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

CNP Assurances

PRI reporting framework 2020

Export Public Responses
Pdf-img

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.

When exceptions to the policy are made by the sustainable development department, who is in charge to analyse and make voting recommandations, they are validated by the invesment department or even the deputy CEO.

 

12.3. Additional information.[Optional]

When exceptions to the policy are made by the CSR department, which is in charge of analysing and voting, recommendations are validated by the investment department or even the deputy CEO.


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]


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.

16.2. Indicate the reasons why your organisation would communicate to companies, the rationale for abstaining or voting against management recommendations.

16.3. In cases where your organisation does communicate the rationale for abstaining or voting against management recommendations, indicate whether this rationale is made public.

16.4. Additional information. [Optional]

As part of our shareholder dialogue, we are sometimes required to explain our voting positions

 


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%)

83 %

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]

In 2019, CNP Assurances voted at 85 general meetings of 84 companies located in 10 countries. These companies represent 83% of the outstanding portfolio of equities held directly by CNP Assurances.

More specifically, CNP Assurances voted:

At 53 general meetings of 52 French companies. These companies represent 97% of the portfolio of French equities held directly by CNP Assurances

At 32 general meetings of 32 international companies. These companies represent 67% of the portfolio of international equities held directly by CNP Assurances


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
82.8 %
Against (opposing) management recommendations
17 %
Abstentions
0.2 %
100%

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]

CNP Assurances’ corporate governance principles are the cornerstone of its responsible investment policy. They are defined by senior management and shaped by its position as a long-term minority shareholder. The core objective is to protect the rights of minority shareholders who are investing to support the investee's long-term growth. Shaped in part by investor concerns, these principles are pragmatically applied to all companies in the portfolio, taking into account each one's characteristics, industry and regulatory environment.

Three main governance issues have been identified during the 2019 voting campaign:

Transparency and quality of information: CNP Assurances is especially vigilant about the rotation of external auditors and the support of companies towards more transparency.

Compensation: CNP Assurances appreciates transparency, exhaustiveness of information and consistency with the performances of the company in the long term. More specifically under the “say on pay” and the compensation policy, CNP Assurances is attentive to the evolution of executive compensation in view of the sector practices and of the average compensation in the company.

As part of its climate approach, CNP Assurances has decided to support every resolution related to the Energy and Ecological Transition (TEE) as long as they are part of an approach to combat climate change, consistent with the company’s strategy. Moreover, if the company does not contribute or insufficiently to the TEE, CNP Assurances sanctions the executive’s compensation.


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)


Top