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

KBI Global Investors

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.

We publish on our website details of all votes cast including those (if any) that were cast contrary to our voting policy.  

 

12.3. Additional information.[Optional]

While we receive recommendations and research from an external provider, the final decision is ours in all cases.


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


LEA 14. Securities lending programme

14.1. Does your organisation have a securities lending programme?

14.3. Indicate how the issue of voting is addressed in your securities lending programme.

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.

15.2. 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.

16.3. 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]


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
90.5 %
Against (opposing) management recommendations
8.6 %
Abstentions
0.9 %
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]

While we maintain detailed records of our votes and of our engagement, we have not as yet merged the two sets of records so that we can quantify precisely what percentage of companies, where we voted against management recommendations, that we have engaged with.


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
General ESG
Conducted by
Objectives

To ensure that the board and executive management of the investee company adequately guards against and manages material ESG risks

Scope and Process

We informed an Austrian plant engineering company‚Äôs corporate governance team that for the 2019 AGM, we would vote against the election of a Supervisory Board Member (incumbent board member) as all board members should be held accountable for poor board and management oversight of ESG risk exposures at the firm (ESG controversies in relation to hydropower controversies in Brazil and Turkey) and also to vote against the discharge of the Management and Supervisory Board for Fiscal 2018. The resolution did not receive majority support from shareholders, and 5% voted against the Management Board discharge, while 2.7% voted against the Supervisory Board discharge. However, we regard the issue as being open and are hopeful that the company will give improved consideration to ESG risks in the future. 

 

 

Outcomes
ESG Topic
Diversity
Conducted by
Objectives

To increase the investee company's reporting on employment diversity. 

Scope and Process

This company does not disclose employment diversity. 

We publicly declared our intention to vote for the shareholder resolution asking the company to prepare a report on employment diversity and to report on diversity policies. We also voted for a report on prison labour in the supply chain. 

The resolution did not receive majority support from shareholders but did receive a good support level, at 33% in favour of a diversity report, and 30% in favour of a report  on prison labour in the supply chain.  We regard the issue as being open and are hopeful that the company will implement such a policy in the relatively near future.

Outcomes
ESG Topic
Political spending / lobbying
Conducted by
Objectives

As a member of Climate Action 100+, to encourage the investee company to review its membership of industry associations that were involved  in lobbying inconsistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement.

Scope and Process

The large Australian mining company had committed to climate change targets, yet was a member of industry associations that were involved  in lobbying inconsistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement.

We publicly declared our intention to support the shareholder resolution to approve the suspension of the company's memberships of such industry associations and we also reccomended that our clients recalled stock out on loan in order to support the resolution. 

We were pleased that this proposal received strong support (22% supported, and almost 8% abstained) from shareholders, increasing pressure on the company. We regard the issue as being open and are hopeful that the company will review their membership in such trade associations. 

Outcomes

21.2. Additional information. [Optional]


Top