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

Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global (Norwegian Ministry of Finance and Norges Bank Investment Management)

PRI reporting framework 2017

Export Public Responses
Pdf-img

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

(Proxy) voting and shareholder resolutions

Overview

LEA 17. Voting policy & approach

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

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

17.2. Indicate what your voting policy covers:

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

17.4. Provide a brief overview of your organization’s approach to (proxy) voting.

We vote in a principled and consistent manner to maximise the long term performance of the fund. We base our principles and voting decisions on internationally recognised standards, such as the G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance, UN Global Compact, UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights, and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.                       Where appropriate, we will takes company and local factors into consideration.                                      Our vote decisions will be published on www.nbim.no one day after a general meeting has concluded.   We may also publish voting intentions ahead of general meetings for a selected number of companies, and for certain fundamental issues that we emphasize in particular.

Our global voting guidelines can be found at: http://www.nbim.no/contentassets/b93146514d764b2e81d815d8089e6872/global-voting-guidelines-2016.pdf

 

17.5. Provide an overview of how you ensure your voting policy is adhered to, giving details of your approach when exceptions to the policy are made (if applicable).

We continuously works to improve the voting process. Given the high number of shareholder meetings, we are dependent on a reliable voting chain. In 2016, in partnership with Citibank N.A., our global  custodian, we initiated a project to test the feasibility of a standardised model for final vote confirmation. This pilot project is part of our efforts to establish a process where we would have confirmation that all our voting rights were exercised at each shareholder meeting and that each resolution was voted as per our electronic instruction (known as end-to-end confirmation).

The majority of our voting decisions fall within the scope of our public voting guidelines. There are, however, cases where the global voting guidelines are less relevant due to the nature of the resolution. Some resolutions may be contentious or simply fall outside the general voting guidelines’ framework. In such cases, we analyse the agenda items individually and vote on the basis of what we deem to be in the fund’s best long-term interest. One common example of such cases is an extraordinary general meeting called to vote on a merger or acquisition.

We have an integrated voting process where we incorporate investment knowledge from portfolio managers into the final voting decision. By incorporating the insights of investment teams, we are in a position to consider company factors on a case-by- case basis. Voting decisions at 521 companies were made in collaboration with portfolio managers in 2016. These companies accounted for approximately 48 percent of the equity portfolio’s market value.

 


Process

LEA 18. Typical approach to (proxy) voting decisions

18.1. Indicate how you typically make your (proxy) voting decisions.

Approach

Based on

18.2. Additional information.[Optional]

We take recommentations from several proxy service providers, but final voting decision is based on our own internal policies.


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


LEA 20. Confirmation of votes (Not Completed)


LEA 21. Securities lending programme (Private)


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. Indicate whether you or the service providers acting on your behalf raise any concerns with companies ahead of voting

22.2. Indicate whether you and/or the service provider(s) acting on your behalf, communicate the rationale to companies, when , you abstain or vote against management recommendations.

22.3. Additional information. [Optional]


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%)

98 %

Specify the basis on which this percentage is calculated

23.2. Explain your reason(s) for not voting certain holdings

23.3. Additional information. [Optional]


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

24.1. Indicate if you track the voting instructions that you and/or your service provider on your behalf have issued.

24.2. Of the voting instructions that you and/or third parties on your behalf issued, indicate the proportion of ballot items that were:

Voting instructions
Breakdown as percentage of votes cast
For (supporting) management recommendations
94 %
Against (opposing) management recommendations
6 %
Abstentions
0 %
100%

24.3. Describe the actions you take after voting against management recommendations.

          We voted at more than 11,000 meetings, with 6% of voted against management. We do not regard it as practical to follow up on all against votes. In the cases where we have an ongoing engagement with a company or if it is a major holding, we are more likely to communicate our against vote either ahead of the meeting or after the meeting.
        

24.4. Additional information. [Optional]


LEA 25. Shareholder resolutions (Not Completed)


LEA 26. Examples of (proxy) voting activities (Not Completed)


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