The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters. This column is part of the weekly Reuters Sustainable Finance newsletter, which you can sign up for here https://www.reuters.com/newsletters/reuters-sustainable-finance/

By Ross Kerber

April 23 (Reuters) - Most asset managers don't say how they plan to vote at corporate annual meetings. That leaves activists with small share holdings but big social agendas to do much of the pre-meeting talking on contentious issues like corporate climate policies or diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

No drama can be a good thing for many investors, especially at a time when top fund firms face pressure from Washington to leave portfolio companies alone. But academics have suggested investors might claim more influence if they were to make their voting intentions public before the events.

It's an intriguing practice that seems to be working for a few investment firms I spoke with. Morgan Stanley's MS.N Calvert responsible-investment unit, for instance, typically posts explanations about its votes 72 hours ahead of a meeting.

Other institutional investors often will ask Calvert about its voting plans, executives said. "Managers pay attention to how other managers describe what they're doing," said John Wilson, Calvert's executive director for corporate engagement.

In addition, privately held Neuberger Berman started announcing some voting decisions five years ago. Since then it has issued papers at 183 companies covering everything from executive pay votes to corporate lobbying.

The firm's stewardship director Caitlin McSherry said in an interview the bulletins aim to show clients its thinking rather than making them wait until August for official filings that only show if the firm voted for or against a proxy measure. The notes "elevate the topics into a real-time discussion," she said.

Calvert's explanations for its votes can be as blunt as any missive from a proxy adviser; Neuberger hardly comes across as a firebrand in the notes, which cover just a fraction of its holdings.

As an active investor with $508 billion under management, it is easier for Neuberger to pre-announce its votes than it is for the giant passive fund managers like BlackRock BLK.N or Vanguard as they face new regulations on their corporate engagements.

A few other public-sector investors also disclose their votes ahead of time including Norway's sovereign wealth fund and the California Public Employees' Retirement System, which weighed in ahead of various contests like at Exxon XOM.N last year.

I ran this all by James McRitchie, a private investor who has called for more early vote disclosures as a way to help other shareholders make decisions. McRitchie said he would prefer all asset managers disclose all their voting, but that he liked even the limited disclosures from Neuberger as a signal to other investors about how the firm views its holdings.

"If I were an activist going after a company, it would give me a sense of Neuberger being approachable," McRitchie said.

(Reporting by Ross Kerber in Boston; Editing by David Gregorio)

((ross.kerber@thomsonreuters.com; (617) 412 0093;))