This report shows public data only. Is this your organisation? If so, login here to view your full report.

BT Pension Scheme

PRI reporting framework 2016

You are in Direct - Listed Equity Active Ownership » (Proxy) voting and shareholder resolutions

(Proxy) voting and shareholder resolutions

Overview

LEA 17. Voting policy & approach

17.1. Indicate whether your organisation has a formal voting policy.

17.2. Indicate what your voting policy covers:

17.3. Please attach or provide a URL to your voting policy. [Optional]

17.4. Provide a brief overview of your organization’s approach to (proxy) voting (including the filing and/or co-filing of shareholder resolutions if applicable).

see policy for background. In relation to Hermes EOS, they undertake intelligent voting on our behalf according to our own proxy voting policy. This means that all proxies are voted in line with the individual circumstances of the company and the vote, rather than using a box-ticking approach or as a compliance driven activity. The vote is viewed as an annual governance health check and voting work is strongly linked with corporate engagement. The vote is not perceived as an end in itself but rather as a mechanism which precipitates further change where required. Hermes EOS files shareholder proposals in markets where it is relevant to do so, typically in Germany and the US, either as lead filer or as co-filer alongside other investors.

17.5. Additional information [optional]


Process

LEA 18. Typical approach to (proxy) voting decisions

18.1. Indicate how you typically make your (proxy) voting decisions and what this approach is based on.

Approach

Based primarily on

18.2. Additional information.[Optional]

Where appropriate we also delegate voting to investment managers which demonstrate strong capabilities.

 


LEA 19. Percentage of voting recommendations reviewed

19.1. Of the voting recommendations that your service provider made in the reporting year, indicate the percentage reviewed by your organisation, and the reasons for the review.

Percentage of voting recommendations your organisation reviewed

Reasons for review

19.2. Additional information [Optional]


LEA 20. Confirmation of votes (Private)


LEA 21. Securities lending programme

21.1. Indicate if your organisation has a securities lending programme.

21.3. Please explain the rationale behind not having a securities lending programme

 

BTPS are currently not actively participating in stock lending equities that are under our direct control although stock lending may occur in pooled investment funds.

21.4. Additional information.


LEA 22. Informing companies of the rationale of abstaining/voting against management

22.1. Indicate if you ensure that companies are informed of the rationale when you and/or the service providers acting on your behalf abstain or vote against management recommendations.

          Hermes EOS undertakes intelligent voting on our behalf according to our own proxy voting policy. see below
        

22.2. Additional information. [Optional]

Where Hermes EOS has executed a vote against management on large holdings or otherwise high-profile companies, it seeks to follow up with the company either in writing to explain the reasons giving rise to a vote against and the steps that it would like to see the company take to rectify the issue. As necessary, Hermes EOS will look to engage with the company before the meeting to ensure that the issue giving rise to the vote against is addressed so that it can vote in line with management’s recommendation, a vote ‘for’ management ‘by exception,’ in subsequent years. It may look to vote against management in a number of different scenarios. While it is difficult to provide a general description, typically this will be where a vote with management would not serve the best long-term interests of shareholders. This may be either in terms of remuneration or where there are insufficient skills on the board to take the company forward.
There may also be specific instances where a vote in favour of management would be actively detrimental to the company, for example in the case of a merger or acquisition. Hermes EOS rarely abstains on votes. In the very rare instances that it does consider abstaining, this may be because it is unable to vote with management – typically due to inadequate information being provided – but where a vote against management may appear unduly harsh. Hermes EOS always seeks to obtain the required information to make an informed voting decision but this may not always be possible.

 


Outputs and outcomes

LEA 23. Percentage of (proxy) votes cast

23.1. For listed equities where you and/or your service provider have the mandate to issue (proxy) voting instructions, indicate the percentage of votes cast during the reporting year.

Votes cast (to the nearest 1%)

100 %

Specify the basis on which this percentage is calculated

23.2. If there are specific reasons why you did not vote certain holdings, explain these, and if possible, indicate the percentage of holdings affected by these factors. [Optional]

23.3. Additional information. [Optional]


LEA 24. Proportion of ballot items that were for/against/abstentions (Private)


LEA 25. Shareholder resolutions (Private)


LEA 26. Examples of (proxy) voting activities (Private)


Communication

LEA 27. Disclosing voting activities

27.1. Indicate if your organisation proactively discloses information on your voting activities.

provide URL

27.2. Indicate if the information disclosed to the public is the same as that disclosed to clients/beneficiaries.

27.3. Indicate the voting information your organisation proactively discloses to the public and/or to clients/beneficiaries.

Indicate how much of your voting record you disclose

Indicate what level of explanation you provide

27.4. Indicate how frequently you typically report voting information.

27.8. Additional information. [Optional]


Top