Public HTML RI reports - PRI reporting framework 2020

VBV Vorsorgekasse AG

PRI reporting framework 2020

Basic information [OO 01 - 09] Asset class implementation gateway indicators [OO 10 - 12] Peering questions [OO LE 01 - HF 01]

Strategy and Governance

Investment policy [SG 01 - 04] Objectives and strategies [SG 05 - 06] Governance and human resources [SG 07 - 08] Promoting responsible investment [SG 09 - 11] Outsourcing to fiduciary managers and investment consultants [SG 12] ESG issues in asset allocation [SG 13 - 15] Asset class implementation not reported in other modules [SG 16 - 17] Innovation [SG 18] Communication [SG 19]

Indirect – Manager Selection, Appointment and Monitoring

Listed Equity and Fixed Income Strategies [SAM 01] Selection [SAM 02 - 03] Appointment [SAM 04] Monitoring [SAM 05 - 07] Outputs and outcomes [SAM 08 - 09]

Direct - Listed Equity Incorporation

ESG incorporation in actively managed listed equities [LEI 01 - 10] Implementation processes [LEI 01 - 10] (A) Implementation: Screening [LEI 04 - 06] (B) Implementation: Thematic [LEI 07] (C) Implementation: Integration of ESG factors [LEI 08 - 10] Outputs and outcomes [LEI 12 - 13]

Direct - Listed Equity Active Ownership

Overview [LEA 01] Engagement [LEA 02 - 08] Outputs and outcomes [LEA 09 - 11]

Direct - Fixed Income

ESG incorporation in actively managed fixed income [FI 01 - 12] Implementation processes [FI 01 - 03] (A) Implementation: Screening [FI 04 - 06] (B) Implementation: Thematic [FI 07 - 09] (C) Implementation: Integration [FI 10 - 12] Outputs and outcomes [FI 17 - 18]

Confidence building measures

Confidence building measures [CM1 01 - 07]

Export Public Responses

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

We use our own research or voting team and make voting decisions without the use of service providers.

We hire service providers who make voting recommendations and/or provide research that we use to guide our voting decisions.

We hire service providers who make voting decisions on our behalf, except in some pre-defined scenarios where we review and make voting decisions.

We hire service providers who make voting decisions on our behalf.

Based on

The service-provider voting policy we sign off on

Our own voting policy

Our clients` requests or policies

Other (explain)

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.

The service provider is given guidance by our business partner, which has almost the same investment guidelines as we have.

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?

Yes

14.2. Describe why your organisation does not lend securities.

We do not have a securities lending programme for risk management reasons.

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.

100%

99-75%

74-50%

49-25%

24-1%

Neither we nor our service provider(s) raise concerns with 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.

100%

99-75%

74-50%

49-25%

24-1%

We do not communicate the rationale to companies

Not applicable because we and/or our service providers did not abstain or vote 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.

Yes

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.

We do track or collect this information

Votes cast (to the nearest 1%)

100 %

Specify the basis on which this percentage is calculated

Of the total number of ballot items on which you could have issued instructions

Of the total number of company meetings at which you could have voted

Of the total value of your listed equity holdings on which you could have voted

We do not track or collect this information

17.3. Additional information. [Optional]

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.

Yes, we track this information

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	10 %
Abstentions	0 %

100%

No, we do not track this information

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

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.

Yes

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.

Yes

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.

Add Example 1

ESG Topic	Health and Safety Executive Remuneration Climate Change Human rights Company leadership issues Pollution General ESG Diversity Shareholder rights Health and Safety Sustainability reporting Water risks Labour practices and supply chain management Anti-bribery and corruption Deforestation Aggressive tax planning Cyber security Political spending / lobbying Other governance Plastics Other
Conducted by
Objectives	Report on Pesticide Management
Scope and Process	Negative health effects of glyphosate-based pesticides and the suspected carcinogenic effect are the subject of current debates. At the company´s Annual General Meeting an application was made to coordinate the quantitative declaration of the use of herbicides in the supply chain. The company's oat products in particular are suspected because traces of glyphosate have been detected.
Outcomes

Add Example 2

ESG Topic	Health and Safety Executive Remuneration Climate Change Human rights Company leadership issues Pollution General ESG Diversity Shareholder rights Health and Safety Sustainability reporting Water risks Labour practices and supply chain management Anti-bribery and corruption Deforestation Aggressive tax planning Cyber security Political spending / lobbying Other governance Plastics Other
Conducted by
Objectives	Report on the Health Impacts and Risks of Sugar in the Company's Products
Scope and Process	The supported application requires the company to deal with the social risks that arise from the marketing of beverages with a high sugar content. Due to increased regulations in public schools regarding the use of such products, stricter transparency requirements for ingredients, as well as existing or expected taxes in this area (implementation already in e.g. Mexico, Portugal, Thailand etc.), the company may find additional legal, regulatory and reputational risks.
Outcomes

Add Example 3

ESG Topic	Other Executive Remuneration Climate Change Human rights Company leadership issues Pollution General ESG Diversity Shareholder rights Health and Safety Sustainability reporting Water risks Labour practices and supply chain management Anti-bribery and corruption Deforestation Aggressive tax planning Cyber security Political spending / lobbying Other governance Plastics Other specify
Conducted by
Objectives	Report on Gender Pay Gap
Scope and Process	The growing sensitivity of the society for equality and diversity issues increases the pressure on the company to publish a global median for the gender pay gap in the company. The gender pay gap is defined as the difference between male and female median incomes (measured by median), represented as a share of men's incomes. According to the results of various studies, diversity has a positive effect on long-term shareholder value, which is why we supported the application.
Outcomes

Add Example 4

Add Example 5

Add Example 6

Add Example 7

Add Example 8

Add Example 9

Add Example 10

21.2. Additional information. [Optional]

Previous Section Next Section