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

C WorldWide Asset Management

PRI reporting framework 2020

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 that your agreed-upon voting policy is adhered to, giving details of your approach when exceptions to the policy are made.

Our voting policy clearly describes how we vote and in which cases. We ensure that our agreed-upon voting policy is adhered to by ensuring that our policy is fully aligned with our investment process (both portfolio management and fundamental research) and is thus an integral part of the ongoing review of the companies we are invested in.

We have not experienced cases where we had to make exceptions to our policy.

12.3. Additional information.[Optional]


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


LEA 14. Securities lending programme

14.1. Does your organisation have a securities lending programme?

14.2. Describe why your organisation does not lend securities.

It is not part of the overall business strategy of our organisation.

14.4. Additional information. [Optional]


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

15.1. Indicate the proportion of votes participated in within the reporting year in which where you or the service providers acting on your behalf raised concerns with companies ahead of voting.

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

15.3. Additional information. [Optional]


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

16.1. Indicate the proportion of votes where you, and/or the service provider(s) acting on your behalf, communicated the rationale to companies for abstaining or voting against management recommendations. Indicate this as a percentage out of all eligible votes.

16.2. Indicate the reasons why your organisation would communicate to companies, the rationale for abstaining or voting against management recommendations.

16.3. In cases where your organisation does communicate the rationale for abstaining or voting against management recommendations, indicate whether this rationale is made public.

16.4. Additional information. [Optional]


LEA 17. Percentage of (proxy) votes cast

17.1. For listed equities in which you 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%)

81 %

Specify the basis on which this percentage is calculated

17.2. Explain your reason(s) for not voting on certain holdings

17.3. Additional information. [Optional]

Even though our proportion of votes cast has increased significantly during 2019, there are instances were certain instances where we did not vote. This could e.g. be that the costs associated with the voting is too high compared to the position of the investee company, or that that increased requirements for documents is too large compared to the stock or market position.


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

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

18.2. Of the voting instructions that you and/or third parties on your behalf have issued, indicate the proportion of ballot items that were:

Voting instructions
Breakdown as percentage of votes cast
For (supporting) management recommendations
90 %
Against (opposing) management recommendations
7 %
Abstentions
3 %
100%

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

35

18.4. Additional information. [Optional]


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.

19.2. Indicate the escalation strategies used at your organisation following abstentions and/or votes against management.

19.3. Additional information. [Optional]


LEA 20. Shareholder resolutions

20.1. Indicate whether your organisation, directly or through a service provider, filed or co-filed any ESG shareholder resolutions during the reporting year.

20.7. Additional information. [Optional]


LEA 21. Examples of (proxy) voting activities

21.1. Provide examples of the (proxy) voting activities that your organisation and/or service provider carried out during the reporting year.

ESG Topic
Company leadership issues|Other governance
Conducted by
Objectives

Independent board chairman

Scope and Process

This item is generally an issue for American companies. We fundamentally believe that the best management requires the CEO and the Chairman roles to be separate why we support agenda items that suggest this independence.

Outcomes
ESG Topic
Human rights|General ESG|Diversity|Health and Safety|Sustainability reporting
Conducted by
Objectives

Transparency in ESG matters

Scope and Process

Through voting we try to influence the company to change some of their practices especially within ESG matters such as transparency and to have the companies report on specific issues such as diversity, lobbying, sexual harassment, and climate change.

 

Outcomes
ESG Topic
Climate Change|Pollution
Conducted by
Objectives

Energy sector

Increased disclosure on pollution and climate related risks.

 

Scope and Process

Although climate related risks are typically already discussed in annual reports for companies in this sector, there remains room for improvements when it comes to additional disclosures. This is therefore something we focus on, but sometimes shareholder proposals have a hint of micromanagement. In such cases, we typically would agree with management that e.g. separate committees do not necessarily improve risk management regarding establishing environmental board oversight. As well we for propose companies to report on risks of petrochemical operations in flood prone areas.

Outcomes

21.2. Additional information. [Optional]


Top