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

Pensionfund Metalektro (PME)

PRI reporting framework 2017

You are in Direct - Listed Equity Active Ownership » Engagement » Process » Process for engagements conducted via collaborations

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. 協働的なエンゲージメントを特定し、優先順位を決定する正式なプロセスが貴社にあるかどうか示してください。

05.2. 協働的エンゲージメントを特定し、優先順位を決定する際に使用する基準を説明してください。

05.3. 補足情報 [任意]

MN only takes part in collaborative engagement opportunities if companies and/or E,S,G themes were first prioritized according to the rules of our MN engagement policies. We work with others not only to conduct company engagement, but also to speak to industry organisations, (bilateral) government organisations and NGOs. If there is no match with the companies and/or themes on our MN engagement list, automatically there is no reason for us to participate.

When there is a match, collaborative engagement offers several efficiency benefits: sharing of workload and knowledge development. An important requirement to collaborative engagement is that we need to be convinced that the engagement can have substantial impact. More assets under management often means more impact. A  group of investors supporting the same standard/benchmarks more easily convinces parties of the urgency to implement change.

We take part in a considerable number of collaborative engagement working groups but the level of involvement can be different for each working group. For some groups we are in the lead for a few companies and contribute to the work of others on other companies. For other workers groups we are part of developing a new E,S,G, framework to evaluate complete industries. For some theme’s the collaborative engagement is formalized under the umbrella of the PRI and IIGCC, for other work streams it is just an informal group of investors regularly working together on the same themes.

See examples of collaborative initiatives that we participate in see the answers to question SG: 09.1

LEA 06. Objectives for engagement activities

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

06.1. 貴社が関与する協働的なエンゲージメントに目的が定義されているかどうか示してください。

06.2. 貴社の協働的なエンゲージメントを受けた企業の行動を監視しているかどうか示してください。

06.3. 協働エンゲージメント活動に関連したマイルストーンと目標を貴社で定義しているかどうか示してください。

06.4. 貴社のエンゲージメント活動の進捗を監視し、評価するために以下のいずれかを実施しているかどうか示してください。

06.5. 補足情報 [任意]

As mentioned in LEA 05.3, we only participate in collaborative engagement projects if the companies and themes were already prioritized by our MN engagement policies. As such there is no difference between evaluating the insights gained from individual and/or collaborative engagement trajectories. MN sets for all engagement activities specific milestones and goals, and tracks its progress continuously.

For instance in the case of collaborative work with the PRI working groups, we see similarities in the way the working group is evaluating companies and the way we would assess the company according to MN policies. In there is an established match, it makes sense for us to join the PRI working group and also adopt the existing PRI scorecard as the basis of setting milestones and goals. As such, collaborative engagements are registered and tracked in the same database as individual engagements. However, if there exists a difference in opinion, our individual assessments will always prevail any collaborative assessments.  The way we work on collaborative engagement projects is that we agree on assessment methodology, we conduct meetings together, but eventually all parties involved are always entitled to their own opinions and (final) evaluations.