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

Strathclyde Pension Fund

PRI reporting framework 2017

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. 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%)

99 %

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]

Managers might not vote proxies in markets where tendering shares to vote entails their being blocked from trading during the voting periods. We now see this very infrequently and tends to effect only small companies in emerging markets.


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
89 %
Against (opposing) management recommendations
10 %
Abstentions
1 %
100%

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

          The Fund's managers will conduct follow engagement with companies where votes have been cast against management. The managers are instructed to communicate the reason for the vote against and suggest actions/changes to avoid a repeat. Where the officers are voting against management the follow-up is typically an additional phase in a collaborative engagement or initiative.
        

24.4. Additional information. [Optional]

LAPFF recommended voting ‘For’ the shareholder recommendations filed with Anglo American, ExxonMobil, Glencore, Chevron, and Sports Direct.

LAPFF recommended opposing the resolution to approve the remuneration report at WPP


LEA 25. Shareholder resolutions

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

25.1. Indicate if your organisation directly or via a service provider filed or co-filed any ESG shareholder resolutions during the reporting year.

25.6. Additional information. [Optional]

LAPFF encouraged member funds to co-file at four companies in total - the strategic resolutions received between 96 and 99% of the vote in support. The Sports Direct resolution received a vote in support from over half of independent shareholders.

Three were co-filed through LAPFF’s involvement in co-filing the strategic resilience resolutions to Anglo American, Rio Tinto and Glencore, and one was co-filed by a LAPFF fund with Sports Direct. LAPFF supported a shareholder resolution with National Express that was not accepted onto the AGM agenda.

The Fund voted in support of these.


LEA 26. Examples of (proxy) voting activities

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

26.1. Provide examples of the (proxy) voting activities that your organisation and/or service provider carried out during the reporting year.

Topic or ESG issue
          Environment
        
Decision made by
Objectives

Strategic resilience resolution to encourage companies to set out their  strategic approach to global climate and energy challenges

Scope and Process

Voted in favour of the strategic resilience reporting

Outcomes

Company engagement and some company commitments to change their strategy analyses and reporting to account for a two degree scenario

Topic or ESG issue
          Social
        
Decision made by
Objectives

Support resolution calling for independent human capital management assessment

Scope and Process

Voted in support of this resolution on the grounds that the Company was not adequately taking measures to protect labour rights in the workplace and were not reporting adequately on the issue of workplace rights and zero hour contracts

Outcomes

Subsequent request for engagement with the Company to further encourage action on this issue

Topic or ESG issue
          Governance
        
Decision made by
Objectives

Dividend policy as it relates to climate change

Scope and Process

Advised voting in favour of dividend policy to increase the amount authorised for capital distribution to shareholders in light of the growing potential for stranded assets and decreasing profitability associated with capital expenditures on high cost, unconventional projects.

Outcomes

Sufficient support to re-file in subsequent year

Topic or ESG issue
          Governance - Remuneration
        
Decision made by
Objectives

vote against the remuneration report at BP

Scope and Process

Scale back bonus payments and Long Term Incentive awards to Executive Directors during the year.

Outcomes

The remuneration report was defeated with 59% of shareholders voting against and 4% abstaining. Since the vote, the manager has engaged with the Remuneration Committee Chairman regarding its policy.

Topic or ESG issue
          Governance - Remuneration
        
Decision made by
Objectives

vote against remuneration proposals for the new CEO

Scope and Process

vote against remuneration proposals for the new CEO at Telecom Italia Group  due to concerns over the size and structure of payments which could total €40m by 2019

Outcomes

The scheme received one of the highest levels of dissent seen in Italy this proxy season with 38% of shareholders voting against the proposal. The manager have further meetings with Telecom Italia planned and will continue dialogue with the company.

26.2. Additional information. [Optional]


Top