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

Vision Super

PRI reporting framework 2020

You are in Confidence building measures » Confidence building measures

Confidence building measures

CM1 01. Assurance, verification, or review

01.1. Indicate whether the reported information you have provided for your PRI Transparency Report this year has undergone:

01.2. Additional information [OPTIONAL]

          Vision Super's reporting framework is prepared by the Chief Responsible Investment Officer with assistance from other ESG team members as and when required. The completed transparancy report is reviewed by the Chief Investment Officer and amended for additional comments and reporting.

CM1 02. Assurance of last year`s PRI data

02.1. We undertook third party assurance on last year’s PRI Transparency Report

02.3. Additional information [OPTIONAL]


CM1 03. Other confidence building measures

03.1. We undertake confidence building measures that are unspecific to the data contained in our PRI Transparency Report:

          Vision Super uses a number of sources for its reporting including it's custodian, proxy voting research advisors, asset consultant, fund managers and ESG provider.

03.5. Additional information [OPTIONAL]


CM1 04. Assurance of this year`s PRI data

04.1. Do you plan to conduct third party assurance of this year`s PRI Transparency report?

04.3. Additional information [OPTIONAL]

          Visio Super is very transparent with its reporting and publicly discloses all aspect of its PRI reporting framework submission to the PRI, its members and core constituents. Our internal investment/ESG team members are well experienced and for the size of the fund we are adequately capable of preparing and reviewing the work internally. Vision Super is also a mid-sized fund so the amount of resources and time in completing the reporting framework is a testament to respective team members. Other super/pension funds with much larger resources have much more considerable man power involved in their work program for preparing and completion their transparency reports.

CM1 05. External assurance (Not Applicable)

CM1 06. Assurance or internal audit (Not Applicable)

CM1 07. Internal verification

07.1. Indicate who has reviewed/verified internally the whole - or selected data of the - PRI Transparency Report . and if this applies to selected data please specify what data was reviewed

Who has conducted the verification

Sign-off or review of responses

07.2. Additional information [OPTIONAL]

          Sector specialist heads from the internal investment team have been consulted for specific asset class data and reporting.
We also include in this document supporting evidence such as emails where we can. In our view "external assurance" will just favour larger investors without actually determining those who are true to label.  A better way to build confidence is to require supporting evidence, even high level measures such as how often did you vote against management (%)?  How many climate resolutions did you support?  If the PRI wants external verification it would be better for it to require members to be open to external verification and itself brief and have an appropriate body do the verification.  Having members pay for an external party to do an audit on themselves is a clear conflict of interest.