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

Universities Superannuation Scheme - USS

PRI reporting framework 2018

Export Public Responses
Pdf-img

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

成果および結果

LEA 21. Percentage of (proxy) votes cast

21.1. 貴社やサービスプロバイダーが(代理)投票の指示を発行するマンデートを有している上場株式について、報告年度中に行った投票の割合を記載してください。

1%単位の投票率

98 %

この投票率の計算基準を明記してください

21.2. 一定の株式保有分について議決権を行使しない理由を説明して下さい:

          USS does not vote holdings sold between the record date and the date of the shareholder meeting (i.e. we avoid empty voting).
        

21.3. Additional information. [Optional]


LEA 22. Proportion of ballot items that were for/against/abstentions

22.1. あなたの貴社では、貴社や貴社に代わって行動するサービスプロバイダーが出した議決権行使に係る指示を追跡しているかどうか明示してください。

22.2. 貴社または貴社の代理である第3者機関が出した議決権行使に係る指示について投票の割合を記載してください。

議決権行使に係る指示の対象
投票の内訳(%)
経営陣の議案に対する賛成票
67 %
経営陣の議案に対する反対票
24 %
棄権
9 %
100%

22.3. 経営陣の提案に反対票を投じた後にあなたの貴社が取る措置について記載して下さい。

          Please see our response under LEA 15.4 and 20.3
        

22.4. Additional information. [Optional]

In the twelve months ending December 2017, USS voted on 6,909 resolutions at 545 events at 472 companies (2016: 7,580 resolutions at 623 events at 521 companies).  

USS supported:

  • 38% of remuneration resolutions (44% in 2016)
  • 61% of auditor appointments (69% in 2016)
  • 52% of sustainability focussed resolutions (59% in 2016)
  • 40% of shareholder resolutions (45% in 2016)

USS voted “against” management’s recommendation on at least one resolution at 425 (90%) of companies (87% 2016).  Dissenting votes and comments for the engagement letters are discussed in advance with the relevant portfolio manager(s).

A letter outlining changes to USS’s UK voting policy was also sent to over 50 UK portfolio companies ahead of the proxy season (see SG 06.1)

With regard to the guidance note on abstentions, we are unable to identify where an abstention vote should be counted as a vote against.

Engagement letters are sent to companies ahead of the meetings in most instances, and translated into Japanese for our Japanese holdings. The letters detail the rationale behind our voting decisions, encourage improvements, and provide introductory information on USS’s approach to stewardship. Over the year, 255 engagement letters were sent to 239 companies (347 letters to 339 companies in 2016).


LEA 23. Shareholder resolutions

この指標には新しい設問が追加されています。事前に入力されている回答を精査してください。

 

23.1. 貴社が直接またはサービスプロバイダーを経由して報告年度にESG関連の株主決議を提出または共同提出したかどうかを明示してください。

23.2. 貴社が行ったまたは共同で行ったESG関連株主決議の数を記載してください。

1 合計

23.3. 以下の結果をもたらした、これらのESG関連株主決議の数の割合を記載してください。

議案に採用された

0 %
Were withdrawn due to changes at the company and/or negotiations with the company
100 %
Were withdrawn for other reasons
0 %
Were rejected/not acknowledged by the company
0 %
合計 100%

23.4. 貴社が提出または共同提出したESGの株式決議で議案に採用された(撤回されなかった)ものに対する賛成票の割合を選択してください。

50%超
20〜50%
20%未満

23.5. 貴社が提出または共同提出したESG関連の株主決議で、結果が達成されたものについて説明してください。

USS nominated its own candidate for supervisory board membership.  This resolution was ultimately withdrawn when the firm put forward their own candidate who was acceptable.

23.6. 貴社が他の投資家によって提出されたESG株主決議を審査するかどうかについて説明してください。

We give careful consideration to all shareholder resolutions including those related to environmental and social issues.  USS supported 40% of shareholder resolutions in 2017.

We pre-disclosed voting intentions for Charles Schwab, Exxon, Pioneer and Occidental.

23.7. Additional information. [Optional]


LEA 24. Examples of (proxy) voting activities

この指標には新しい設問が追加されています。事前に入力されている回答を精査してください。

24.1. 報告年度に貴社またはサービスプロバイダーが実行した(委任状による)議決権行使の例を提供してください。

ESG Factors
ESG問題
          Risk of Human Rights Violations and Political Instability
        
意思決定者
目的

Engagement call with IR and Sustainability team ahead of vote to establish our position on shareholder resolution requesting that the firm complete a Human rights risk report.  The shareholder resolution implied that the political situation in a country of their operations was deteriorating rapidly ahead of elections.

対象範囲およびプロセス

Call with IR and Sustainability team.

結果

The company were able to give the RI team comfort that the situation was under control and no worse than previous years when elections took place.  The company has a long history of operating successfully in the country. 

ESG Factors
ESG問題
          Lobbying undertaken by industry body
        
意思決定者
目的

To ensure that the company takes responsibility for lobbying undertaken on its behalf by industry bodies and has a mechanism in place to a) identify such lobbying, b) has a process in place to address such lobbying activity where it is inconsistent with the company's own position c) reviews the benefits associated with being a member of all industry bodies and d) reports this activity to shareholders. 

対象範囲およびプロセス

Supported shareholder resolution and participated in a collaborative engagement call with the firm.

結果

The company has produced a report that complies with the requests made in the shareholder resolution.

ESG Factors
ESG問題
          ESG Disclosure
        
意思決定者
目的

To encourage the firm to disclose material E&S data ahead of the company AGM so that this information can be integrated in voting decisions.  Such data is an essential component of integrated reporting.

対象範囲およびプロセス

Request for timely reporting included in voting engagement letter sent to Chairman.

結果

Requirements have been communicated to the company.  If adequate reporting is not forthcoming we will consider voting against report and accounts in future years.

ESG Factors
ESG問題
          Board Composition
        
意思決定者
目的

To encourage the firm to undertake a review of board composition.

対象範囲およびプロセス

Vote against election of directors.  Vote rationale communicated to Chairman via voting engagement letter.

結果

This has escalated to a collaborative engagement with the firm.

ESG Factors
ESG問題
          Overboarding
        
意思決定者
目的

Removal of overboarded director.

対象範囲およびプロセス

Vote against director in question.   Vote rationale communicated to Chairman via voting engagement letter.

結果

We are now engaging with the company on this issue.

ESG Factors
ESG問題
          Composition of Audit Committee
        
意思決定者
目的

Increase independence of the audit committee.

対象範囲およびプロセス

Vote against non-independent  audit committee members

結果

The company has agreed to move to an independent audit committee

ESG Factors
ESG問題
          Health & Safety
        
意思決定者
目的

To send a clear message to the company that we welcome the improvements in their sustainability reporting and improvements in their health & safety performance.  It is hoped that positive feedback such as this will help strengthen the mandate of the company's sustainability team and help maintain the company's commitment to this important agenda.   Thus securing the adequate levels of investment in terms of both time and money. 

対象範囲およびプロセス

Comments included in the voting engagement letter to the Chairman.

結果

It is hoped that health & safety performance will continue to improve in future years.

ESG Factors
ESG問題
          Bundled director elections
        
意思決定者
目的

The objective of the engagements, was to persuade Swedish companies to permit shareholders the opportunity to vote individually on director elections.

USS considers all directors should be held separately to account and put to a shareholder vote at least once every three years. The scheme does not support bundled or slate elections - where shareholders are only offered one vote to appoint all the directors standing for election on a management or supervisory board. We will raise this with companies when we engage and typically vote against such proposals.

Slate elections have been a particular concern in Sweden, where they remain fairly common.

対象範囲およびプロセス

This was a collaborative engagement (however there is no option to select this in the 'Conducted By' tab above).

USS supported an initiative led by a Dutch asset manager which identified 11 Swedish companies who have persisted with bundled slate elections, continuing to deny shareholders a vote on individual director elections.

The initiative built upon a previous letter in August 2015, to which USS was also a signatory. A letter was also sent at that time to the Chairman of the Swedish Corporate Governance Board, calling upon the body to address investor concerns about bundled director elections.

結果

Of the 40 companies written to in 2015, 17 companies had unbundled their director elections at their 2016 and 2017 AGMs - demonstrating the effectiveness of the engagement campaign.

We will monitor for the effectiveness of the 2017 letters in the 2018 proxy season.

24.2. Additional information. [Optional]

See answer to LEA 18.2 for an explanation as to how USS has integrated environmental and social decisions into voting.


Top