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

Osmosis Investment Management

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.

Osmosis ensure that the voting policy is adhered to by motioning the votes cast by its proxy voting provider on a monthly basis. Comprehensive reports are provided to Osmosis including details of every single voting decision.  All votes are cast according to client policy and confirmation letters are issued for specific clients.

12.3. Additional information.[Optional]


LEA 13. Percentage of voting recommendations reviewed

13.1. Of the voting recommendations that your service provider made in the reporting year, indicate the percentage that was reviewed by your organisation, giving the reasons.

Percentage of voting recommendations your organisation reviewed

Reasons for review

other description

          We follow our clients guidelines.
        

13.2. Additional information. [Optional]


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.

Osmosis is reviewing its securities lending policies.

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%)

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
90 %
Against (opposing) management recommendations
9 %
Abstentions
1 %
100%

18.3. In cases where your organisation voted against management recommendations, indicate the percentage of companies which you have engaged.

0

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.

20.7. Additional information. [Optional]


LEA 21. Examples of (proxy) voting activities

21.1. Provide examples of the (proxy) voting activities that your organisation and/or service provider carried out during the reporting year.

ESG Topic
Company leadership issues
Conducted by
Objectives

For a company in our portfolio, significant risks to shareholders stemming from severe ESG controversies were identified, which reflects a failure by the board to proficiently guard against and manage material environmental, social and governance risks.

Scope and Process

Given the board chair shoulders the greatest responsibility amongst the board members for failing to effectively supervise the management risks to the company, and its shareholders are not up for election at this annual meeting, all board members with the exception of new nominees should be held accountable for poor board and management oversight of ESG risk exposures at the firm. This warranted a vote against.

Outcomes

21.2. Additional information. [Optional]


Top