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

United Church Funds

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.

We vote the proxies of most of our holdings through an external proxy voting provider. We input our own policies into the provider's platform. We monitor those holdings that we don't vote directly by reviewing those managers' votes that vote on our behalf.

12.3. Additional information.[Optional]

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

LEA 14. Securities lending programme (Private)

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.

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

15.3. Additional information. [Optional]

While we used our proxy voting platform to raise general discussions through the proxy memo process ahead of some of the shareholder resolutions that we filed, it is untenable for a small asset owner with multiple managers and many holdings to reach out to every holding ahead of a vote. This marker doesn't seem to be appropriate for all PRI signatories. 

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]

As a small asset owner, United Church Funds doesn't have the resources to reach out to each company for which we have voted against management.

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%)

99 %

Specify the basis on which this percentage is calculated

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

17.3. Additional information. [Optional]

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.

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
77 %
Against (opposing) management recommendations
23 %
0 %

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.

19.3. Additional information. [Optional]

LEA 20. Shareholder resolutions

20.1. Indicate whether your organisation, directly or through a service provider, filed or co-filed any ESG shareholder resolutions during the reporting year.

20.2. Indicate the number of ESG shareholder resolutions you filed or co-filed.

5 Total number

20.3. Indicate what percentage of these ESG shareholder resolutions resulted in the following:

Went to vote
60 %
Were withdrawn due to changes at the company and/or negotiations with the company
40 %
Were withdrawn for other reasons
0 %
Were rejected/not acknowledged by the company
0 %
Total 100%

20.4. Of the ESG shareholder resolutions that you filed or co-filed and that were put to a vote (i.e., not withdrawn), indicate the percentage that received approval:

2 50-20%
1 <20%

20.5. Describe the ESG shareholder resolutions that you filed or co-filed, and the outcomes achieved.

UCF again co-filed a resolution regarding how companies vote for shareholder proposals at their annual meetings. BlackRock has a particularly poor record of voting for environmental resolutions, which is inconsistent with the services and data the company provides regarding ESG to its clients. withdrawn.

UCFco-filed a resolution with Teva on opioid governance. withdrawn for agreeement on a risk report published by the company.

UCF filed a resolution with Mallinckrodt on opioid lobbying practices. the resolution received 79.6% vote and the company issued a lobbying report.

UCF lead filed with AbbVie on drug pricing/executive compensation. the vote was 21%. No changes achieved. will refile this year.

UCF lead filed with SunTrust bank on human rights in private prisons and detention centers. withdrawn. The company commited to a policy of not financing private prisons or detention center corporations.

20.6. Describe whether your organisation reviews ESG shareholder resolutions filed by other investors.

We typically review and follow ESG shareholder resolutions through our organizational memberships in ICCR, Climate Action 100+, etc.

20.7. Additional information. [Optional]

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