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 » Process


LEA 18. Typical approach to (proxy) voting decisions

18.1. (委任状による)議決権行使を通常どのように決定し、このアプローチは何に基づいて行われるかを記載してください。



18.2. 補足情報。[任意]

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


LEA 19. Percentage of voting recommendations reviewed

19.1. 報告年度に組織のサービスプロバイダーが行った議決権行使の推奨の中で、組織が検討したものの割合および検討した理由を記載してください。



19.2. 補足情報 [任意]

LEA 20. Confirmation of votes (Private)

LEA 21. Securities lending programme

21.1. 組織に証券貸借プログラムがあるかどうかを記載してください。

21.3. 証券貸借プログラムがない理由を説明してください。


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. 補足情報

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

22.1. 組織や組織のために行動するサービスプロバイダーが議決を棄権したり、経営陣の提案に反対を投票する時、企業にその理由を知らせていることを確認しているかどうかを記載してください。

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

22.2. 補足情報。[任意]

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.