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

Pensioenfonds Vervoer

PRI reporting framework 2019

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

(Proxy) voting and shareholder resolutions

LEA 12. Typical approach to (proxy) voting decisions

12.1. Indicate how you typically make your (proxy) voting decisions.

Approach

Based on

12.2. 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.

PF Vervoer engages the services of Glass Lewis to get advise on upcoming votes and uses their systems to vote. PF Vervoer has a custom made matrix based on the PF Vervoer voting policy. This matrix is used to determine how PF Vervoer votes on the agenda items at hand. If the matris fails to adres an issue, the agenda items is flaged to PF Vervoer and the item is voted manually by the pensioenfond itself in the system. PF Vervoer gets quarterly reports by Glass Lewis on how the fund has voted. PF Vervoer can check per AGM how the votes where cast and if it corresponds to the funds voting policy.

12.3. Additional information.[Optional]

For manual votes (see LEA 12.2) Hermes EOS provides PF Vervoer with voting recommendations based on our voting policy which are input on the voting platform prior to the vote deadline. The voting recommendations are then cast as voting instructions if there is no further intervention, except in the case of shareblocking votes.


LEA 13. Percentage of voting recommendations reviewed

13.1. 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

13.2. Additional information [Optional]


LEA 14. Securities lending programme (Private)


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

15.1. Indicate the proportion of votes where you or the service providers acting on your behalf have raised concerns with companies ahead of voting.

15.2. Indicate the reasons for raising your concerns with these companies ahead of voting.

Explain

          In order to help progress engagement (driving change), as well as to help clarify matters at hand to inform better voting decisions
        

15.3. Additional information. [Optional]

Our voting recommendation and engagement provider Hermes EOS usually interacts ahead of meetings and as a result of concerns around the vote or an anticipated vote against management.


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

16.1. Indicate the proportion of votes participated in within the reporting year in which, you and/or the service provider(s) acting on your behalf, have communicated to companies the rationale for abstaining or voting against management recommendations.

16.4. Additional information. [Optional]


LEA 17. Percentage of (proxy) votes cast

17.1. 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%)

100 %

Specify the basis on which this percentage is calculated

17.3. Additional information. [Optional]


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

18.1. Indicate if you track the voting instructions that you and/or your service provider on your behalf have issued.

18.2. 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%

18.3. In cases where your organisation voted against management recommendations, indicate the percentage of companies you have engaged.

0

18.4. Additional information. [Optional]

PF Vervoer has outscourced Voting to Glass Lewis. In terms of Issuer Engagement, Glass Lewis do not engage directly on behalf of Vervoer. However, as part of its issuer engagement policy, Glass Lewis directly engages with issuers on an annual basis.
In 2018, Glass Lewis conducted over 1,700 engagement meetings and calls globally across all of our research teams, an increase of 23.4% in total engagements over 2017. We also fielded over 3,200 individual inquiries and requests from companies. The largest increases in 2018 were driven by the U.S. research team (453 meetings in 2018, versus 276 in 2017; a 56% increase) and Canadian team (77 meetings in 2018, versus 40 in 2017; a 92.5% increase). In Europe, Glass Lewis held approximately 712 meetings with European companies in 2018, a 27.6% increase over prior year. A couple markets had slight decreases in total number of engagement meetings in 2018; specifically, in Asian markets we held 79 meetings in 2018, versus 87 in 2017, and our Australia/New Zealand/South Africa team held 268 meetings in 2018, versus 306 meetings in 2017.

PF Vervoer has outscourced Engagement to Hermes EOS.

 


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

19.1. Indicate whether your organisation has a formal escalation strategy following unsuccessful voting.

19.3. Additional information. [Optional]

Glass Lewis delivers vote decisions, as instructed by PF Vervoer, to the appropriate recipient (e.g. distributor, custodian, tabulator or issuer). In the case where Glass Lewis delivers the vote instruction and following this they are advised that a vote has been rejected, Glass Lewis will notify PF Vervoer of the vote rejection accordingly.


LEA 20. Shareholder resolutions (Private)


LEA 21. Examples of (proxy) voting activities (Private)


Top