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

Impax Asset Management

PRI reporting framework 2017

Export Public Responses

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

Outputs and outcomes

LEA 23. Percentage of (proxy) votes cast

23.1. 貴社やサービスプロバイダーが(代理)投票の指示を発行するマンデートを有している上場株式について、報告年度中に行った投票の割合を記載してください。


97 %


23.2. 一定の株式保有分について議決権を行使しない理由を説明して下さい:

23.3. 補足情報。[任意]

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

24.1. あなたの貴社では、貴社や貴社に代わって行動するサービスプロバイダーが出した議決権行使に係る指示を追跡しているかどうか明示してください。

24.2. 貴社または貴社の代理である第3者機関が出した議決権行使に係る指示について投票の割合を記載してください。

92 %
8 %
0 %

24.3. 経営陣の提案に反対票を投じた後にあなたの貴社が取る措置について記載して下さい。

          Our approach towards voting in 2016 remained similar to previous years, in that it is closely linked to our ESG-analysis and we closely follow AGM/proxy statement developments at our companies from year to year. These are catalysts to many of our governance-related company engagements. We pay particular attention to votes and related engagements in the companies where we have large shareholdings. A specific proxy-related engagement has been on companies with "entrenched boards" (average tenure >10 years and no new directors in the last 5 years). We have endeavoured to engage with these companies pre voting and at least afterwards, to seek improvement. We have found that companies with entrenched boards, management diversity tends to be weaker, but these companies are also more often laggards in terms of development of robust sustainability processes and reporting.

24.4. 補足情報。 [任意]

LEA 25. Shareholder resolutions

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

25.1. 貴社が直接またはサービスプロバイダーを経由して報告年度にESG関連の株主決議を提出または共同提出したかどうかを明示してください。

25.6. 補足情報。 [任意]

We believe that we can be more constructive and ultimately in the long-term more influential with our investee companies, if we interact and engage directly with the company on specific concerns. Public statements or filing resolutions would be last resort activities in exceptional circumstances of escalation.

LEA 26. Examples of (proxy) voting activities

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

26.1. 報告年度に貴社またはサービスプロバイダーが実行した(委任状による)議決権行使の例を提供してください。

          Entrenched board, US water infrastructure company.

Engage with company regarding an entrenched board structure.


Company board is increasingly entrenched with 7/9 directors having served on the board for 8-10 years (since spin-off) and the latest new director was appointed 4 years ago. The average tenure is not that high (as the directors have mostly worked together since the spin-off 10 years ago), but we would much rather see a spread of a few new directors, some who have served ~ 5-10 years and a few who have been longer (not possible here). We also note that 5/9 directors today, also still serve at the previous parent’s board, which seems “clubby” and not dynamic for a company that has been independent for 10 years. While age and experience is valuable, many companies have policies in place for tenure/age. Here all directors who have served for 8-10 years are in their 70s and 80s, adding to the sense of entrenchment. We believe that the most effective boards have a variety and diversity of tenure, experience, gender and even age. To express this view we have therefore withheld our vote on the two directors most directly responsible for the development of the board structure, i.e. the Chair of the Board and the Chair of the Nominations committee.


Fed-back ahead of vote to company voting representatives. Call to discuss the board structure post-AGM. This engagement is still on-going.

          Lack of transparency and disclosures regarding director employment terms and remuneration. Israeli water infrastructure company.

Clarification regarding new Director employment terms and compensation for AGM resolution, lack of transparency. Objective to avoid weak transparency in the future.


Emailed the company General Counsel before vote and AGM with our concerns.


Company clarified the employment terms and compensation structures of the new director, which were all satisfactory. We voted FOR this particular resolution as part of the AGM, but pointed out to the company the importance of transparency and also the timely engagement with the proxy voting advisers (who recommended voting AGAINST due to lack of transparency).

          Shareholder resolution requesting sustainability reporting. US energy efficiency company.

Company has faced several years of shareholder resolutions calling for an introduction of sustainability reporting. At the 2016 AGM 60% of shareholders (including Impax) voted for the introduction of a sustainability report by the company. Impax wrote a letter to the company to highlight the importance and benefit with reporting. We also raised the issue about the company's entrenched board structure.  


Impax wrote a letter to the company to highlight the importance and benefit with reporting. We also raised the issue about the company's entrenched board structure.  


Company was unresponsive, despite several contacts. A few months later, it was announced that the company was being acquired.

26.2. 補足情報。