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

METROPOLE Gestion

PRI reporting framework 2019

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

(委任状による)議決権行使および株主決議

LEA 12. Typical approach to (proxy) voting decisions

12.1. (委任状による)議決権行使を通常どのように決定しているかを明示して下さい。

アプローチ

以下に基づいて行う

12.2. 合意された議決権ポリシーがどのように遵守されているかを概観し、ポリシーの例外が適用された場合(該当する場合)のアプローチの詳細を示してください。

METROPOLE Gestion believes that exercising voting rights is an essential part of the relationship between a listed company and its shareholders. We are in a position to exercise voting rights in all companies in our portfolio.

Our voting policy sets out the principles applied by METROPOLE Gestion when exercising voting rights. It does not cover every situation that may arise. We examine all proposed resolutions and decide how we will vote, in the sole interest of our clients and in line with the principles and recommendations issued by the AFG (French asset management association) or locally accepted best practice. We then vote using the ISS voting service.

As a signatory of the UN PRI (United Nations' Principles for Responsible Investment), we ensure that our voting policy is consistent with the environmental, social and governance criteria set out in our Transparency Code, which is available on our website. 

We reserve the right not to vote in certain specific cases, when voting would not be in our clients' interest. For example, when shares would be blocked for a long period of time if we exercised our voting rights, restricting fund managers' freedom of movement. 

When requested, we inform clients how we have exercised voting rights. As required by the AMF's General Regulation, we draw up an annual report within four months of the end of each financial year, which describes voting during the previous year. This report can be viewed on our website or at the registered office.

It is our philosophy to support the management teams of the companies in which we have invested.

We actively analyse all resolutions put to the vote.

12.3. 補足情報[任意]


LEA 13. Percentage of voting recommendations reviewed (Not Applicable)


LEA 14. Securities lending programme (Private)


LEA 15. Informing companies of the rationale of abstaining/voting against management

15.1. 報告年度内に関与した議決権行使のうち、貴社、または貴社の代理を務めるサービスプロバイダーが議決権行使に先立って企業に懸念を表明したものの割合を示してください。

15.2. これらの企業に対し、議決権行使に先立って懸念を表明した理由を示してください。

15.3. 補足情報 [任意]


LEA 16. Informing companies of the rationale of abstaining/voting against management

16.1. 報告年度内に関与した議決権行使のうち、貴社または貴社の代理を務めるサービスプロバイダーが、議決権行使を棄権する場合、または経営陣の提案に反対票を投じる場合に、当該企業にその根拠を伝えたものの割合を示してください。

16.2. 貴社が議決権行使を棄権する場合、または経営陣の提案に反対票を投じる場合に、企業にその根拠を伝える理由を示してください。

その他(説明してください)

          We communicate the rationale upon company request or in the context of our engagement Policy (systematically).
        

16.3. 貴社が議決権行使を棄権するまたは経営陣の提案に反対票を投じる根拠を伝える場合、この根拠を公表しているか示してください。

16.4. 補足情報[任意]


LEA 17. Percentage of (proxy) votes cast

17.1. 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

17.2. 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:

17.3. 補足情報[任意]


LEA 18. Proportion of ballot items that were for/against/abstentions

18.1. 貴社または貴社の代理を務め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示してください。

18.2. 貴社または貴社の代理を務める第三者が出した議決権行使に係る指示のうち、各投票項目の占める割合を示してください。

議決権行使に係る指示の対象
投票の内訳(%)
経営陣の提案に対する賛成票
85 %
経営陣の提案に対する反対票
15 %
棄権
0 %
100%

18.3. 貴社が経営陣の提案に対する反対票を投じたケースにおいて、貴社がエンゲージメントを行った企業の占める割合を示してください。

100

18.4. 補足情報 [任意]


LEA 19. Proportion of ballot items that were for/against/abstentions

19.1. 不首尾に終わった議決権行使後の正式なエスカレーション戦略が貴社にあるか示してください。

19.3. 補足情報 [任意]


LEA 20. Shareholder resolutions

20.1. 貴社が報告年度中に、直接もしくはサービスプロバイダーを介して、ESG株主決議を提出または共同提出したか示してください。

20.6. 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。

20.7. 補足情報[任意] 


LEA 21. Examples of (proxy) voting activities

21.1. 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トピック
Executive Remuneration|Company leadership issues|Other governance
意思決定者
目的

Since our approach is designed to encourage companies to improve their practices, we also engage with them ahead of General Meetings in order to address, and even influence, the content of resolutions to appear on the agenda. In this way we can ensure that this content is aligned with minority shareholder interests and complies with our principles of governance.

Capgemini example: as part of the succession plan for Group Chairman and CEO Paul Hermelin, Capgemini decided to appoint two Chief Operating Officers (Aiman Ezzat and Thierry Delaporte) for a period of three years, only one of whom would be confirmed in the role at the end of this period. To insure against the unsuccessful candidate departing immediately to a rival firm, the Group invited shareholders to vote on a severance package in return for a non-compete clause. We took issue with the company on:

The dual succession plan, which we considered less than optimal.

The conditions for the granting of the severance package, which lacked transparency.

Our dialogue with the company provided us with a clearer understanding of the Group's motivations and justifications. Ultimately, we voted in favour of this controversial resolution at the shareholder meeting.

対象範囲およびプロセス

Discussion ahead of General Meetings in order to address, and even influence, the content of resolutions to appear on the agenda.

結果
ESGトピック
Company leadership issues|General ESG
意思決定者
目的

Since our approach is designed to encourage companies to improve their practices, we also engage with them ahead of General Meetings in order to address, and even influence, the content of resolutions to appear on the agenda. In this way we can ensure that this content is aligned with minority shareholder interests and complies with our principles of governance.

Total example: we held discussions with Total on a number of resolutions that caught our attention (see details in the scope and process section).

対象範囲およびプロセス

We held discussions with Total on a number of resolutions that caught our attention:

Reappointment of Patrick Pouyanné as Chairman and CEO: the company argued that a single individual with combined powers constituted an advantage in the strategic negotiations characteristic of the sector, and emphasised the presence of a senior independent director. We therefore voted in favour of this resolution.

Capital increase by private placement: we made clear to the Group, as to any other company submitting a similar resolution, our opposition in principle, since such measures are dilutive for existing shareholders. We therefore voted against this resolution.

Change in the rules for election of the employee representative (shareholder resolution): this proposal limited the rights of any employee to stand for election to this position. We therefore voted against this resolution.

結果

21.2. 補足情報[任意]


Top