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

Church of England Pensions Board

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:

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

The Church of England Pensions Board jointly with the Church Commissioners resource an in-house Engagement Team. It is important to prioritise our engagement interventions in line with our capacity and ability to seek genuine change in corporate practices and behaviour. Our approach distinguishes engagement interventions into six categories:

  • Catalytic Engagement: A significant strategic intervention on a policy issue that seeks to influence both company behaviour as well as the wider investment community. Likely to be resource intensive and high profile.
  • Church Collaborative: Via the Church Investors Group (CIG) to pool some of our engagement capacity with other UK Church Investors to work on four commonly agreed engagement priorities. 
  • Investor Collaborative: Led by other asset owners/managers and we work collaboratively on an issue relating to a number of companies or a particular issue relating to a single company’s behaviour.
  • Church Specific: Specific bespoke Church policy working as three National Investing Bodies. Requires capacity either through our screening provider or consultancy support to independently assess company responses against engaged criteria.
  • Monitoring: We maintain a monitoring engagement brief on a particular policy.
  • Intensive: This category is reserved for instances when there is a particular event that falls outside of our planned engagement activities.

 

01.5. Additional information [optional]


LEA 02. Reasoning for interaction on ESG issues

02.1. Indicate the method of engagement, giving reasons for the interaction.

Type of engagement

Reason for interaction

Individual/Internal staff engagements

Collaborative engagements

Service provider engagements

02.2. Additional information. [Optional]


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]

The first priority of engagement stems from our own policies. These policies are developed by an advisory group - the Church of England Ethical Investment Advisory Group (EIAG). The EIAG's membership ranges from a senior Bishop, to leading theologians, to the Chief Executives of the Church of England's National Investing Bodies (including the Pensions Board and Church Commissioners), to other expertise. 

A number of the policies that are developed require engagement as a key aspect of implementation. For example, the responsible alcohol policy, climate change policy, corporate tax policy etc.  Trustee bodies will consider the prioritisation of engagement and the focus given to each area.  We also use our voting template to address a number of the engagement objectives.

Where we can effectively collaborate, either as a Church Investor, or with other non-church funds we seek to do so in line with our priorities.  We continue to play a leading role in the Church Investors Group and actively contribute to the prioritisation of issues that are engaged upon each year. This includes issues ranging from modern day slavery, water resilience, tax transparency and climate change.

Finally, we undertake intensive engagement as issues become apparent during the year such as concerns relating to the way a particular company may be acting or the response to a particular incident.


LEA 04. Objectives for engagement activities

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

04.1. Indicate if you define specific objectives for your engagement activities.

04.2. Indicate if you monitor the actions that companies take following your engagements.

04.3. Indicate whether your organisation defines milestones and goals for engagement activities carried out by internal staff.

04.4. Indicate if you do any of the following to monitor and evaluate the progress of your engagement activities carried out by internal staff.

04.5. Additional information. [Optional]

In each engagement we look to record and set clear objectives - although some engagements may be exploratory to begin with before we establish clear objectives.  We have developed our own internal data-base and monitoring system to track progress.  In each policy area that we are engaging on we have a specific over-arching objective that focusses our engagement 'asks' of the company.  For example, in developing our engagement strategy for climate change we have engaged academic expertise from the London School of Economics Grantham Research Institute to develop a climate change transition pathway for major companies in energy intensive sectors.  Together we have been developing along with other Asset Owners and with the support of FTSE Russell a clear framework to transparently assess company progress on i) management quality and ii) future projected carbon performance.  The Transition Pathway Initiative (TPI) has been a major undertaking and seeks to provide a transparent framework for undertaking engagement and guiding our future voting decisions on climate change. 


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]

As already stated we use our policies to determine our engagement priorities and thereafter assess the most effective way that we can support engagement to make genuine change in company behaviour.


LEA 06. Objectives for engagement activities

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

06.1. Indicate if you define specific objectives for your engagement activities carried out collaboratively.

06.2. Indicate if you monitor the actions companies take following your collaborative engagements.

06.3. Indicate whether your organisation defines milestones and goals related to engagement activities carried out via collaborations.

06.4. Indicate if you do any of the following to monitor and evaluate the progress of your collaborative engagement activities.

06.5. Additional information. [Optional]

Where the Pensions Board are part of a systematic engagement programme then monitoring and evaluation will be by the collaborative group in the first instance. We will actively participate in this process ensuring clear focus and objective. The systematic collaborative programme in which we participate will normally be subject to evaluation against external data - for example improvements in CDP or FTSE ESG ratings. In the case of the Church Investors Group climate change programme the effectiveness of the engagement programme has been evaluated academically and independently by the University of Edinburgh.

In addition the Engagement Team will assess against their own expectations the effectiveness of collaborative engagements. This will determine the prioritisation of engagement resources and input into the respective initiative. We also are conscious that we can maximize our impact through effective targeting of our engagement and participation.

Over the past year on climate change we have developed a major undertaking - The Transition Pathway Initiative (TPI) to have a transparent and academically robust tool to assess company performance against which we will target our engagement with other asset owners.


General processes for all three groups of engagers

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


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]

The number of engagements is also disclosed in both the Board's Annual Report and previously in the Annual Report of the EIAG (which also describes the topics around which engagement was based).


Outputs and outcomes

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


LEA 12. Engagement methods (Private)


LEA 13. Engagements on E, S and/or G issues

13.1. Indicate if your engagements in the reporting year covered E, S and/or G issues, providing an estimation of the breakdown.

Individual / Internal staff engagements

40 % Environmental only
20 % Social only
30 % Corporate Governance only
10 % Overlapping ESG issues
Total 100%

Collaborative engagements

20 % Environmental only
20 % Social only
40 % Corporate Governance only
20 % Overlapping ESG issues
Total 100%

13.2. Additional information. [optional]


LEA 14. Companies changing practices / behaviour following engagement (Private)


LEA 15. Examples of ESG engagements (Private)


Communication

LEA 16. Disclosure of approach to ESG engagements

16.1. Indicate whether your organisation proactively discloses information on its engagements.

16.2. Indicate if the information disclosed to the public is the same as that disclosed to clients/beneficiaries.

16.3. Indicate what engagement information your organisation proactively discloses to clients/beneficiaries and/or the public.

Engagement information disclosed

16.4. Indicate how frequently you report engagements information.

16.8. Additional information. [Optional]

Detail about our engagements by type/topic is included in the annual report, in addition to the information disclosed during the year as part of ongoing specific engagements that may attract media attention.

Further information about engagement is reported on a bi-annual basis to trustees.


Top