Public HTML RI reports - PRI reporting framework 2020

Union Mutualiste Retraite

PRI reporting framework 2020

Basic information [OO 01 - 09] Asset class implementation gateway indicators [OO 10 - 12] Peering questions [OO LE 01 - HF 01]

Strategy and Governance

Investment policy [SG 01 - 04] Objectives and strategies [SG 05 - 06] Governance and human resources [SG 07 - 08] Promoting responsible investment [SG 09 - 11] Outsourcing to fiduciary managers and investment consultants [SG 12] ESG issues in asset allocation [SG 13 - 15] Asset class implementation not reported in other modules [SG 16 - 17] Innovation [SG 18] Communication [SG 19]

Indirect – Manager Selection, Appointment and Monitoring

Listed Equity and Fixed Income Strategies [SAM 01] Selection [SAM 02 - 03] Appointment [SAM 04] Monitoring [SAM 05 - 07] Outputs and outcomes [SAM 08 - 09]

Direct - Listed Equity Active Ownership

Overview [LEA 01]

Confidence building measures

Confidence building measures [CM1 01 - 07]

Export Public Responses

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

We use our own research or voting team and make voting decisions without the use of service providers.

We hire service providers who make voting recommendations and/or provide research that we use to guide our voting decisions.

We hire service providers who make voting decisions on our behalf, except in some pre-defined scenarios where we review and make voting decisions.

Based on

The service-provider voting policy we sign off on

Our own voting policy

Our clients` requests or policies

Other (explain)

We hire service providers who make voting decisions on our behalf.

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.

Every year, we analyze our service providers policy votes and verify it still matches with our own. In case of differences of approaches, we contact the provider to verify why it is different and we have the possibility to ask the provider to change the policy for dedicated mandate.

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

100-75%,

74-50%,

49-25%,

24-1%

None

Reasons for review

Specific environmental and/or social issues

Votes concerning significant holdings

Votes against management and/or abstentions

Conflicts of interest

Corporate action, such as M&As, disposals, etc.

Votes concerning companies with which we have an active engagement

Client requests

Ad-hoc oversight of service provider

Shareholder resolutions

Share blocked securities

Other (explain)

other description

          Since the policy has been approved by UMR's board on the last quarter, the indicator has not been calculated for 2019.

13.2. Additional information. [Optional]

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.

100%

99-75%

74-50%

49-25%

24-1%

Neither we nor our service provider(s) raise concerns with companies ahead of voting

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

Vote(s) concerned selected markets

Vote(s) concerned selected sectors

Vote(s) concerned certain ESG issues

Vote(s) concerned companies exposed to controversy on specific ESG issues

Vote(s) concerned significant shareholdings

Client request

Other

15.3. Additional information. [Optional]

Our asset manager has contacted 28 companies in 2019 to conduct a deeper ESG analysis. As an example, it has contacted the French company Total to better analyse its energetic transition.

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.

100%

99-75%

74-50%

49-25%

24-1%

We do not communicate the rationale to companies

Not applicable because we and/or our service providers did not abstain or vote against management recommendations

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.

We do track or collect this information

We do not track or collect this information

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

Shares were blocked

Notice, ballots or materials not received on time

Missed deadline

Geographical restrictions (non-home market)

Cost

Conflicts of interest

Holdings deemed too small

Administrative impediments (e.g., power of attorney requirements, ineligibility due to participation in share placement)

Client request

Other (explain)

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.

Yes

19.3. Additional information. [Optional]

LEA 20. Shareholder resolutions (Private)

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

Previous Section Next Section