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

NEI Investments

PRI reporting framework 2020

You are in Direct - Listed Equity Active Ownership » Outputs and outcomes


LEA 09. Number of companies engaged with, intensity of engagement and effort




09.2. 報告年度内に行ったエンゲージメントの内訳を対話(貴社の代理で行われた対話を含む)の回数ごとに示してください。

対話回数 1回
対話回数 2 ~ 3回
対話回数 4回以上

09.3. 報告年度中に協働的なエンゲージメントの中で、貴社が主導したエンゲージメントの割合を記載してください。


09.5. 補足情報 [任意]

Note that where we had a solo engagement and a collaborative engagement with a company, we only counted the solo engagement to avoid double counting.

LEA 10. Engagement methods

10.1. 貴社のエンゲージメントが以下のどの項目を含むか明示してください。


          Participation in stakeholder panels, collaboration with companies in multi-stakeholder initiatives, consultation with industry associations, engagement collaboration with portfolio sub-advisors

10.2. 補足情報 [任意]

In our view, investors should use the mode of engagement that is most efficient and effective in achieving a specific ESG objective at a specific company, with appropriate escalation as required. If the dialogue objective can be achieved by sending a single letter or email, so much the better, although in our experience persistence and considerable effort are required to achieve major objectives.

We participate frequently in other modes of engagement that are not mentioned under this indicator, and that we believe can be helpful in advancing ESG objectives, including:

  • participation in a company’s formal ESG stakeholder panel process - companies are particularly open to ESG input at these sessions
  • meetings with the board on ESG issues (especially governance)
  • meetings with senior management on ESG issues (outside the roadshow structure)
  • engaging with industry associations for sector-wide change
  • working alongside companies in multi-stakeholder ESG leadership initiatives.

LEA 11. Examples of ESG engagements

11.1. 報告年度に貴社または貴社のサービスプロバイダーが実行したエンゲージメントの事例を挙げてください。

Climate Change

Getting Real About the Energy Transition: Climate Strategy for Energy Producers and Users

To achieve a socially-just, well-managed transition to a low-carbon economy, and effectively tackle climate risk, we believe action is needed by companies on both the supply and demand sides of the energy equation. As the first Canadian investment institution to back the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) survey in 2002, we have been urging Canadian companies to reduce emissions, address climate risk and enhance disclosure for almost two decades. We also support the recommendations of the Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosure (TCFD), which address systemic risk to the financial system by promoting investor-oriented reporting of material climate information by all companies and seek to encourage all companies in our holdings to respond to the recommendations, as appropriate to their sector and level of exposure to climate risk. As well, we are pushing leading companies to commit to aligning with the goal of a net zero future by 2050.




In 2019, we engaged over 40 companies across our global holdings on the TCFD recommendations, either individually or in the context of the Climate Action 100+ collaborative engagement.

  • We continued intensive dialogue with oil and gas companies on strategies for navigating the transition to a low-carbon economy. We also co-organized an event for the third year in a row with CDP where over 20 energy companies discussed carbon disclosure challenges with investors.
  • Canadian Natural Resources, Cenovus Energy and Teck Resources all announced plans to be net zero - with Cenovus and Teck committing to a 2050 timeline specifically.
  • We also continued our engagement with the major Canadian banks on their response to the TCFD.
Human rights

To encourage companies in our portfolio to actively engage with the Equator Principles review process, and to specifically endorse changes that would align the Equator Principles with best practices in respecting Indigenous rights. We had the following objectives we wanted companies to pursue:

  • Eliminate the distinction between the applicable environmental and social standards that the EP signatories must meet in high-income versus lower income countries (known as Designated and non-Designated Countries) to avoid a situation like DAPL where U.S. law did not meet environmental and social standards despite it being a high-income country.
  • To demonstrate effective stakeholder engagement, require EP signatories to implement the IFC Performance Standard 7 on Indigenous Peoples where Indigenous Peoples' rights are at risk.
  • To demonstrate a strong alignment with the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, enhance the reporting framework by requiring disclosures of the EP signatories’ human rights due diligence processes.



In 2019 we engaged 35 banks in our portfolio on this issue - writing to encourage them to support revisions to the Equator Principles framework that aligned the above asks. As well, we had in-depth engagements with the big Canadian banks in our portfolio (e.g. RBC, CIBC, TD, BMO, Scotiabank) on their specific approach to ensuring their lending practices were not negatively impacting Indigenous rights.

We also engaged the Equator Principles Association directly to encourage the adoption of a robust framework around Indigenous rights. We were also co-leads on a letter to the Equator Principles Association asking them to align the framework with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights - including protecting Indigenous rights.


Human rights

Advancing Digital Human Rights

Technological devices and digital services are increasingly embedded in our lives. In exchange for interconnectivity and efficiency benefits, we entrust our personal data to companies but privacy breaches and data controversies put users at risk and can impact company value.


As a Steering Committee member of the Investor Alliance for Human Rights, we led a global statement on corporate accountability for digital rights, setting out expectations for ICT companies’ responsibility to respect user privacy and free expression and endorsing the Ranking Digital Rights Corporate Accountability Index, which assesses the largest ICT companies.  The statement, signed by 49 investors, signalled the start of collaborative engagement with companies such as Apple, Microsoft, Facebook and Vodafone.

NEI has teamed up with fellow Alphabet investors Hermes, Robeco and The Sustainability Group of Loring Wolcott & Coolidge to bring our concerns to the board of directors. We wrote a comprehensive letter outlining these concerns and requested to meet with the company. We asked other investors with similar concerns if they wanted to collaborate and received overwhelming support: over 80 institutional investors signed on to our letter, representing close to US$10 trillion of assets under management. Despite months of work, Alphabet’s response was dismissive and disappointing. We decided to escalate the engagement and filed a shareholder proposal asking the company to adopt human rights oversight at the board.

Other governance

Investors for Opioid Accountability

There were almost 4,000 opioid-related deaths in Canada in 2017, and the role of prescription medicine in the North American opioid crisis has been under increasing legal and regulatory scrutiny. The Investors for Opioid Accountability coalition engaged U.S. pharmaceutical company boards on how they are responding to public concern and business risks related to opioids.


Since 2017 we have been the only Canadian investor member of the Investors for Opioid Accountability (IOA) coalition, which holds pharmaceutical companies, pharmacy retailers and distributors accountable for their role in the North American opioid crisis. This season we voted for all shareholder proposals IOA members filed at companies such as Walgreens Boots Alliance, CVS Health and Johnson & Johnson. 60% of Walgreens investors supported a proposal asking the board to produce a regular report on how it manages the risk of distributing opioids. At Johnson & Johnson, a proposal asking for more details on when it claws back executive compensation in relation to the opioid crisis received 46% support.

We co-authored a set of governance principles for companies engaged in the sale of opioids. These principles have been used as a guide for further engagement with the IOA coalition.

We also co-filed a shareholder proposal at J&J together with the New York City Comptroller, the lead filer. We wanted to understand when and if the company uses its clawback policy to rescind bonus compensation from executives due to financial or ethical misconduct. We withdrew our proposal as the company met our ask.


11.2. 補足情報[任意]

Details of all the engagement carried out during the year can be found on our website: