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

TD Asset Management (TDAM)

PRI reporting framework 2017

You are in Direct - Listed Equity Active Ownership » Engagement

Engagement

Overview

LEA 01. Description of approach to engagement

New selection options have been added to this indicator. Please review your prefilled responses carefully.

01.1. Indicate whether your organisation has a formal engagement policy.

01.2. Indicate what your engagement policy covers:

01.3. Attach or provide a URL to your engagement policy. [Optional]

01.4. Provide a brief overview of your organization’s approach to engagement

Individual / internal engagement: based on our ESG rating on the company, analysts, portfolio managers, and the head of proxy voting would discuss with senior management teams, or through the investor relations team;

Collaborative engagement: we participate in collaborative initiatives, such as the PRI Fracking Collaborative Engagement and the Canadian Coalition for Good Governance.

01.5. Additional information [optional]


LEA 02. Reasoning for interaction on ESG issues (Not Completed)


Process

Process for engagements run internally

LEA 03. Process for identifying and prioritising engagement activities

New selection options have been added to this indicator. Please review your prefilled responses carefully.

03.1. Indicate whether your organisation has a formal process for identifying and prioritising engagement activities carried out by internal staff.

03.2. Describe the criteria used to identify and prioritise engagement activities carried out by internal staff.

03.3. Additional information. [Optional]

We evaluate all ESG engagement opportunities based on the relevancy to the companies in which we invest, the likely benefit to the investment accounts we manage, and the amount of internal resources needed for the engagement


LEA 04. Objectives for engagement activities (Not Completed)


Process for engagements conducted via collaborations

LEA 05. Process for identifying and prioritising collaborative engagement

New selection options have been added to this indicator. Please review your prefilled responses carefully.

05.1. Indicate whether your organisation has a formal process for identifying and prioritising collaborative engagements

05.2. Describe the criteria used to identify and prioritise collaborative engagements

05.3. Additional information [Optional]

We evaluate all ESG engagement opportunities based on the relevancy to the companies in which we invest, the likely benefit to the investment accounts we manage, and the amount of internal resources needed for the engagement


LEA 06. Objectives for engagement activities (Not Completed)


General processes for all three groups of engagers

LEA 09. Share insights from engagements with internal/external managers

09.1. Indicate if insights gained from your engagements are shared with your internal or external investment managers.

Type of engagement

Insights shared

Individual/Internal staff engagements

Collaborative engagements

09.2. Additional information. [Optional]

We do not have service provider engagements


LEA 10. Tracking number of engagements

10.1. Indicate if you track the number of engagements your organisation participates in.

Type of engagement
Tracking engagements

Individual / Internal staff engagements

Collaborative engagements

10.2. Additional information. [OPTIONAL]

We do not have service provider engagements


Outputs and outcomes

LEA 11. Number of companies engaged with, intensity of engagement and effort

11.1. Indicate the amount of your listed equities portfolio with which your organisation engaged during the reporting year.

Number of companies engaged

(avoid double counting, see explanatory notes)

Proportion (to the nearest 5%)
Specify the basis on which this percentage is calculated

Individual / Internal staff engagements

27 Number of companies engaged
5 Proportion (to the nearest 5%)

Specify the basis on which this percentage is calculated

Collaborative engagements

55
10 Proportion (to the nearest 5%)

Specify the basis on which this percentage is calculated

11.2. Indicate the proportion of engagements that involved multiple, substantive and detailed discussions or interactions with a company during the reporting year relating to ESG issue.

Type of engagement

% Comprehensive engagements

 

 

Individual / Internal staff engagements

 

 

Collaborative engagements

11.3. Indicate the percentage of your collaborative engagements for which you were a leading organisation during the reporting year.

Type of engagement

% Leading role

 

 

Collaborative engagements

11.5. Additional information. [Optional]


LEA 12. Engagement methods

12.1. Indicate which of the following your engagement involved.

12.2. Additional information. [Optional]


LEA 13. Engagements on E, S and/or G issues (Not Applicable)


LEA 14. Companies changing practices / behaviour following engagement

14.1. Indicate whether you track the number of cases during the reporting year where a company changed its practices, or made a formal commitment to do so, following your organisation’s and/or your service provider's engagement activities.

14.3. Additional information [Optional].

We don't formally track as the number of cases has not been significant, and our influence is not yet proven to be an exclusive driver to the change of practices.


LEA 15. Examples of ESG engagements

15.1. Provide examples of the engagements that your organisation or your service provider carried out during the reporting year.

Topic or ESG issue
          Critical mass of independent women on the board
        
Conducted by
Objectives

To encourage the company to have more independent women on its board

Scope and Process
Outcomes

Reminded nine Canadian-based companies across four sectors about the ample supply of board-ready women in a leading Canadian database

Topic or ESG issue
          Pay for performance
        
Conducted by
Objectives

To discuss the components of the alignment of CEO pay and shareholder performance

Scope and Process
Outcomes

Encouraged compensation committee chairs and other directors to align CEO pay and shareholder performance, at 12 Canadian-based companies across six sectors

Topic or ESG issue
          Management compensation
        
Conducted by
Objectives

To provide feedback on how to align shareholders experience/stock performance with management compensation

Scope and Process

Meeting with one of its board member, who is also the Chair of the Compensation Committee

Outcomes

TDAM expressed our view that the experience of shareholders needs to be considered as a factor, rather than just scorecard objectives. The Company is also encouraged to increase its number of new board members and its representation of women

Topic or ESG issue
          Water usage and community relationship
        
Conducted by
Objectives

Water usage at its operations

Community relationship

Scope and Process

Meeting with management

Outcomes

Greater efforts have been made to improve water recycling on site, as drought occurred a couple of years ago

To improve the community relationship, the company started a residence policy

Topic or ESG issue
          Technology development at oil sand
        
Conducted by
Objectives

To evaluate how technology development could improve economics as well as environment

Scope and Process

Meeting management

Outcomes

It appears that technology development has the potential to lower costs, improve cash flows, as well as reduce greenhouse gas emissions by ~25%.

15.2. Additional information. [Optional]


Top