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

(Proxy) voting and shareholder resolutions

Overview

LEA 17. Voting policy & approach

17.1. 貴社において正式な議決権行使ポリシーを設定しているかどうかを明示してください。

17.2. 議決権行使ポリシーの対象範囲を記載してください。

17.3. 議決権行使ポリシーを添付するか記載されたURLを提示してください。[任意]

17.4. (委任状による)議決権行使に対する貴社のアプローチの概要を説明してください。 [任意]

Proxy voting is a key component in the ongoing dialogue with our companies. We are committed to ensuring consistent exercise of voting rights associated with shares held in investment mandates where proxy voting has been delegated to us. Through implementation of our voting policy, we aim to enhance the long-term value of our shareholdings and to foster corporate governance best practices.

Impax’s policy is to vote all shareholder meetings and on all shares held on behalf of all our investors who have granted us the voting rights. In some markets there are costly and administratively burdensome Powers of Attorney rules that may in some rare events prevent effective voting.

Impax has developed a governance framework, as part of our ESG-analysis, which is driven by country-level governance rules, codes and best practice. We analyse whether companies’ governance structures deviate from local governance codes or best practise. Where companies deviate from codes and best practice, we engage with the companies and can vote against a management resolution. We always endeavour to notify a company prior to AGM, or at least afterwards if we have voted against or abstained on a resolution.

In 2016 Impax voted 2,316 resolutions at 196 company meetings globally.

 

17.5. どのような方法により、議決権行使ポリシーが遵守されるよう万全を期しているかその概要を記載するとともに、ポリシーに例外を設ける際のアプローチについて、その詳細を明示して下さい(該当する場合)。

Impax’s listed equity operations, including its voting activities have been audited and received full ISAE 3402 certification (International Standards for Assurance Engagement) every year since the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012.


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ているかを明示して下さい。

アプローチ

以下に基づいて行う

18.2. 補足情報。[任意]

Impax uses ISS’ electronic voting platform and we assess the ISS advisory recommendations for voting, however ultimately determine our voting based on our Governance Framework and company-specific ESG-analysis.

Impax’ listed equity operations, including its voting activities have been audited and received full ISAE 3402 certification (International Standards for Assurance Engagement) every year since the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012.


LEA 19. Percentage of voting recommendations reviewed (Not Applicable)


LEA 20. Confirmation of votes

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

20.1. 議決権行使に係る証跡の改善や議決権行使の結果を確認するためのプロジェクトにどのように関与しているのかを記載して下さい。

          There is an increasing interaction between us and the companies (and their representatives) in ensuring voting and voting confirmation both before and after voting. We take actively part in these interactions and confirmations.
        

20.2. 補足情報 [任意]

          
        

LEA 21. Securities lending programme

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

21.1. 貴社では、セキュリティーズレンディングを設定していますか?

21.3. 補足情報 [任意]

          Impax is currently not conducting any stock lending, however we are aware of the possible effects on proxy voting from stock lending, would our stance to stock lending change in the future.
        

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

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

22.1. 貴社または貴社に代わって行動するサービスプロバイダーは、議決権の行使に先立って、当該企業に対し懸念等を表明しているかどうか明示してください。

22.2. 貴社や貴社に代わって行動するサービスプロバイダーは、議決を棄権したり、経営陣の提案に反対票を投じる場合に、当該企業にその理由を伝えているかどうかを明示してください。

22.3. 補足情報。[任意]

We have a relatively small number of companies we vote for every year, we therefore ensure we analyse the resolutions in detail and use proxy voting as an opportunity to engage with companies.

Impax has developed a governance framework, as part of our ESG-analysis, which is driven by country-level governance rules, codes and best practice and we analyse whether companies’ governance structures deviate from local governance codes or best practise. Where companies deviate from codes and best practice, we engage with the companies and can vote against a management resolution. We always endeavour to notify a company prior to AGM, or at least afterwards if we have voted against or abstained on a resolution.


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。

1%単位の投票率

97 %

この投票率の計算基準を明記してください

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。

議決権行使に係る指示の対象
投票の内訳(%)
経営陣の議案に対する賛成票
92 %
経営陣の議案に対する反対票
8 %
棄権
0 %
100%

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。

トピックまたはESG問題
          Entrenched board, US water infrastructure company.
        
意思決定者
目的

Engage with company regarding an entrenched board structure.

対象範囲およびプロセス

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.

結果

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

トピックまたはESG問題
          Lack of transparency and disclosures regarding director employment terms and remuneration. Israeli water infrastructure company.
        
意思決定者
目的

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

対象範囲およびプロセス

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

結果

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).

トピックまたはESG問題
          Shareholder resolution requesting sustainability reporting. US energy efficiency company.
        
意思決定者
目的

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.  

対象範囲およびプロセス

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.  

結果

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。


Communication

LEA 27. Disclosing voting activities

27.1. 貴社が議決権行使活動に関する情報を積極的に開示しているかどうかを明示してください。

27.2. 一般に開示されている情報が、顧客や受益者に開示されている情報と同じであるかどうかを明示してください。

27.3. 貴社が一般や顧客や受益者に積極的に開示している議決権に関する情報を記載してください

どのくらいの議決権行使記録を開示しているか明示してください

どの程度の説明をしているかを記載してください

27.4. 議決情報を通常報告する頻度について明示してください。

27.8. 補足情報。[任意]


Top