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

Nordea

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:

other description

          See our voting policy.
        

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.

Nordea Investment Funds (NIF) votes foremost at AGMs and EGMs where NIF represents a considerable shareholding. NIF participate in nomination committees for companies when invited usually when NIF is among 3-5 largest shareholders. In nomination committee capacity (member or chair), Nordea files relevant shareholder resolutions. Nordea files other types of shareholder resolutions as needed.

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).

Exceptions to the policy is made on an ad hoc basis and usually in dialoague with the company in question. It could for example be if the compay currently finds itself under extraordinary cicrumstances.


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]

For Nordic companies we use our own research and for non-Nordic companies we hire service providers which provide research and make voting recommendations that we use to inform our voting decisions.


LEA 19. Percentage of voting recommendations reviewed

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

19.1. Of the voting recommendations that your service provider made in the reporting year, indicate the percentage reviewed by your organisation, giving reasons.

Percentage of voting recommendations your organisation reviewed

Reasons for review

19.2. Additional information [Optional]


LEA 20. Confirmation of votes

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

20.1. Describe your involvement in any projects to improve the voting trail and/or to obtain vote confirmation .

          Proxy platform indicates any problem. Attending AGMs we ensure direct vote confirmation.
        

20.2. Additional information. [OPTIONAL]

          
        

LEA 21. Securities lending programme

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

21.1. Indicate if your organisation has a securities lending programme.

21.2. Indicate how voting is addressed in your securities lending programme.


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]

Depending on the size of our ownership, and/or the share owned of the company and/or other issues (media, ESG, etc) we discuss the relevant issue with representatives of the company in advance. At times if it warrented, in advance and/or after the vote, we discuss our decision with the company in question.


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%)

52 %

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

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

          It depends on a number of factors. In many cases we engage with companies before the AGM to inform our intention to vote no. At other time we inform that we intend to vote no in the future if they do not change specific paramaters of the proposal, and then do so the coming season. We strive to have an active contact with companies on issues that are especially important to us.
        

24.4. Additional information. [Optional]


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.

25.2. Indicate the number of ESG shareholder resolutions you filed or co-filed.

3 Total number

25.3. Indicate what percentage of these ESG shareholder resolutions resulted in the following.

Went to vote

100 %
Were withdrawn due to changes at the company and/or negotiations with the company
0 %

Were withdrawn for other reasons

0 %
Were rejected/not acknowledged by the company
0 %
Total 100%

25.4. Of the ESG shareholder resolutions that you filed or co-filed and that were put to vote (i.e. not withdrawn) how many received:

3 >50%
50-20%
<20%

25.5. Describe the ESG shareholder resolutions that you filed or co-filed and the outcomes achieved.

Aiming for A, mining resolutions

25.6. Additional information. [Optional]


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
          Capital policy
        
Decision made by
Objectives

Updating institutions on Nordeas capital policy

Scope and Process

We vote on thousands of different issues, and we always have the finally decision point in house. We also engage with companies to make them amend suggestions before the AGM. For example did we write letters to a number of institutions last year updating them on our capital policy, and made recommendations for a more limited approach in the 2016 season.

Outcomes

  Some folloewd our recommendation, other did not, and we hence voted against.

26.2. Additional information. [Optional]


Communication

LEA 27. Disclosing voting activities

27.1. Indicate if your organisation proactively discloses information on your voting activities.

27.8. Additional information. [Optional]

The Corporate Governance policy, which includes guidelines for our voting activities, is available on our web site.


Top