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

Perpetual Investments

PRI reporting framework 2019

You are in Direct - Listed Equity Active Ownership » Engagement


LEA 02. Reasoning for interaction on ESG issues

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

02.4. Additional information. [Optional]

Perpetual has sufficient internal resources to not require collaborative or service provider engagements. Collaborative engagements can also be problematic due to regulatory restrictions, differences in objectives/timeframes and/or proprietary reasons.

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 engagements.

03.3. Additional information. [Optional]

We continue to note this indicator is not helpful in communicating how Perpetual undertakes corporate engagement.

This indicator may be valid for a small fund manager or asset owner with limited ESG engagement resources (i.e. who needs to prioritise), or for a signatory with a separate ESG engagement team (i.e. with priorities that may differ from investment decision-makers as per below).

However, Perpetual's engagement activities (including ESG) are an integrated part of our large equity team's investment process. Having our investment decision-makers engage directly (where it is material and relevant to their analysis and investment decision-making), rather than use a separate ESG team, we strongly believe to be more valid and effective. That is because the 'change message' is being communicated to the company by the same individuals who control our buy/sell/hold decision (i.e. whether to provide or withdraw capital to the company). Clearly this will increase the motivation of company Boards/management to consider change. We engage on this 'bottom-up', company-by-company basis as needed, rather than running 'top-down' ESG 'campaigns' on the same issue across multiple companies at the same time.

Therefore, for us it is unnecessary and impractical to institute 'a formal process for identifying and prioritising engagement activities' as per this question. This would mean in practise our equity professionals debating the worth of their respective proposed company engagements against other equity professionals' proposed engagements. We doubt any equity team would manage money in this way as it is unproductive. 

LEA 04. Objectives for engagement activities

New selection options have been added to this indicator. Please review your prefilled responses carefully.
Indicate whether you define specific objectives for your organisation’s engagement activities.
Individual / Internal engagements

04.2. Additional information. [Optional]

There is no point in engaging without an objective.

LEA 05. Process for identifying and prioritising collaborative engagement

Indicate if you monitor and/or review engagement outcomes.
Individual / Internal engagements
Indicate if you do any of the following to monitor and review the progress of engagement activities.
Individual / Internal staff engagements

05.3. Additional information [Optional]

Where applicable we undertake one or more of the above actions

LEA 06. Role in engagement process

06.1. Indicate whether your organisation has an escalation strategy when engagements are unsuccessful.

06.2. Indicate the escalation strategies used at your organisation following unsuccessful engagements.

          Expressing concerns through the company's advisers, other directors and/or management

06.3. Additional information. [Optional]

We may use one or more of the above escalation strategies to exercise our influence.

LEA 07. Share insights from engagements with internal/external managers

07.1. Indicate whether insights gained from your organisation's engagements are shared with investment decision-makers.

Type of engagement

Insights shared

Individual / Internal staff engagements

07.2. Indicate the practices used to ensure information and insights collected through engagements are shared with investment decision-makers.

07.3. Indicate whether insights gained from your organisation’s engagements are shared with your clients/beneficiaries.

Type of engagement

Insights shared

Individual/Internal staff engagements

07.4. Additional information. [Optional]

Investment decisions and engagements are carries out by the same (equities) team at Perpetual. We have communications tools (e.g. Internal Research Notes) that are a systematic internal process for communicating engagement insights to the rest of the team. Other methods include regular team meetings, e-mails and other electronic communications, etc.

LEA 08. Tracking number of engagements

08.1. Indicate if you track the number of your engagement activities.

Type of engagement
Tracking engagements

Individual / Internal staff engagements

08.2. Additional information. [OPTIONAL]

It adds no value to our clients to track this information, and would practically be difficult.

Perpetual's analysts and portfolio managers participate in hundreds of company meetings a year, with listed companies themselves, related peers/suppliers and other relevant groups, on a broad range of ESG and non-ESG issues, at a range of forums, individually and collectively, and for both information-gathering and engagement purposes. We typically do not 'segregate' meetings by the above aims, nor by issue categorization (ESG and non-ESG) as this would be impractical.

Further, we believe it would be unworkable to impose a rigid, time-consuming process where it is mandatory for investment professionals to document every single company engagement point relating to every company. Analysts and portfolio managers share relevant, material ESG and other company information with the rest of the team via the IRN (Internal Research Note) and other systems/forums as needed. We see no value to our clients of tracking engagements in this manner.

We believe it is only reliable to highlight specific engagement examples and outcomes where we are confident we have had a degree of influence.