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

Norwegian Government Pension Fund Norway (Norwegian Ministry of Finance and Folketrygdfondet)

PRI reporting framework 2020

You are in Direct - Listed Equity Active Ownership » (Proxy) voting and shareholder resolutions


LEA 12. Typical approach to (proxy) voting decisions

12.1. (委任状による)議決権行使を通常どのように決定しているかを明示して下さい。



12.2. 合意された議決権ポリシーがどのように遵守されているかを概観し、ポリシーの例外が適用された場合(該当する場合)のアプローチの詳細を示してください。

We ensure compliance with our voting policy by conducting our own analysis and voting in person in Norway, the jurisdiction in which 85% of our equity investments are located. In the rest of the Nordics, we do our own analysis of all material issues, with a particular focus on agenda items for which we would potentially be voting against the board's recommendation. We use service provider recommendations/analyses as an input to our decision process.

Prior to the AGM, any issues that could result in us voting in a manner that represents an exception to our policy. If exceptions to the policy are made, we would publish an explanation on our website after the AGM. In 2019, Folketrygdfondet did not make any exceptions to the policy.


12.3. 補足情報[任意]

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

LEA 14. Securities lending programme

14.1. 貴社では、セキュリティーズレンディングを設定していますか?

14.3. 貴社の証券貸付プログラムで投票の問題にどのように対処しているか示してください。

14.4. 補足情報 [任意]

We recall all securities for voting for all general meetings in the Norwegian market.

In the other Nordic countries, we recall securities when there is an important agenda item that Folketrygdfondet intends to vote against - generally, when Folketrygdfondet intends to vote against the board's recommendations.

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

15.1. 報告年度内に関与した議決権行使のうち、貴社、または貴社の代理を務めるサービスプロバイダーが議決権行使に先立って企業に懸念を表明したものの割合を示してください。

15.2. これらの企業に対し、議決権行使に先立って懸念を表明した理由を示してください。


          Folketrygdfondet contacts all Norwegian companies in advance of the general meeting if we intend to vote against one or more of the board's recommendations. Ideally, the agenda item is changed in advance of the meeting.

15.3. 補足情報 [任意]

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

16.1. 貴社または貴社の代理を務めるサービスプロバイダーが、議決権行使を棄権する場合、または経営陣の提案に反対票を投じる場合に、当該企業にその根拠を伝えた議決権の割合を示してください。これは行使可能な全議決権の中で占める割合とします。

16.3. 貴社が議決権行使を棄権するまたは経営陣の提案に反対票を投じる根拠を伝える場合、この根拠を公表しているか示してください。

16.4. 補足情報[任意]

LEA 17. Percentage of (proxy) votes cast

17.1. 貴社やサービスプロバイダーが(代理)投票の指示を発行するマンデートを有している上場株式について、報告年度中に行った投票の割合を記載してください。


100 %


17.3. 補足情報[任意]

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

18.1. 貴社または貴社の代理を務めるサービスプロバイダーが出した議決権行使に係る指示を追跡しているか示してください。

18.2. 貴社または貴社の代理を務める第三者が出した議決権行使に係る指示のうち、各投票項目の占める割合を示してください。

95 %
5 %
0 %

18.3. 貴社が経営陣の提案に対する反対票を投じたケースにおいて、貴社がエンゲージメントを行った企業の占める割合を示してください。


18.4. 補足情報 [任意]

Folketrygdfondet contacted the boards of all companies for which we voted against the board's recommendations to explain our voting and encourage additional dialogue in advance of next year's annual general meeting. We have therefore listed the figure in 18.3 as 100%.

LEA 19. Proportion of ballot items that were for/against/abstentions

19.1. 不首尾に終わった議決権行使後の正式なエスカレーション戦略が貴社にあるか示してください。

19.2. 棄権後、または経営陣に反対する票を投じた後に貴社が用いるエスカレーション戦略を示してください。

19.3. 補足情報 [任意]

Folketrygdfondet engaged via a letter from our CEO by contacting the boards of companies for which we voted against one or more of the board's proposals. Voting rationales are also published on The precise escalation strategy that may be chosen will depend on the specific case as well as the nature of Folketrygdfondet's investment.

LEA 20. Shareholder resolutions

20.1. 貴社が報告年度中に、直接もしくはサービスプロバイダーを介して、ESG株主決議を提出または共同提出したか示してください。

20.7. 補足情報[任意] 

LEA 21. Examples of (proxy) voting activities

21.1. 報告年度に貴社またはサービスプロバイダーが実行した(委任状による)議決権行使の例を提供してください。

Other governance

Folketrygdfondet seeks to vote consistently based on shared principles applicable to all portfolio companies. However, we recognise that this can be difficult when local corporate governance recommendations and market practice differ from country to country. One example is the election of the CEO to the board of directors. For companies registered in Norway, this is prohibited by the Public Limited Liability Companies Act. Moreover, the Norwegian Code of Practice for Corporate Governance recommends that no senior executives should be board members. Folketrygdfondet considers this an important principle, as one of the board’s priority tasks is to supervise company management, a task that includes appointment and dismissal of the CEO. In our view, the board can only perform this supervisory function satisfactorily if the board members are not recruited from company management. 


The Swedish corporate governance code, by contrast, permist up to one member of the leadership team to serve as a regular board member, although not the chair. Folketrygdfondet has previously followed local recommendations in the different Nordic countries. However, in 2019 we decided to amend our practice related to the election of CEOs to company boards, for two reasons: to ensure greater consistency in our voting decisions and because we consider this an important principle for ensuring that company boards perform their functions properly.  Folketrygdfondet has therefore voted against election of the CEO to the board of directors where candidates have been nominated individually. We recognise that Swedish company boards disagree with how we have voted, and that it is unlikely that we will succeed in persuading companies to adopt our view. The number of such dilemmas and challenges has grown as our shareholdings in Nordic companies have increased. We will continue to address these developments in a transparent manner, and to communicate openly about the factors on which our decisions are based.

Executive Remuneration

Folketrygdfondet supports remuneration schemes that are targeted and performance-dependent. Incentive schemes should be linked to personal targets, company targets and targets designed to ensure good long-term value creation for shareholders. Moreover, we expect option schemes and other share-based programmes to be capped and to have a reasonable scope.


Folketrygdfondet voted against an executive remuneration program several years in a row as the program lacked a cap and could result in an unreasonably high issuance of new shares, Folketrygdfondet considered that the scheme had an excessive scope and could entail an excessive transfer of value from the shareholders to the company’s employees. In 2019, the company altered the program in line with our expectations.

Other governance

Folketrygdfondet takes the view that members of nomination committees must be independent of individual board members. The independence of the nomination committee is crucial in enabling shareholders to have the necessary confidence in nomination committee proceedings and recommendations. A clear division of roles and responsibilities between the board of directors and the nomination committee is fundamental to the committee’s work


Folketrygdfondet communicated our views on the importance of nomination committee independence to the company directly over several years. In 2019, the general assembly elected a nomination committee that no longer included any of the company's board members.


21.2. 補足情報[任意]