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

Environment Agency Pension Fund

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。



          see 12.2

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。

EOS at Federated Hermes provides us with voting recommendations based on our voting policy which are input on the voting platform prior to the vote deadline. The voting recommendations are then cast as voting instructions if there is no further intervention, except in the case of shareblocking votes.

12.3. 補足情報[任意]

LEA 13. Percentage of voting recommendations reviewed

13.1. 報告年度において貴社のサービスプロバイダーが行った議決権行使に関する提言の中で、貴社が検討したものの割合およびその理由を記載してください。



13.2. 補足情報[任意]

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?

14.2. 貴社がセキュリティーズレンディングをしていない理由を説明してください。(最大500語)

We believe that stock lending is an important factor in the investment decision, providing opportunity for additional return, but that lending should not undermine governance, our ability to vote or long-term investing. We will recall stock where required. There may be some instances where we decide not to stock lend, particularly where there are concerns of borrowers deliberately entering transactions to sway the outcome of a shareholder vote. Our approach to responsible stock lending is outlined in further detail in a separate policy. 

14.4. 補足情報 [任意]

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。


          In order to help progress engagement (driving change), as well as to help clarify matters at hand to inform better voting decisions.

15.3. 補足情報 [任意]

Our voting recommendation and engagement provider EOS at Federated Hermes interacted with companies around 1000 meetings in 2018. This would usually be ahead of meetings and as a result of concerns around the vote or an anticipated vote against management.

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。

16.2. 貴社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、企業にその根拠を伝える理由を示してください。


          In order to help progress engagement (driving change), as well as to help clarify matters at hand to inform better voting decisions.

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]

Our voting recommendation and engagement provider EOS at Federated Hermes interacted with companies around 1000 meetings in 2019. This would usually be ahead of meetings and as a result of concerns around the vote or an anticipated vote against management.

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]

Our service provider EOS at Federated Hermes submits vote recommendations on all listed equity covered by its proxy voting service.

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。

93 %
7 %
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]

Our service provider EOS at Federated Hermes engaged around 1000 meetings of the 6,305  where it recommended one or more votes against management. All of their voting recommendations and rationales for not supporting management are published on their website.

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]

A recommendation to divest will be the last resort, but appropriate if we believe the risk to long-term shareholder value is being undermined.

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。

20.2. 貴社が行ったまたは共同で行ったESG関連株主決議の数を記載してください。

2 合計

20.3. 以下の結果をもたらした、これらのESG関連株主決議の数の割合を記載してください。

50 %
50 %
0 %
0 %
合計 100%

20.4. 貴社が提出または共同提出したESGの株式決議で議案に採用された(撤回されなかった)ものに対する賛成票の割合を選択してください。

1 50%超

20.5. 貴社が提出または共同提出したESG関連の株主決議で、結果が達成されたものについて説明してください。

Our service provider EOS at Federated EOS cofiled a shareholder proposal for one of the largest operators of retail drugstores to annually disclose on the use of its clawback provision on executive compensation. Interest in clawback use in particular relates to the company’s management of its role in opioid use. The proposal was withdrawn to facilitate further engagement on how the company is managing its product governance and stewardship of opioids.

EOS also lead filed a proposal at BP plc which went to a vote. The proposal called for the company to describe how its strategy is consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement on climate change.
More than 99% of votes cast were in favour of the resolution, which was pursued through the Climate Action 100+ collaborative engagement platform. The resolution was also backed by BP itself.

20.6. 貴社が他の投資家によって提出されたESG株主決議を審査するかどうかについて説明してください。

We do review ESG shareholder resolutions filed by other investors. This may be via alerts from NGOs and/or RI publications. 

Depending on whether we are invested we may discuss next steps with our managers or our pool or if not invested it may highlight an ESG theme which we will follow up.

20.7. 補足情報[任意] 

Our service provider EOS at Federated Hermes encourages boards to engage with serious, committed long-term shareholders, including EOS on behalf of its clients. Where boards interact in an active and engaged way with shareholders on issues that affect companies’ long-term value, EOS will see less need to file or support shareholder resolutions. In EOS’ experience, shareholder proposals can be a natural starting point or a catalyst for related dialogue with issuers and thus avail themselves of these opportunities, where appropriate, whether or not EOS recommends voting in favour of the resolution itself.  EOS expects boards to address the issues raised by shareholder proposals which receive significant support or where they are material to the company. In addition,  EOS views any failure to implement a shareholder proposal that has received majority support as a clear indication of a board of directors not fulfilling its obligations to the owners of the company.

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。

Climate Change

EOS supports the Transition Pathway Initiative, (TPI), a global, asset-owner led initiative, set up by the EAPF, that assesses companies’ preparedness for the transition to a low carbon economy. In 2019 it introduced the guideline that it would consider recommending a vote against the chair of the board of a company with a management ranking of 0 or 1 by the TPI, unless the company had provided a credible plan to address the climate risks and opportunities of the low carbon transition.


EOS wrote to 63 companies to advise them of this guideline and to request further engagement ahead of each company’s annual shareholder meeting. It also met over 10 companies, with one Japanese motor vehicle manufacturer agreeing to make improvements to its reporting in response to this engagement. EOS then voted against the chairs of the nominations and governance committees at some companies, citing climate governance as a key reason. 

Executive Remuneration

EOS believes that companies should design and implement remuneration policies that align the interests of management with the interests of shareholders and incentivise executives to optimise long-term value. Its core objectives concern the implementation by companies of remuneration approaches aligned with the Hermes Remuneration Principles, including the simplification of remuneration schemes, the reduction of variable-to-fixed pay ratios, a focus on strategic goals and increased executive shareholdings. 


EOS’s voting recommendations on pay reflected these concerns, with an overall 33.3% recommended vote against rate in 2019, versus 33.15% in 2018. In the UK EOS opposed 28% of remuneration reports based on concerns such as excessive quantum and pay outcomes not aligned with performance. For example, it opposed the report at a European oil major, where the policy paid out at near maximum. In the US, EOS recommended voting against over 82% of say-on-pay proposals in 2019 due to concerns about quantum and insufficient long-term alignment. Targeting CEO pay in the top quartile of peers is one of the ways it seeks to address quantum, a critical issue in the US following many years of pay ratcheting up. It opposed pay proposals at three US retailers where CEO pay was in the top quartile of peers. 

Other governance

Board composition is critical to the good management of companies and one of the most important shareholder powers is the ability to elect board directors. A diverse board is vital to good decision-making, so EOS stepped up its expectations on gender diversity in 2019.


In the UK, EOS tightened its policy for board-level gender diversity with a guideline of 30% women for FTSE 100 boards and 25% for FTSE 250. It also introduced a policy on below-board diversity, with the guideline that it would consider recommending a vote against the chair of FTSE 100 companies with no women on their executive committee. In the US, EOS continued to push its expectations on board diversity across a number of dimensions, recommending opposition to 916 proposals in 2019, compared with 618 proposals in 2018.


In Germany, EOS released its new German Corporate Governance principles, which set out its expectations for 2020 and beyond, including that companies achieve 30% female representation on executive boards. Currently, only 8% of German companies have more than one woman on the executive board. Two-thirds still have no female board members. EOS raised the issue of diversity at one German car manufacturer’s annual shareholder meeting, along with concerns about audit tenure that led it to oppose the ratification of the auditors.


21.2. 補足情報[任意]