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


PRI reporting framework 2020

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.


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.

For Norwegian-listed firms, KLP's proxy voting service provider completes an analysis of each meeting according to KLP and the KLP Mutual Funds' voting guidelines. The KLP responsible investment department and relevant asset managers review the assessment and agrees on the voting. KLP votes through the online proxy voting platform as a general rule, but may vote in person when appropriate.

For firms listed outside of Norway, KLP votes in line with the proxy voting service provider's socially responsible investment voting policy, which is substantially aligned with the KLP voting guidelines. KLP receives a regular alert of meetings with environmental and social proposals on the agenda and retains the ability to override the service provider policy if desirable. KLP did not see the need to override the default policy during 2019. KLP votes on AGMs and EGMs for over 6 000 companies. 

12.3. Additional information.[Optional]

For Norwegian listed companies, KLP determines voting based on in-house research. For voting in companies listed outside of Norway, KLP relies primarily on an external service provider.

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]

KLP never lend out all shares so that we are able to vote on all AGMs and EGMs. We also reserve the right to recall securities on AGMs or EGMs where we asess that it is important to vote for all holdings. 

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]

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%)

97 %

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
82 %
Against (opposing) management recommendations
18 %
0.00 %

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]

We do not track the information requested under LEA 18.3.

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
Other governance
Conducted by

We have consistently voted against or abstain when it comes to bundling in the Norwegian market. 

Scope and Process

All companies in the Norwegian market. Companies are usually informed in advance to give them time to change the agenda. 

ESG Topic
Climate Change
Conducted by

Company reporting on climate change policies. 

Scope and Process

ISS SRI policy states that: Generally vote for social and environmental shareholder proposals that seek greater disclosure on topics such as human/labor rights, workplace safety, environmental practices and climate change risk, sustainable business practices etc. 


21.2. Additional information. [Optional]