Public HTML RI reports - PRI reporting framework 2020

Storebrand ASA

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] Innovation [SG 18] Communication [SG 19]

Indirect – Manager Selection, Appointment and Monitoring

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] ESG incorporation in passively managed listed equities [LEI 11] 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] ESG incorporation in passively managed fixed income [FI 13] Fixed income - Engagement [FI 14 - 16] Outputs and outcomes [FI 17 - 18]

Direct - Property

Overview [PR 01] Pre-investment (selection) [PR 04 - 06] Selection, appointment and monitoring third-party property managers [PR 07] Post-investment (monitoring and active ownership) [PR 08 - 14] Overview [PR 08] Property monitoring and management [PR 09 - 10] Property developments and major renovations [PR 11] Occupier engagement [PR 12 - 13] Community engagement [PR 14] Outputs and outcomes [PR 15 - 16]

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.

Based on

The service-provider voting policy we sign off on

Our own voting policy

Our clients` requests or policies

Other (explain)

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.

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.

Storebrand is involved in direct voting activities in the Norwegian and Swedish market, primarily on governance, climate change and transparency issues.

For international proxy voting, we use ISS Voting Services. We have our own voting policy that mostly corresponds with ISS' Sustainability Voting Policy. In 2019 we voted differently from ISS' recommendation on 15 issues as their recommendation deviated from our own policy. For background and facts on different agenda items we mainly use ISS' research reports, also when we disagree on their recommendation.

In 2019 we voted on approximately 150 meetings, we aim to significantly increase this number in 2020.

12.3. Additional information.[Optional]

Storebrand's main tool in active ownership is direct dialogue with companies. It is our experience that direct dialogue (i.e. by qualified personnel) is a resource efficient way of achieving improvements, and one that is also valued by the corporates of which we hold equities or bonds.The voting processes require significant quality control at several stages by in-house resources, both in Operations and Front Office.

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

14.3. Indicate how the issue of voting is addressed in your securities lending programme.

We recall all securities for voting on all ballot items

We maintain some holdings, so that we can vote at any time

We systematically recall some securities so that we can vote on their ballot items (e.g., in line with specific criteria)

We recall some securities so that we can vote on their ballot items on an ad-hoc basis

We empower our securities-lending agent to decide when to recall securities for voting purposes

We do not recall our securities for voting purposes

Other (specify)

14.4. Additional information. [Optional]

JP Morgan is the custodian for Storebrand asset Management.

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

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

Vote(s) concerned selected markets

Vote(s) concerned selected sectors

Vote(s) concerned certain ESG issues

Vote(s) concerned companies exposed to controversy on specific ESG issues

Vote(s) concerned significant shareholdings

Client request

Other

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

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

Vote(s) concern selected markets

Vote(s) concern selected sectors

Vote(s) concern certain ESG issues

Vote(s) concern companies exposed to controversy on specific ESG issues

Vote(s) concern significant shareholdings

Client request

Other

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%)

1 %

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

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

Shares were blocked

Notice, ballots or materials not received on time

Missed deadline

Geographical restrictions (non-home market)

Cost

Conflicts of interest

Holdings deemed too small

Administrative impediments (e.g., power of attorney requirements, ineligibility due to participation in share placement)

Client request

Other (explain)

17.3. Additional information. [Optional]

In addition to the points indicated above, Storebrand prioritises voting on key ESG issues like diversity and climate change that are identified in our voting policy.

Regarding costs under 17.2: it is very time consuming to go through meeting research papers and we need to prioritize the largest companies and the companies where we have large holdings. We aim to increase the share of voted companies through increased automation.

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	84 %
Against (opposing) management recommendations	15 %
Abstentions	1 %

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]

We do not have a formal strategy for this, but will follow up with engagements on issues of special importance.

LEA 20. Shareholder resolutions (Private)

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	Diversity\|Sustainability reporting 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	Storebrand/SPP supported a proposal on reporting of the Gender Pay Gap in Oracle Corporatin as we would benefit from additional information allowing us to measure the progress of the company's diversity and inclusion initiatives.
Scope and Process	We supported an already submitted shareholder proposal.
Outcomes

Add Example 2

ESG Topic	Climate Change\|Pollution\|Sustainability reporting 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	Chevron Corporation: Report on Plans to Reduce Carbon Footprint Aligned with Paris Agreement Goals Storebrand/SPP voted for this non-binding resolution as such a report would, at reasonable cost and omitting proprietary information, aid shareholders in understanding the company's assessment of how it could reduce its carbon footprint in alignment with greenhouse gas reductions necessary to achieve the Paris Agreement’s goal of maintaining global warming well below 2 degrees Celsius, and of its management of risks related to climate change.
Scope and Process	We supported an already submitted resolutions.
Outcomes

Add Example 3

ESG Topic	Executive Remuneration\|Company leadership issues\|General ESG 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	Hennes & Mauritz AB: Disclose Sustainability Targets to be Achieved in order for Senior Executives to be Paid Variable Remuneration; Report Annually on the Performance of Senior Executives About Sustainability Targets Storebrand/SPP voted for this proposal as shareholders would benefit from more comprehensive information about the inclusion of sustainability measures in the compensation framework, which would allow investors to better assess how executives are being incentivized to address the risks arising from current social and environmental challenges
Scope and Process	We supporten an already submitted resolution.
Outcomes

Add Example 4

ESG Topic	Climate Change\|Pollution\|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	DuPont de Nemours:Report on Public Health Risks of Petrochemical Operations in Flood Prone Areas Storebrand/SPP voted for this resolution as shareholders would benefit from the requested report by providing us additional information on the public health risks associated with the company's petrochemical operations and enable us to better assess the company's management of related risks.
Scope and Process	We supported an already submitted resolution.
Outcomes

Add Example 5

Add Example 6

Add Example 7

Add Example 8

Add Example 9

Add Example 10

21.2. Additional information. [Optional]

Overview over all voted casted against: https://www.storebrand.no/en/sustainability/active-ownership/_attachment/8980?_ts=160502a4c6b

Previous Section Next Section