Background
The Trustee of the Hemming Group Pension Scheme (''the Scheme") has drawn up this Statement of Investment Principles (''the SIP") to comply with Section 35 of the Pensions Act 1995 (as amended by the Pensions Act 2004 and regulations made under it). The Statement is intended to affirm the investment principles that govern decisions about the Scheme's investments and the Trustees believe that the investment policies and their implementation are in keeping with best practice, including the principles underlying the (Myners) Code of Best Practice for pension fund investment published in 2001 (as amended).
The Scheme operates for the exclusive purpose of providing retirement benefits and death benefits to eligible participants and beneficiaries.
Governance
The Scheme is governed by its trust deed and rules, which set out in detail the benefits and specify the Trustees’ investment powers.
The Trustees make the key strategic decisions relating to the Scheme’s investments, and to support the objectives of the Scheme’s investment strategy, it appointed Legal and General Assurance (Pensions Management) Limited (“Fiduciary Manager”) as a Fiduciary Manager, giving the Fiduciary Manager discretion over the implementation and day-to-day management of the Scheme's investments. The Fiduciary Manager delegates its investment management powers to Legal & General Investment Management Limited (“LGIM”). LGIM is part of the same group of companies as the Fiduciary Manager. The Trustees have also appointed LGIM to provide investment advisory services under an investment advisory agreement on or around the same date. The Trustees may terminate its agreements with the Fiduciary Manager and LGIM in line with their terms.
When making investment decisions, and when appropriate, the Trustees take proper advice from LGIM, in its role as investment advisor. LGIM is qualified by its ability in, and practical experience of, financial matters and has the appropriate knowledge and experience to provide such advice. The Trustees review LGIM’s performance and the Scheme’s risk profile on a quarterly basis. When deciding on the long-term investment strategy and in preparing this Statement, the Trustees have consulted with the Scheme’s sponsor. The ultimate power and responsibility for deciding investment policy lies solely with the Trustees.
Investment Objectives
The Trustees aim to pay members benefits in a sustainable and secure manner. The Trustees are required to invest the Scheme’s assets in the best interest of the members, and its main objectives with regard to investment policy are:
- The acquisition of suitable assets of appropriate liquidity which will generate income and capital growth to meet the cost of current and future benefits which the Scheme provides; and
- To limit the risk of assets failing to meet the liabilities, both over the long-term and on a medium-term basis.
In addition, the following secondary objective has been adopted: - To pay due regard to the interests of the size and incidence of the sponsor’s contribution payments.
Investment Strategy
The Trustees have set a return target for the Scheme above the performance of gilts based liabilities, net of investment management fees. The Trustees have considered the risks associated with a return target of this level. The Fiduciary Manager is tasked with reducing risk to the extent possible for the specified return target.
The asset mix will vary from time to time within the discretion of the Fiduciary Manager within agreed asset allocation constraints. The Trustees have also put in place dynamic de-risking triggers so that as the funding level improves the return target will be reduced and the allocation constraints will be adjusted. Further information is provided below.
Initial constraints: Gilts + 1.5% pa target return
% of overall portfolio | Minimum | Maximum |
Overall growth assets | 32.5% | 60.0% |
Liability matching assets (corporate bonds, LDI and cash) | 40.0% | 67.5% |
% of growth assets | Minimum | Maximum |
Strategic liquid diversified growth | 74.5% | 85.5% |
Illiquid growth assets (e.g. property) | 0.0% | 0.0% |
Dynamic growth strategies | 14.5% | 25.5% |
Hedge ratio (% of funded liabilities) | Minimum | Maximum |
Interest rate hedge | 40% | 110% |
Inflation hedge | 40% | 110% |
On hitting trigger 1: Gilts + 1.25% pa target return
% of overall portfolio | Minimum | Maximum |
Overall growth assets | 20.0% | 47.5% |
Liability matching assets (corporate bonds, LDI and cash) | 52.5% | 80.0% |
% of growth assets | Minimum | Maximum |
Strategic liquid diversified growth assets | 74.5% | 85.5% |
Illiquid growth assets (e.g. property) | 0.0% | 0.0% |
Dynamic growth strategies | 14.5% | 25.5% |
Hedge ratio (% of funded liabilities) | Minimum | Maximum |
Interest rate hedge | 40% | 110% |
Inflation hedge | 40% | 110% |
On hitting trigger 2 : Gilts + 1.0% pa target return
% of overall portfolio | Minimum | Maximum |
Overall growth assets | 10.0% | 37.5% |
Liability matching assets (corporate bonds, LDI and cash) | 62.5% | 90.0% |
% of growth assets | Minimum | Maximum |
Strategic liquid diversified growth assets | 74.5% | 85.5% |
Illiquid growth assets (e.g. property) | 0.0% | 0.0% |
Dynamic growth strategies | 14.5% | 25.5% |
Hedge ratio (% of funded liabilities) | Minimum | Maximum |
Interest rate hedge | 40% | 110% |
Inflation hedge | 40% | 110% |
On hitting Buy Out Trigger: Aim to match buy out prices
% of overall portfolio | Minimum | Maximum |
Overall growth assets | - | 0% |
Liability matching assets (corporate bonds, LDI and cash) | 100% | - |
Hedge ratio (% of funded liabilities) | Minimum | Maximum |
Interest rate hedge | 90% | 110% |
Inflation hedge | 90% | 110% |
Management of the Assets
The assets are managed under a fiduciary management agreement by the Fiduciary Manager. The Fiduciary Manager delegates provision of the fiduciary management services to LGIM. Under the agreed fiduciary management arrangement, the Fiduciary Manager has discretion to invest the assets of the Scheme across its range of the Fiduciary Manager’s pooled funds, which have exposure to a range of underlying assets, in order to meet the strategic objectives. In doing so, the Fiduciary Manager is tasked with maintaining the diversification, liability hedging and liquidity of the Scheme as a whole.
The safe custody of the underlying assets to which the Scheme is exposed is delegated to professional custodians via the use of pooled vehicles.
The Trustees monitor the Scheme’s asset allocation on a quarterly basis and reviews the Fiduciary Manager’s performance.
The Trustees’ policy is to evaluate the Fiduciary Manager by reference to its performance (over short, medium and longer-term periods), the role it plays in helping to meet the objectives of the Scheme as set out in this Statement, and the fees paid to the Fiduciary Manager.
Investment Risks
The Trustees recognise a number of risks involved in investment of the assets of the Scheme and also understand that this does not constitute an exhaustive list of the risks the Scheme faces.
- Solvency risk and mismatching risk - The Trustees regularly review the asset allocation of the Scheme to ensure mismatching risk is considered and managed suitably. Solvency levels are monitored through ongoing triennial actuarial valuations.
- Liquidity risk - The Trustees have adopted a strategy that makes due allowance of the need for liquidity of the Scheme's assets.
- Concentration risk - The Trustees have delegated to the Fiduciary Manager the task of ensuring that the risk of an adverse influence on investment values from the poor performance of a small number of individual investments is reduced by diversification across asset classes, regions and securities.
- Sponsor risk - The Trustees review the sponsor’s covenant at each actuarial valuation or when there is an event that might lead to material changes in the Sponsor's covenant. The Trustee has considered the risk that the sponsor may be unwilling or unable to maintain the necessary level of contributions in future, as measured by a number of factors including the creditworthiness of the Sponsor and the size of the pension liability relative to the financial strength of the Sponsor.
- Leverage (derivatives) risk – In order to manage liability risk the Trustees permit the use of derivative strategies by the Fiduciary Manager, to facilitate efficient portfolio management and to contribute to risk reduction. The Trustees delegate the management of derivative instruments to the Fiduciary Manager to ensure they are managed so as to avoid excessive risk exposure to a single counterparty and to other derivative operations.
- Fiduciary Manager risk – The Trustees monitor the Fiduciary Manager’s performance on a quarterly basis, and compares the investment returns with appropriate performance objectives.
Realisation of Investments
The Trustees’ policy is that there will be sufficient investments in liquid or readily realisable assets to meet cashflow requirements in foreseeable circumstances so that the realisation of assets will not disrupt the Scheme’s overall investments where possible. The responsibility for buying and selling investments has been delegated to the Fiduciary Manager.
Responsible Investment and Corporate Governance
The Trustees believe that good stewardship and environmental (including climate change), social and governance ("ESG") issues may have a financially material impact on meeting the investment objective. As an investor in pooled funds, the Trustees have implicitly given the Fiduciary Manager full discretion when evaluating the impact of ESG issues on the investment objective, and in exercising rights and stewardship obligations attached to the Scheme's investments.
The Trustees expect the Fiduciary Manager, where appropriate, to make decisions based on assessments about medium to long-term financial and non-financial performance of an issuer of debt or equity, taking into account all relevant matters pertaining to that security, in order to improve their performance in the medium to long-term. The Trustees invest through a Fiduciary Management arrangement and any exposure it has to equity and debt securities is through pooled funds managed by the Fiduciary Manager.
Similarly, the Scheme's voting rights are exercised by the Fiduciary Manager in accordance with the Fiduciary Manager’s own corporate governance policies, and taking account of current best practice including the UK Corporate Governance Code and the UK Stewardship Code. The Trustees deem the most “significant votes” cast by the Fiduciary Manager to represent issues on which the Fiduciary Manager decided to vote against management or where the vote was part of a wider engagement with the entity to reflect the Scheme’s stewardship priorities and themes. The Trustees expect that significant votes will cover a range of relevant matters, including (but not limited to) climate change, biodiversity, gender diversity and ethnicity, remuneration and governance.
The Trustees review its sustainability preferences and expectations for voting and stewardship behaviour with the Fiduciary Manager every three years or in conjunction with a significant change to investment policy (when reviewing the wider content of this document).
The Trustees expect the Fiduciary Manager to demonstrate good stewardship practices, and will review how the Fiduciary Manager is performing in this area by considering its disclosures on stewardship as provided to the Trustee.
Fee Arrangements
The Fiduciary Manager is paid a management fee on the basis of assets under management. This fee includes the provision of both asset management and investment consulting services for the Fiduciary Management service.
The Trustees consider the fees agreed with the Fiduciary Manager incentivise the Fiduciary Manager to provide a high quality service that meets the objectives of the Scheme. The Trustees monitor the Fiduciary Manager and would consider terminating any appointment that appears to be acting contrary to this SIP.
The Trustees receive an annual statement outlining the Scheme’s portfolio turnover costs (the unavoidable costs of buying, selling, lending or borrowing securities). However the Trustees recognise that investment management necessarily generates portfolio turnover costs, which are reflected in performance of the Scheme’s assets, in order to meet the investment objectives and so has not defined target portfolio turnover costs. The Trustees expect LGIM to include the consideration of portfolio turnover costs as appropriate when providing advice on the Scheme’s investments.
Review of this Statement
The Trustees will review this Statement at least once every three years and without delay after any significant change in investment policy. Any change to this Statement will only be made after having obtained and considered the written advice of someone who the Trustees reasonably believe to be qualified by their ability in and practical experience of financial matters and to have the appropriate knowledge and experience of the management of pension scheme investments.
The Trustees of Hemming Group Pension Scheme
Engagement policy implementation statement for the year ended 30 June 2023
During the year ended 30 June 2023, the Scheme’s investment policies were implemented in line with the principles set out in the Scheme’s Statement of Investment Principles.
Legal and General Investment Management (LGIM) were appointed as the Trustees’ fiduciary manager on 2 December 2022. The Trustees’ policy is to delegate responsibility for the exercising of rights (including voting rights) attaching to investments to the investment manager, Legal and General Investment Management (LGIM) and to encourage the manager to exercise those rights in accordance with the Statement of Investment Principles. The Hemming Group Pension Scheme invests through pooled fund arrangements and so acknowledges that the investment manager exercises those rights in accordance with their own corporate governance policies on behalf of all investors in its funds. In doing so LGIM takes account of current best practice including the UK Corporate Governance Code and the UK Stewardship Code.
The Trustees reviewed LGIM’s approach to stewardship and are comfortable with the activity taken on the Scheme’s behalf.
The Trustees conclude that, based on these considerations, LGIM has followed the requirements of the SIP.
Voting behaviour
LGIM’s voting decisions are made internally within LGIMs Corporate Governance team, and independently from the investment teams. They are primarily based on LGIM’s global corporate governance and responsible investment principles, which set out their global approach to key governance issues. LGIM has supplementary regional policies which set out their approach to more specific regional or country issues taking into account specific market regulation or best practice. LGIM discloses monthly voting records on their website. The reports are published at the end of each month. Additionally, for votes that have received significant press attention, LGIM produces summaries of the firm’s positions. The full voting record can be found on LGIM’s website linked here:
https://vds.issgovernance.com/vds/#/MjU2NQ==/
LGIM does not outsource any part of its strategic voting decisions; however ISS (Institutional Shareholder Services) is used for the customisation of LGIM’s voting policy, the execution and processing of the voting instruction. LGIM aims to minimise abstentions. Since 2011, it has not abstained in the UK. In other markets, LGIM seeks to minimise abstentions unless it is technically impossible to vote. LGIM regularly engages with the proxy execution agent ISS via direct meetings and through our participation in consultations on regional voting policies.
LGIM summarises its voting record across all markets each quarter. This information is available on request.
Examples of LGIM’s engagement activities during the year ended 30 June 2023
Active ownership, which is a broader topic than voting in isolation, forms a key part of how LGIM conducts responsible investing. This is reflected in the following activities that are conducted on behalf of the SchemeCompany engagementUsing voting rights globally, with one voice across all active and index fundsAddressing systemic risks and opportunities
Seeking to influence regulators and policymakers
Collaborating with other investors and stakeholders.The examples below demonstrate some of the specific initiatives undertaken by LGIM in this regard during the year.
Climate impact pledge 2022
At LGIM, climate change and supporting a drive to net zero remain a priority. As such, we have further expanded our dedicated climate engagement programme, the Climate Impact Pledge, by strengthening our climate expectations and red lines for investee companies, with the goal of accelerating progress towards net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions globally. We have expanded the scope of our climate engagement programme in three main ways:
- Increased the number of sectors: In 2016, our first iteration of the Climate Impact Pledge covered 6 sectors. In 2020 we increased this to 15 and we have now expanded coverage to 20 sectors. These companies are responsible for the majority of global carbon emissions from listed companies and also have been identified as the most carbon-intensive sectors within our portfolio.
- Increased the number of companies covered by our data driven assessment: By publishing our climate ratings on our dedicated website, we enable companies to verify their progress and identify areas in their climate disclosures and strategies which need improvement. There may be voting implications for those companies not meeting our minimum standards.
- Increased the number of companies subject to direct engagement from 60 to over 100 companies: In October 2022, we began our next cycle of direct climate engagement with selected companies. These companies are influential in their sectors, but not yet leaders on climate change and sustainability; we believe they can and should embrace the transition to net zero carbon emissions in the next few years. Complementing our data-driven approach, this qualitative approach enables our stewardship team sector experts to conduct an in-depth assessment of each company, based on the framework set out in the net zero sector guidelines published on our website – the sector and net zero guides have also been updated further details are available on the website or on request. This engagement aims to help companies remove roadblocks and encourage progress. We expect these in-depth engagement companies to meet our published sector-specific red lines. There are potential voting and divestment implications for companies not meeting these after a certain period of engagement.
COP27 Event
International leadership and collaboration are key to delivering a decarbonised future. In November 2022, Egypt played host to world leaders, heads of state, industry chiefs and civil society organisations at the UN global climate summit, COP27. Michael Marks, Head of Investment Stewardship and Responsible Investment Integration, Kurt Morriesen, Head of ESG Advisory, and Fahad Ali, Director, CEO Office, attended COP27 and represented LGIM.
LGIM hosted two events:
- 'Trillions to the transition. Unlocking the framework: How to harness the potential of SDG-aligned investments in emerging markets.'
- A panel discussion on the 'Impact investing and its role in achieving SDGs with special focus on SDG13.'
Company specific
Sainsbury’s: income inequality – living wage engagement
Sainsbury’s has recently come under scrutiny for not paying a real living wage. LGIM engaged initially with the company’s [then] CEO in 2016 about this issue and by 2021, Sainsbury’s was paying a real living wage to all employees, except those in outer London. We joined forces with ShareAction to try to encourage the company to change its policy for outer London workers. As these engagements failed to deliver change, we then joined ShareAction in filing a shareholder resolution in Q1 2022, asking the company to becoming a living wage accredited employer.
This escalation succeeded insofar as, in April 2022, Sainsbury’s moved all its London-based employees (inner and outer) to the real living wage. We welcomed this development as it demonstrates Sainsbury’s values as a responsible employer. However, the shareholder resolution was not withdrawn and remained on the 2022 AGM agenda because, despite this expansion of the real living wage to more employees, there are still some who are excluded. This group comprises contracted cleaners and security guards, who fulfil essential functions in helping the business to operate safely. Sainsbury’s increased wages again for all employees in October 2022, and again in January 2023, taking the hourly pay rate for London employees to £11.95 and the national rate to £11. Store discounts were increased in October and free food during shifts will be extended for a further 6 months of 2023. We will continue our engagements with the company.
Why did LGIM conduct this engagement?
Ensuring companies take account of the ‘employee voice’ and that they are treating employees fairly in terms of pay and diversity and inclusion is an important aspect of our stewardship activities. As the cost of living ratchets up in the wake of the pandemic and amid soaring inflation in many parts of the world, our work on income inequality and our expectations of companies regarding the living wage have acquired a new level of urgency.
LGIM’s expectations of companies:
- As a responsible investor, LGIM advocates that all companies should ensure that they are paying their employees a living wage and that this requirement should also be extended to all firms with whom they do business across their supply chains.
- We expect the company board to challenge decisions to pay employees less than the living wage.
- We ask the remuneration committee, when considering remuneration for executive directors, to consider the remuneration policy adopted for all employees.
- In the midst of the pandemic, we went a step further by tightening our criteria of bonus payments to executives at companies where COVID-19 had resulted in mass employee lay-offs and the company had claimed financial assistance (such as participating in government-supported furlough schemes) in order to remain a going concern.
With over 600 supermarkets, more than 800 convenience stores, and nearly 190,000 employees, Sainsbury’s is one of the largest supermarkets in the UK. Although Sainsbury’s is currently paying higher wages than many other listed supermarkets, the company has been selected because it is more likely than many of its peers to be able to meet the requirements to become living-wage accredited.
Significant votes for the Scheme during the year
In determining significant votes, LGIM takes into account the criteria provided by the Pensions & Lifetime Savings Association (PLSA) and the Scheme’s Statement of Investment Principles. This includes but is not limited to:
- High profile vote which has such a degree of controversy that there is high client and/or public scrutiny
- Significant client interest for a vote
- Sanction vote as a result of a direct or collaborative engagement
- Vote linked to an LGIM engagement campaign
The Plan is invested c.36.2% in LGIM’s Multi-Asset Fund and c.9.0% in LGIM’s Multi Asset Target Return Fund. The most significant votes for the Plan in relation to these Funds are summarised in the table below.
The Trustees deem this voting behaviour to be in line with the Plan’s stewardship priorities, which include but are not limited to climate change, biodiversity, diversity and ethnicity, remuneration and governance.
The most significant votes for the Plan during the year to 30 June 2023 have been summarised in the table below:
Company Name | Details of Vote |
Royal Dutch Shell Plc |
Date of vote: 23/05/2023 Approximate size of Fund’s holding: 0.56% Summary of the resolution: Resolution 25 - Approve the Shell Energy Transition Progress How LGIM voted: Against
Climate change: A vote against is applied, though not without reservations. We acknowledge the substantial progress made by the company in meeting its 2021 climate commitments and welcome the company’s leadership in pursuing low carbon products. However, we remain concerned by the lack of disclosure surrounding future oil and gas production plans and targets associated with the upstream and downstream operations; both of these are key areas to demonstrate alignment with the 1.5C trajectory. Why was the vote significant? Outcome of the vote: 80.0% of shareholders supported the resolution. |
Tencent Holdings Limited |
Date of vote: 17/05/2023 Approximate size of Fund’s holding: 0.26% Summary of the resolution: Resolution 3a - Elect Jacobus Petrus (Koos) Bekker as Director How LGIM voted: Against Rationale for voting decision: Why was the vote significant? Outcome of the vote: 88.4% of shareholders supported the resolution. |
Toyota Motor Corp |
Date of vote: 14/06/2023 Approximate size of Fund’s holding: 0.20% Summary of the resolution: Resolution 4 – Amend Articles to Report on Corporate Climate Lobbying How LGIM voted: For Rationale for voting decision: Why was the vote significant? Outcome of the vote: 15.1% of shareholders supported the resolution..
|
Public Storage |
Date of vote: 02/05/2023 Summary of the resolution: Resolution 5 - Report on GHG Emissions Reduction Targets Aligned with the Paris Agreement Goal How LGIM voted: For Rationale for voting decision: Shareholder Resolution - Climate change: A vote in favour is applied as LGIM expects companies to introduce credible transition plans, consistent with the Paris goals of limiting the global average temperature increase to 1.5°C. This includes the disclosure of scope 1, 2 and material scope 3 GHG emissions and short-, medium- and long-term GHG emissions reduction targets consistent with the 1.5°C goal. Why was the vote significant? High Profile meeting: This shareholder resolution is considered significant due to the relatively high level of support received. Outcome of the vote: 34.7% of shareholders supported the resolution. |
Amazon.com, Inc. |
Date of vote: 24/05/2023 Approximate size of Fund’s holding: 0.18% Summary of the resolution: Resolution 13 – Report on Median and Adjusted Gender/Racial Pay Gaps How LGIM voted: Against Rationale for voting decision: Diversity: A vote against is applied as LGIM expects a company to have at least one-third women on the board. Average board tenure: A vote against is applied as LGIM expects a board to be regularly refreshed in order to maintain an appropriate mix of independence, relevant skills, experience, tenure, and background. Why was the vote significant? Pre-declaration and Thematic – Diversity: LGIM views gender diversity as a financially material issue for our clients, with implications for the assets we manage on their behalf. Outcome of the vote: 29.0% of shareholders supported the resolution. |
How many meetings were you eligible to vote at over the year | 9,366 |
How many resolutions were you eligible to vote on over the year | 93,898 |
What % of resolutions LGIM voted on where eligible | 99.82% |
Of the resolutions on which LGIM voted, the % voted with management was | 76.94% |
Of the resolutions on which LGIM voted, the % voted against management was | 22.64% |
Of the resolutions on which LGIM voted, the % abstained was | 0.42% |
LGIM Multi-Asset Target Return Fund
Company Name | Details of Vote |
Essential Utilities, Inc. |
Date of vote: 03/05/2023 Approximate size of Fund’s holding: 0.17% Summary of the resolution: Resolution 1.3 - Elect Director Christopher H. Franklin How LGIM voted: Withheld Rationale for voting decision: Joint Chair/CEO: A vote against is applied as LGIM expects companies to separate the roles of Chair and CEO due to risk management and oversight concerns. Why was the vote significant? |
Eversource Energy |
Date of vote: 03/05/2022 Outcome of the vote: |
PotlatchDeltic Corporation |
Date of vote: 01/05/2023 Approximate size of Fund’s holding: 0.11% Summary of the resolution: Resolution 1d - Elect Director Lawrence S. Peiros How LGIM voted: Rationale for voting decision: Climate Impact Pledge: A vote against is applied as the company is deemed to not meet minimum standards with regard to climate risk management. Remuneration - Accountability - Escalation: A vote against is applied as LGIM has had concerns with the remuneration practices for the past year. Classified Board: A vote against is applied as LGIM supports a declassified board as directors should stand for re-election on an annual basis. Independence: A vote against is applied as LGIM expects the Lead Director to have served on the board for no more than 15 years in order to maintain independence and a balance of relevant skills, experience, tenure, and background. Why was the vote significant? Thematic - Climate: LGIM considers this vote to be significant as it is applied under the Climate Impact Pledge, our flagship engagement programme targeting companies in climate-critical sectors. More information on LGIM's Climate Impact Pledge can be found here: https://www.lgim.com/uk/en/responsible-investing/climate-impact-pledge/ Outcome of the vote: |
First Solar, Inc. |
Date of vote: 09/05/2023 Approximate size of Fund’s holding: 0.10% Summary of the resolution: Resolution 1.9 - Elect Director Paul H. Stebbins How LGIM voted: Against
Diversity: A vote against is applied as LGIM expects a company to have at least one-third women on the board. Independence: A vote against is applied as LGIM expects the Chair of the Committee to have served on the board for no more than 15 years in order to maintain independence and a balance of relevant skills, experience, tenure, and background. Why was the vote significant? Thematic - Diversity: LGIM views gender diversity as a financially material issue for our clients, with implications for the assets we manage on their behalf. Outcome of the vote: |
Tianneng Power International Limited |
Date of vote: 08/06/2023 Approximate size of Fund’s holding: 0.08% Summary of the resolution: Resolution 3a - Elect Zhang Tianren as Director How LGIM voted: Against Rationale for voting decision: Joint Chair/CEO: A vote against is applied as LGIM expects the roles of Board Chair and CEO to be separate. These two roles are substantially different and a division of responsibilities ensures there is a proper balance of authority and responsibility on the board.Diversity: A vote against is applied as LGIM expects a company to have a diverse board, including at least one woman. We expect companies to increase female participation both on the board and in leadership positions over time. Why was the vote significant? Thematic - Diversity: LGIM views gender diversity as a financially material issue for our clients, with implications for the assets we manage on their behalf. Thematic - Board Leadership: LGIM considers this vote to be significant as it is in application of an escalation of our vote policy on the topic of the combination of the board chair and CEO (escalation of engagement by vote). Outcome of the vote: |
How many meetings were you eligible to vote at over the year | 319 |
How many resolutions were you eligible to vote on over the year | 3,140 |
What % of resolutions LGIM voted on where eligible | 99.20% |
Of the resolutions on which LGIM voted, the % voted with management was | 71.94% |
Of the resolutions on which LGIM voted, the % voted against management was | 27.54% |
Of the resolutions on which LGIM voted, the % abstained was | 0.51% |