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


PRI reporting framework 2019

Export Public Responses

You are in Direct - Listed Equity Active Ownership » Outputs and outcomes

Outputs and outcomes

LEA 09. Number of companies engaged with, intensity of engagement and effort

Indicate the proportion of companies from your listed equities portfolio with which your organisation engaged with during the reporting year.
We did not complete any engagements in the reporting year.

Number of companies engaged

(avoid double counting, see explanatory notes)

Proportion of companies engaged with, out of total listed equities portfolio

Individual / Internal staff engagements


Collaborative engagements


09.2. Indicate the proportion breakdown of engagements conducted within the reporting year by the number of interactions (including interactions made on your behalf)

No. of interactions with a company
% of engagements
One interaction
2 to 3 interactions
More than 3 interactions

09.3. Indicate the percentage of your collaborative engagements for which you were a leading organisation during the reporting year.

Type of engagement

% Leading role

  Collaborative engagements

09.5. Additional information. [Optional]

As investors in the food sector, we believe that the scale of supply chain risks in intensive livestock systems make sustainable agriculture practices necessary, but not sufficient, to ensure the sector’s long-term viability. Companies in the food sector must undertake a comprehensive, global, evidence-based approach to diversify their protein offerings, both to mitigate supply chain risks and to capitalise on changing consumer trends.  In line with this, we supported FAIRR’s collaborative initiative and engaged with companies to encourage them to disclose information about their strategy and tracking and reporting on protein diversification.

We are involved in ShareAction’s Workforce Disclosure Initiative (WDI), which seeks to improve data from listed companies on how they manage workers in their direct operations and supply chains. We engaged with close to 50 companies, encouraging them to complete the WDI survey.

LEA 10. Engagement methods

10.1. Indicate which of the following your engagement involved.


          ESG research

10.2. Additional information. [Optional]

LEA 11. Examples of ESG engagements

11.1. Provide examples of the engagements that your organisation or your service provider carried out during the reporting year.

ESG Topic
Climate Change
Conducted by

To provide board members of the companies in which we invest with an overview of the tangible business and profitability implications of climate change.  

Scope and Process

We organised an educational event on climate change for the board members of the companies in which we invest. We felt many directors, especially outside of the resources sectors, lacked knowledge on the sizeable risks facing businesses across all sectors from climate transition risks. The internal tools we developed, such as the Climate Progress Dashboard and Carbon Value At Risk model, focus on the tangible business and profitability implications of climate change for companies in terms business leaders recognise and understand.

We explained our analysis of risks and opportunities, and the gap between winners and losers. We worked with CDP to clarify what disclosure would be helpful, in particular given the TCFD.

The event was an excellent chance to engage with board members. Most of our ESG engagements tend to be with investor relations employees or senior board members when many other board members feel they do not understand investors’ views. We received great feedback and several attendees have requested the materials to share with colleagues.

We will of course continue to evaluate our approach to both voting and engagement to ensure we foster the right culture of challenge and accountability on these increasingly important issues with investee companies.

ESG Topic
Climate Change
Conducted by

To seek more clarity on the steps companies are taking to mitigate the physical risks of climate change and to encourage better disclosure.

Scope and Process

Most climate analysis focuses on the impacts of steps to limit temperature rises, such as carbon prices or clean energy investment. Physical risks, on the other hand, have received less attention. That oversight is remiss; the impacts are lower, but they are also more certain. Temperature rises lag increases in GHG concentrations in the atmosphere by around 40 years, meaning that even if emissions stopped tomorrow, the earth’s average temperature would likely rise by a further 0.6 degrees. Further disruption from the effects of changing weather patterns therefore looks unavoidable, meaning bigger risks to physical assets and infrastructure.

Our Sustainable Investment team developed a proprietary model to help our analysts and fund managers measure and manage the physical risks climate change poses. The model estimates what it would cost companies to insure against physical damage caused by climate change for the approximate remaining life of their assets.

Following our research, we engaged with a number of our holdings in the materials, utilities, telcos and industrials sectors to understand how they are planning to mitigate physical risk.

ESG Topic
Health and Safety
Conducted by

To improve reporting and transparency around the five key principles outlined in our Sugar, Obesity and Non-Communicable diseases expectations document: Governance; Strategy; Implementation; Public policy position & lobbying; and Demonstrating progress.

Scope and Process

We contacted the companies in which we are invested as part of our ongoing sugar roundtable project to communicate our investor expectations and ask for greater transparency. The fundamental aim behind the investor expectations is to better understand what food & beverage companies are doing to in response to the global rise in obesity and noncommunicable diseases. Our research has shown that the sector is exposed to increased regulation, changing consumer behaviour and greater scrutiny from public health bodies. We sought to better understand how companies are responding to these risks and opportunities to identify between leaders and laggards and reflect this in our company valuations.

ESG Topic
Human rights
Conducted by

To get the company to develop a policy and processes to mitigate the risk of conflict minerals in their supply chain.

Scope and Process

Conflict minerals have become a source of funding for armed groups, leading to human rights violations and environmental destruction, while threatening to promote further conflict. These minerals are widely used in electronic and electric products

In 2017, we engaged with an Asian semiconductor manufacturer.  Given the company’s strong electronics exposure, conflict minerals are an area of risk to their business. We therefore asked the company to develop a policy and processes to mitigate this risk.

The company now has a Conflicts Mineral Policy, requiring all suppliers to comply with the EICC. It only purchases from environmentally and socially responsible suppliers and now also disclosures where it sources its four main metals.


11.2. Additional information. [Optional]