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

Groupe Bruxelles Lambert SA

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.

Approach

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.

In order to monitor appropriately its portfolio from an ESG perspective, GBL conducts on a yearly basis an in-depth risk assessment focusing on its portfolio companies.

This risk assessment has been structured by GBL to combine information from third-party ESG-rating reports and market data with proprietary data derived from (i) GBL's in-house Compliance questionnaire (see below for covered areas) and (ii) the knowledge and expertise of GBL's investment team on the portfolio companies and, more generally, their sectors.

This assessment aims at identifying, for each portfolio company, its key ESG risks, and, if assessed as material, (i) translating them into potential adjustments to the investment theses, (ii) reporting them to GBL's Audit Committee and ultimately to GBL's Board of Directors, and (iii) ensuring their monitoring by GBL's representatives through the governance bodies of the portfolio companies.

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.

15.3. 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.

19.2. Indicate the escalation strategies used at your organisation following abstentions and/or votes against management.

19.3. Additional information. [Optional]

In case of an incident arising at the level of a portfolio company and being reported to GBL through its governance bodies, monitoring would be ensured by GBL’s representative(s) within the relevant governance body, with the assistance of the relevant advisers. Any significant incident would be discussed, reviewed and monitored by the relevant reporting levels at GBL (including the CEO, the Chief Legal Officer and the Head of Investments). This escalation process was followed for the Syrian case which arose in 2016 in relation to LafargeHolcim.


LEA 20. Shareholder resolutions (Private)


LEA 21. Examples of (proxy) voting activities (Not Completed)


Top