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

Christian Brothers Investment Services, Inc.

PRI reporting framework 2020

You are in Direct - Listed Equity Active Ownership » (Proxy) voting and shareholder resolutions


LEA 12. Typical approach to (proxy) voting decisions

12.1. (委任状による)議決権行使を通常どのように決定しているかを明示して下さい。



12.2. 合意された議決権ポリシーがどのように遵守されているかを概観し、ポリシーの例外が適用された場合(該当する場合)のアプローチの詳細を示してください。

Our proxy voting service provider votes our shares according to our specific guidelines, and we review our votes daily/weekly as they flow in. Where there are special circumstances, or where the guidelines do not clearly indicate how to vote, they are automatically referred to our CRI team for direct assessment and voting, which occurs very frequently. We document any exceptions to existing guidelines in the voting platform and reasons why.

12.3. 補足情報[任意]

CBIS has developed a customized set of proxy voting guidelines based upon the teachings of the Catholic Church, and we use the guidelines to inform our proxy voting decisions. We endeavor to vote ballots consistent with our guidelines at all times. CBIS was one of the first investment managers in North America to disclose its voting guidelines almost 20 years ago. We quickly followed up that disclosure with posting our actual votes online in close-to-actual voting time.

Proxy voting look-up, and a summary of voting trends in real-time, can be found here: (UCITS) (CUIT)

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

LEA 14. Securities lending programme

14.1. 貴社では、セキュリティーズレンディングを設定していますか?

14.3. 貴社の証券貸付プログラムで投票の問題にどのように対処しているか示してください。

Our policy dictates that we can recall securities on loan to vote on them when we wish to, and we have authority to block securities from being loaned as well. 


14.4. 補足情報 [任意]

LEA 15. Informing companies of the rationale of abstaining/voting against management

15.1. 報告年度内に関与した議決権行使のうち、貴社、または貴社の代理を務めるサービスプロバイダーが議決権行使に先立って企業に懸念を表明したものの割合を示してください。

15.2. これらの企業に対し、議決権行使に先立って懸念を表明した理由を示してください。

15.3. 補足情報 [任意]

LEA 16. Informing companies of the rationale of abstaining/voting against management

16.1. 貴社または貴社の代理を務めるサービスプロバイダーが、議決権行使を棄権する場合、または経営陣の提案に反対票を投じる場合に、当該企業にその根拠を伝えた議決権の割合を示してください。これは行使可能な全議決権の中で占める割合とします。

16.2. 貴社が議決権行使を棄権する場合、または経営陣の提案に反対票を投じる場合に、企業にその根拠を伝える理由を示してください。

16.3. 貴社が議決権行使を棄権するまたは経営陣の提案に反対票を投じる根拠を伝える場合、この根拠を公表しているか示してください。

16.4. 補足情報[任意]

LEA 17. Percentage of (proxy) votes cast

17.1. 貴社やサービスプロバイダーが(代理)投票の指示を発行するマンデートを有している上場株式について、報告年度中に行った投票の割合を記載してください。


100 %


17.3. 補足情報[任意]

Our actual voting percentage from 17.1 was 99.9%. CBIS cannot always guarantee our ability to vote shares in countries that: engage in block trading in company shares during the period between when a vote is due and the date of the company’s annual shareholders’ meeting; require excessive fees for voting proxies; or those with excessive administrative/legal burdens during short timeframes.

For more information, and to see the exact number of votes cast FOR/AGAINST/ABSTAIN and by sector, please see:

LEA 18. Proportion of ballot items that were for/against/abstentions

18.1. 貴社または貴社の代理を務めるサービスプロバイダーが出した議決権行使に係る指示を追跡しているか示してください。

18.2. 貴社または貴社の代理を務める第三者が出した議決権行使に係る指示のうち、各投票項目の占める割合を示してください。

66 %
34 %
0 %

18.3. 貴社が経営陣の提案に対する反対票を投じたケースにおいて、貴社がエンゲージメントを行った企業の占める割合を示してください。


18.4. 補足情報 [任意]

We report the number of votes for and against management on our website in real-time summary graphics that can be uploaded based on specific search features. While we track the number of ballot items voted, the number of unique companies  (LEA 18.3) we are voting at is something we currently do not track, as there might be a number of companies where we are voting several distinct ballots for the same company, but across various funds.

We sometimes pre-declare our votes in advance, as a matter of public awareness and investor education, on issues or companies of high importance to our CRI program. Such pre-declarations have been increasing in recent years, across investors in the US and EU, as a way to draw attention to important “key votes” and help educate other investment managers on the importance of their analysis and voting on those decisions. 

LEA 19. Proportion of ballot items that were for/against/abstentions

19.1. 不首尾に終わった議決権行使後の正式なエスカレーション戦略が貴社にあるか示してください。

19.2. 棄権後、または経営陣に反対する票を投じた後に貴社が用いるエスカレーション戦略を示してください。

19.3. 補足情報 [任意]

CBIS does not contact directors or executives after votes of against or abstain as a normal course of business. We typically only contact a company when we have a long-term engagement in place, or where a significant controversy occurred and the company still has not addressed it at the time of the AGM. We may also "pre-declare" our votes against directors or executives on issues of high importance to our firm, where a company has not done enough to address our concerns on that issue. We are typically joining other investors in that "pre-declare" announcement, which is public.

LEA 20. Shareholder resolutions

20.1. 貴社が報告年度中に、直接もしくはサービスプロバイダーを介して、ESG株主決議を提出または共同提出したか示してください。

20.2. 貴社が行ったまたは共同で行ったESG関連株主決議の数を記載してください。

4 合計

20.3. 以下の結果をもたらした、これらのESG関連株主決議の数の割合を記載してください。

25 %
75 %
0 %
0 %
合計 100%

20.4. 貴社が提出または共同提出したESGの株式決議で議案に採用された(撤回されなかった)ものに対する賛成票の割合を選択してください。

100 50%超
0 20〜50%
0 20%未満

20.5. 貴社が提出または共同提出したESG関連の株主決議で、結果が達成されたものについて説明してください。


AT&T Corp.: Child Sexual Exploitation Online: Filed Oct. 2019; withdrawn Dec. 2019. Company disclosed to us some metrics and initiatives on combating child sexual exploitation and agreed to continued dialogue to better define best practices on the issue.

Verizon Communications: Child Sexual Exploitation Online: Filed Nov. 2019; withdrawn Feb. 2020. CBIS met with the company.

Sprint Corp.: Child Sexual Exploitation Online: Filed Feb. 2019; AGM was scheduled for Aug. 2019 and then postposed due to possible acquisition by T-Mobile US. AGM was then scheduled for Mar. 2020, but then cancelled due to acquisition. 


CBIS co-filed, and led US engagements:

BP plc: GHG Targets for Products and Operations Aligned with Paris Agreement: Co-filed Feb. 2019 with dozens of co-filers. The resolution received 99.17% support and passed. CBIS attended the AGM and encouraged the Board to support Scope 3 emissions target-setting. CBIS also met with the chairman of the Board the day before the AGM.


20.6. 貴社が他の投資家によって提出されたESG株主決議を審査するかどうかについて説明してください。

Yes, frequently, to understand what new proposals are coming up for the season for proxy voting; to educate ourselves on emerging ESG risks to pay attention to; to understand why certain proposals are being challenged at the US SEC or other securities regulators; and to understand variations in wording that might lead to proxy advisory services or large, influential investors not supporting those asks.

20.7. 補足情報[任意] 

CBIS has been active in filing shareholder resolutions on E, S, and G topics for over 30 years--largely on environmental, economic justice and human rights issues. We have tracked the number of resolutions we have filed, that have been omitted, or withdrawn, for over two decades, and we track what core accomplishments we have achieved, by issues area, from our engagements, including our dialogues.

LEA 21. Examples of (proxy) voting activities

21.1. 報告年度に貴社またはサービスプロバイダーが実行した(委任状による)議決権行使の例を提供してください。

Climate Change

We examined best practices on climate change-related proxy voting guidelines, particularly related to:

  • the governance of climate risk
  • board refreshment and integrating new skillsets for directors to better guide companies through climate transition risk
  • remuneration strategies tied to climate change objectives
  • accounting and audit firm/Audit Committee guidance related to company climate performance and risk
  • other cutting edge approaches to climate voting.

We reviewed the voting guidelines of a number of peers around the globe, particularly ones that we knew specialized in their engagement approaches on climate change. We compiled examples of effective voting guidance, for consideration in 2019 to possibly amend and update our policies. We also had discussions with ISS throughout the year on its climate voting research capabilities and our ability to assess director elections, compensation and other governance-related votes tied to climate change.

Executive Remuneration

To improve our proxy voting guidelines on executive compensation, in order to better incorporate issues of income/wealth disparity at the company level in our voting decisions, and to assess voting instructions that may be helpful in keeping executive compensation at a fair and balanced level.


We continued in 2019 to examine voting guidance from several peer organizations globally and voting research from proxy advisors on comp votes and income disparity; we studied compensation package approval rates by top institutional investors and how that compared with our own Say on Pay approvals and other compensation votes; and we worked with ISS to better understand the implications for certain voting policies on compensation, in terms of pay packages approved or not approved in key markets.

Human rights

CBIS reached out to some of our sub-advisers after resolutions we filed went to a vote, to understand how our own managers voted their ballots on issues of high priority to us. 


We asked for meetings with select managers the day after the AGM occurred so that the reasons for their vote were fresh in their minds to have a detailed discussion with us on those decisions. We prioritized the managers where we had sent them information on the resolution topic beforehand, or where we had presented the information directly to the pertinent analysts.


21.2. 補足情報[任意]

We additionally reviewed the votes of key external managers on votes important to us, to better understand their approach to issues where we engage.