Public HTML RI reports - PRI reporting framework 2020

ASR Nederland N.V.

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 Incorporation

ESG incorporation in actively managed listed equities [LEI 01 - 10] Implementation processes [LEI 01 - 10] (A) Implementation: Screening [LEI 04 - 06] (C) Implementation: Integration of ESG factors [LEI 08 - 10] Outputs and outcomes [LEI 12 - 13]

Direct - Listed Equity Active Ownership

Overview [LEA 01] Engagement [LEA 02 - 08] Outputs and outcomes [LEA 09 - 11]

Direct - Fixed Income

ESG incorporation in actively managed fixed income [FI 01 - 12] Implementation processes [FI 01 - 03] (A) Implementation: Screening [FI 04 - 06] (C) Implementation: Integration [FI 10 - 12] Fixed income - Engagement [FI 14 - 16] Outputs and outcomes [FI 17 - 18]

Direct - Property

Overview [PR 01] Pre-investment (selection) [PR 04 - 06] Post-investment (monitoring and active ownership) [PR 08 - 14] Overview [PR 08] Property monitoring and management [PR 09 - 10] Property developments and major renovations [PR 11] Occupier engagement [PR 12 - 13] Community engagement [PR 14] Outputs and outcomes [PR 15 - 16]

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.

In conducting her voting policy, ASR Vermogensbeheer use the services of a voting service provider. This voting service provider provides ASR Vermogensbeheer advice based on ASR Vermogenbeheer's guidelines . The voting service provider tests, among other things, the NCGC. With the advice of the voting service provider, a separate consideration is always made by ASR Vermogensbeheer. ASR Vermogensbeheer always review the agenda items themselves, both on the legal and on the economic aspects of the relevant agenda item. This means that it is possible to vote in deviation from the advice of the voting service provider. For foreign companies the voting service provider votes with a proxy for ASR Vermogensbeheer

For further informartion, please refer to asr website (http://asrnederland.nl/duurzaam-ondernemen/beleggen/duurzaam-beleggingsbeleid) - Voting policy and voting reporting

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)

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]

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

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

Vote(s) concern selected markets

Vote(s) concern selected sectors

Vote(s) concern certain ESG issues

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

Vote(s) concern significant shareholdings

Client request

Other

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.

Yes

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

Votes cast (to the nearest 1%)

95 %

Specify the basis on which this percentage is calculated

Of the total number of ballot items on which you could have issued instructions

Of the total number of company meetings at which you could have voted

Of the total value of your listed equity holdings on which you could have voted

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

18.1. Indicate whether you track the voting instructions that you or your service provider on your behalf have issued.

Yes, we track this information

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	65 %
Against (opposing) management recommendations	35 %
Abstentions	0 %

100%

No, we do not track this information

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]

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

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

Contacting the company’s board

Contacting the company’s senior management

Issuing a public statement explaining the rationale

Initiating individual/collaborative engagement

Directing service providers to engage

Reducing exposure (holdings) / divestment

Other

19.3. Additional information. [Optional]

Where a.s.r. has fundamental objections to the policy and/or the corporate strategy, and there is no prospect of improvement, it may decide to sell the interest it has acquired.

LEA 20. Shareholder resolutions (Not Completed)

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

Previous Section Next Section