but is more of a general investment firm now. I have replaced "hedge fund" with "investment firm", but kept "activist" and changed "impact investing" to "impact-focused", with a wikilink to impact investing, as sources talk about this frequently. Thoughts? FYI, the first two sources you cite are the same, did you mean to cite something else? 15 (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful response, 15. Meant this to be my second source:

Agreed, “impact-focused investment firm” is more accurate than “impact investing hedge fund,” thank you.

I would suggest removing the term “activist” as well. Engine No. 1 acted like an “activist investor” for the Exxon campaign, but has not since, and the term does not accurately describe the entire breadth of the firm, which includes ETFs and constructive investments. Sources below:

Additionally, the firm has never publicly identified itself as an activist. Engine No. 1’s CEO Jennifer Grancio stated in September that the firm “was aiming to be a constructive partner to companies it invested in, not an activist hedge fund launching proxy contests.” Source below:

I would instead argue that “active-ownership” is a more accurate description of Engine No. 1’s investing style. See usage here:

I believe it would be more accurate if the term “activist” was removed altogether, or replaced with “active-owner,” “active-investor”, or something to that effect. Thank you.

Nbaderrubenstein (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I realise that there is a desire for ESG activists to contrast themselves from Icahn-type activism and that the term "active ownership" (or "constructive investments") is becoming more popular. However, we have to go by what sources say and this is not a clear-cut case of more recent sources using "active ownership" vs older ones using "activist". Further, active ownership can fall under activism if the latter term is interpreted broadly. Given the preponderance of sources describing EN1 as activist, I would like to stick to the term (although I'm fine with you requesting third opinions at e.g.,Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance & Investment or WP:3O, preferably the first).

I appreciate you coming up with sources on the investment strategy that I was unaware of, as a description of the firm's investment strategy is certainly important. I'm sure active-ownership can be fit into the lead (something along the lines of "Describing their investment approach as active-ownership,...?) or Engine No. 1 § Investment activities at least, but will have to find some time to look at all the sources available. If you want, you can make suggestions. 15 (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for getting back to me and the suggestion to add the description of the firm as “active-owners” to the lede. I would recommend something like, “The firm’s investment approach has been described as ‘active-ownership.’” Please let me know your thoughts, thanks.

Nbaderrubenstein (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Wanted to check back in on this, thanks 15

173.56.246.169 (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)