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 » Engagement

Engagement

LEA 02. Reasoning for interaction on ESG issues

Indicate the method of engagement, giving reasons for the interaction.

Type of engagement

Reason for interaction

Individual / Internal staff engagements
Collaborative engagements
Service provider engagements

02.4. Additional information. [Optional]

Please see SAM module for how we work with our external managers on CRI engagement priorities and Active Ownership strategies.


LEA 03. Process for identifying and prioritising engagement activities

New selection options have been added to this indicator. Please review your prefilled responses carefully.

03.1. Indicate whether your organisation has a formal process for identifying and prioritising engagements.

Indicate the criteria used to identify and prioritise engagements for each type of engagement.
Type of engagement
Criteria used to identify/prioritise engagements
Individual / Internal staff engagements

Individual / Internal staff engagements

specify

          Issues clearly connected to Catholic Social Teaching.
        
Collaborative engagements

Collaborative engagements

specify

          Issues or sectors that connect to and magnify our existing engagement priorities.
        

03.3. Additional information. [Optional]


LEA 04. Objectives for engagement activities

New selection options have been added to this indicator. Please review your prefilled responses carefully.
Indicate whether you define specific objectives for your organisation’s engagement activities.
Individual / Internal staff engagements
Collaborative engagements

04.2. Additional information. [Optional]


LEA 05. Process for identifying and prioritising collaborative engagement

Indicate whether you monitor and/or review engagement outcomes.
Individual / Internal staff engagements
Collaborative engagements
Indicate whether you do any of the following to monitor and/or review the progress of engagement activities.
Individual / Internal staff engagements
Collaborative engagements

05.3. Additional information. [Optional]


LEA 06. Role in engagement process

06.1. Indicate whether your organisation has an escalation strategy when engagements are unsuccessful.

06.2. Indicate the escalation strategies used at your organisation following unsuccessful engagements.

          Asking our sub-advisers to become involved in engaging the security for a response or progress.

Influencing public policy.
        

06.3. Additional information. [Optional]


LEA 07. Share insights from engagements with internal/external managers

07.1. Indicate whether insights gained from your organisation`s engagements are shared with investment decision-makers.

Type of engagement

Insights shared

Individual / Internal staff engagements

Collaborative engagements

07.2. Indicate the practices used to ensure that information and insights gained through engagements are shared with investment decision-makers.

          Communicating engagement outcomes or progress to sub-advisers holding the security.
        

07.3. Indicate whether insights gained from your organisation’s engagements are shared with your clients/beneficiaries.

Type of engagement

Insights shared

Individual/Internal staff engagements

Collaborative engagements

07.4. Additional information. [Optional]

There are two types of investment decision-makers involved in this process--our internal Investment Management Team (which is now called the Catholic Responsible Investments Team after it was integrated with the ESG-focused CRI team that existed), which selects, appoints, and monitors our sub-advisers and is on the frontlines of setting expectations for our external managers, and the sub-advisers (managers) themselves. CBIS now routinely carves out time when meeting with our sub-advisers to discuss our engagement activities, Active Ownership priorities, and how our sub-advisers approach such issues. We also invite some sub-advisers to CRI-related dialogues or events we are hosting or participating in. We occasionally team up with one of our managers to further our engagement objectives. Including managers when there is interest in our work creates additional attention to our concerns at the company level, and builds broader ESG understanding with those managers.

We additionally review the proxy voting records of our managers on issues of importance to our CRI team, and we review their PRI Reports/Assessments (for those that are signatories) so that we internally can better understand our managers' approaches to ESG in order to facilitate a greater partnership with them, over time, in our engagement work.

Our CEO and CIO weigh in on our annual engagement priorities, on discussions involving escalation strategies and withdrawals of resolutions, and other strategic matters, on a routine basis. Our CRI Department reports on engagement, screening, and voting indicators on a quarterly basis to our Board and Fund Trustees, and our Executive Committee, through dashboards and spreadsheets of activity. We report our engagement priorities, goals, and outcomes to our investors on a quarterly or more basis, through public newsletters, webinars, podcasts, and information posted to our website.


LEA 08. Tracking number of engagements

08.1. Indicate whether you track the number of your engagement activities.

Type of engagement
Tracking engagements
Individual/Internal staff engagements​

Collaborative engagements

08.2. Additional information. [Optional]

In 2019, CBIS participated in 114 corporate engagements, not including private roundtable discussions with companies. This included letter writing, calls and/or in-person or video meetings, the filing of shareholder resolutions, attending annual shareholder meetings, and collaborative efforts.

We also track our policy, trade association and regulatory engagements, and report those out to our investors in our quarterly newsletter, Impact and Justice. That would include letters to regulators or policy makers; support for legislation (for example, bills to prevent human trafficking or modern day slavery); efforts with quasi-regulatory bodies like Credit Rating Agencies, Stock Exchanges, or UN agencies (for example, support for the Paris Agreement); and discussions with industry trade groups (like IATA representing airlines, for example).


Top