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

DSM Capital Partners LLC

PRI reporting framework 2020

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.


Based on

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.

DSM has contracted with an independent third party (currently, Institutional Shareholder Services, LLC) (the “Third Party Administrator”) to provide issue analysis and vote recommendations with respect to proxy proposals. The Third-Party Administrator offers a U.S. policy, a European policy, a Canadian policy as well as specialty policies such as a Socially Responsible policy, a Faith-Based policy, a Taft-Hartley policy and a Public Fund policy, along with custom policies defined by its clients. In general, DSM utilizes the U.S. Policy and the European Policy.  A copy of all policies can be found at

Each year, the Third-Party Administrator undertakes a process to update the policies that inform its proxy voting recommendations. Typically, the Third-Party Administrator has a policy formulation process that collects feedback from a diverse range of market participants through multiple channels: an annual policy survey of institutional investors and corporate issuers, roundtables with industry groups, and ongoing feedback during proxy season. The Third-Party Administrator uses this input to develop draft policy updates on important governance issues, which are then published for open review and comment. This information is also available at Updates and revisions by the Third-Party Administrator are reviewed by DSM to determine whether they are consistent with its principals. Because the Third-Party Administrator conducts issue analysis and makes vote recommendations based on its independent, objective analysis, the proxy voting process is designed to cast votes in the best interests of DSM’s Clients.

While it is DSM’s policy to follow the vote recommendations of the Third-Party Administrator, DSM retains the authority to vote differently than the recommendation on any proxy proposal. Below is a sample of DSM’s position on certain issues.  This sample is designed to give a general view of how DSM could vote a proxy in such a situation. However, this action is subject to an internal approval process, which includes a determination that the proxy decision is not influenced by any conflicts of interest. In instances in which the Third-Party Administrator is unable to make a vote recommendation, DSM’s Proxy Voting Committee will, based on such advice as it deems necessary, determine the manner in which, if at all, to vote such proxy.

DSM, as a matter of policy, votes proxies for pooled investment vehicles that it manages, for ERISA accounts that require the investment manager to vote proxies and for Clients who ask DSM to vote their proxies. Clients may wish to vote their own proxies. Further, DSM does not vote proxies for unsupervised securities, or for proxies associated with securities that were transferred to DSM but subsequently sold because the securities were not in DSM’s model portfolio at that time. DSM also reserves the right to not accept a potential client account if DSM believes that a custom proxy policy is too undefined or too complex to implement.

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?

14.2. Describe why your organisation does not lend securities.

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.

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.

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.

Votes cast (to the nearest 1%)

100 %

Specify the basis on which this percentage is calculated

17.3. Additional information. [Optional]

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

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.

19.3. Additional information. [Optional]

LEA 20. Shareholder resolutions (Private)

LEA 21. Examples of (proxy) voting activities (Private)