Responsible Investment Performance

of UK Asset Managers

The 2015 ShareAction Survey

About ShareAction

ShareAction is a UK registered charity promoting an investment system which serves savers, society and the

environment. In particular, ShareAction works to encourage institutional investors to be active owners and responsible

providers of financial capital to investee companies. Fairshare Educational Foundation (ShareAction) is a company

limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales (number 05013662 and registered address Ground Floor,

16 Crucifix Lane, London, SE1 3JW) and a registered charity (number 1117244).

Authors: Stefano Galdiolo and Camilla de Ste Croix

Disclaimer

This publication and related materials are not intended to provide and do not constitute financial or investment advice.

ShareAction makes no representation regarding the advisability or suitability of investing in any particular company,

investment fund or other vehicle or of using the services of any particular entity, asset manager or other service

provider for the provision of investment services. A decision to use the services of any asset manager, or other entity

should not be made in reliance on any of the statements set forth in this publication. Whilst every effort has been made

to ensure the information in this publication is correct, ShareAction and its agents cannot guarantee its accuracy and

they shall not be liable for any claims or losses of any nature in connection with information contained in this document,

including (but not limited to) lost profits or punitive or consequential damages or claims in negligence.

The research in this report was carried out between August 2014 and December 2014. During the period of analysis,

the entities surveyed were informed of their interim scores by email and were given the opportunity to comment on or

ask questions on these to make additional disclosures or to provide clarification. All entities surveyed were given

deadlines to notify ShareAction of their desire to discuss interim scores. Any notifications of changes, information or

clarification not drawn to ShareAction’s attention prior to the deadlines are not included in the report.

Acknowledgments

ShareAction gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the Nuffield Foundation for this project. The Nuffield

Foundation is an endowed charitable trust that aims to improve social well-being in the widest sense. It funds research

and innovation in education and social policy and also works to build capacity in education, science and social science

research. The Nuffield Foundation has funded this project, but the views expressed are those of ShareAction and not

necessarily those of the Foundation. More information is available at www.nuffieldfoundation.org.

1

Contents

UK Asset Manager Responsible Investment Ranking 2015 ...................................................................................... 2

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 5

Methodology .............................................................................................................................................................. 7

Key Findings .............................................................................................................................................................. 8

Publicly Available Information ............................................................................................................................... 9

Survey Results...................................................................................................................................................... 11

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................. 17

Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................................... 18

Appendices

Appendix 1: Examples of Best Practice, Worst Practice and Successful Engagements ...................................... 19

Appendix 2: Individual Scorecards........................................................................................................................ 22

Appendix 3: Scoring Criteria ................................................................................................................................. 56

2

UK Asset Manager Responsible Investment Ranking 2015

Asset Manager Rank Score (Max 143)

Threadneedle Asset Management 1 125

Aviva Investors 2 121

Jupiter Asset Management 3 120

Hermes Investment Management 4 110.5

Legal & General Investment Management 5 108.5

TOP 5

Standard Life Investments 6 103

F&C Investments 7 102.5

Kames Capital 8 100

Baillie Gifford & Co 9 96.5

Schroders Investment Management 10 95.5

Royal London Asset Management 11 95

State Street Global Advisors 12 93.5

BlackRock 13 91.5

Henderson Global Investors 13 91.5

Newton Investment Management 15 91

AllianceBernstein 16 89.5

Investec Asset Management 17 87.5

HSBC Global Asset Management 18 84.5

Capital International 19 78

Artemis Investment Management 20 74.5

JP Morgan Asset Management 21 73

AXA Investment Managers 22 71.5

Fidelity Worldwide Investments 23 67.5

Invesco Perpetual 24 63.5

First State Investments * 25 40

Aberdeen Asset Management * 26 37

Goldman Sachs Asset Management * 27 31

Morgan Stanley Investment Management * 28 30

BOTTOM 5

UBS Global Asset Management * 29 29

M&G Investment Management * 30 26

Santander Asset Management * 31 18

J O Hambro Capital Management * 32 15

Wellington Management * 33 12

(*) Asset manager did not respond to the survey

3

Executive Summary

ShareAction has examined and ranked the transparency

and Responsible Investment (RI) practices of the 33 largest

asset managers in the UK1 for the fourth time, following

surveys in 2007, 2008 and 2010. These surveys are the

only independent benchmark of the asset management

industry's RI performance in the UK. They are intended as a

tool to identify and spread industry best practice and to aid

clients of these firms in their evaluation and selection of

providers. These 33 firms control £13.8 trillion of assets

between them meaning they have significant power to

influence the behaviour of the companies whose shares

and bonds they hold in the UK and around the globe. Their

behaviour is also increasingly important to the general public;

automatic enrolment will create an estimated 9 million new

pension savers by 20182 and the size of these savers’

pension pots will be heavily dependent on the net investment

returns achieved by asset managers.

This study sought to investigate whether these firms are

behaving as responsible investors, addressing

environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues with

companies in order to better manage all risks and enhance

the potential to create upside for their clients; if they are

truly investing for the long-term when appropriate for client

mandates, such as for pension funds; and if an increase

in signatories to the UN's Principles for Responsible

Investment (PRI) and the UK's Stewardship Code (the

‘Code’) actually means that investment processes are

changing in practice.

The study examined all 33 asset managers on the basis

of publicly available information and a survey that 24 of

the firms completed. We found that all 33 firms are now

publicly committed to stewardship and RI: 100% are

signed up to the Code and all but 2 (Artemis Investment

Management and Santander Asset Management UK

Limited) are signatories to the PRI. 96% of survey

respondents state that they conduct stewardship because

they believe it affects investment returns. However the

quality of RI and stewardship policies, practices and

disclosures vary considerably between asset managers.

This quality is not contingent on the size of the firm, or

whether they are mainly active or passive managers.

The ‘E’ and ‘S’ in ESG are still receiving less consideration

than the ‘G’. Only 42% of the asset managers publicly

disclose policies on how they incorporate environmental

and social considerations into the investment process;

qualitative analysis also suggests that the corporate

governance issues still attract far more attention. By way

of example, only 13% of survey respondents were able to

disclose a robust strategy for managing the risks

associated with stranded carbon assets.

Although the Code operates on a ‘comply or explain’ basis,

many firms are failing to comply with the most fundamental

aspects of the Code and the explanations for non-

compliance are often weak, or nonexistent. For example,

only 64% of asset managers publicly disclose a conflicts of

interest policy, although this is a headline requirement of the

Code, and conflicts of interest are a significant cause of

detriment to clients and end beneficiaries. Of the 5 asset

managers who do not disclose a conflicts of interest policy

either publicly or indicate that they provide it to their clients,

none provide an explanation for this.

Another key aim of the Stewardship Code is to encourage

collective engagement by investors. Although 94% of asset

managers do have a policy on collective engagement, only

15% of these policies are robust, in that they explain both

when and how collective engagements would be

conducted. The Code also asks signatories to disclose

whether they would be willing to become an insider,

meaning to acquire non-public material information about

a company which would legally restrict them from trading

in that company’s shares for a certain period. In order to

fully engage with companies, investors may have to put

themselves in a position where they acquire insider

information but only 39% of the asset managers examined

said publicly that they would be willing to take this step.

Amongst asset managers who do report on their voting and

engagement activities, the quality of these disclosures has

improved; 64% now disclose detailed reports containing

qualitative and quantitative information. In 2010 only 24%

of the asset managers examined disclosed detailed voting

reports. 64% also obtain independent evaluations of their

1 See methodology for details of the criteria used to select asset managers for inclusion.2 Financial Services Consumer Panel, ‘Investment Costs – more than meets the eye’, 2014

4

voting and engagement processes. But a significant group

of asset managers are still failing to disclose information

on their voting and engagement activities and this has not

improved in the last four years. 82% of the asset managers

examined in this year’s survey publicly disclose their

voting records, compared with 83% of the cohort examined

in 2010. The proportion of firms who publicly report on their

engagement activities is also virtually unchanged.

The application of RI strategies to fixed income assets is

rapidly growing. 83% of survey respondents said that they

now consider ESG factors in their analysis of fixed income

portfolios and 38% of respondents said that the proportion

of assets managed subject to ESG considerations has

grown over the past three years. Another positive finding

was that 96% of survey respondents now report to clients

on the turnover of portfolios and 83% report on the costs

associated with this. Turnover rates are an indicator of

whether asset managers are investing for the long-term

and, if turnover is high, may be a significant cause of

costs to clients. 67% of respondents were able to articulate

clearly how they adapt their investment approach

according to clients’ different investment horizons. It

seems that short-termism is still a problem in the UK’s

capital markets.

Four years after its introduction, the Code has catalysed

many improvements in the asset management industry.

However, the voluntary approach has not led to any

significant behaviour change amongst a substantial rump

of asset managers. The Code has certainly increased

acceptance of, and attention to, the idea of stewardship

amongst asset managers and their institutional clients.

Significant numbers of asset owners say they now take

stewardship into account when selecting asset

managers3, meaning asset managers’ approach and

disclosures around RI and stewardship will become

increasingly important to their ability to win and retain

clients. Firms doing this well will have a distinct

commercial advantage in the marketplace in years to

come and ShareAction predicts that these commercial

pressures will continue to drive performance improvements.

3 For example, 80% of pension funds who responded to a recent survey by the National Association of Pension Funds: ‘NAPF Engagement Survey: pension funds’engagement with investee companies’, 2014

5

Introduction

ShareAction has undertaken annual benchmarking

studies of the RI Performance and transparency of the

UK’s largest occupational pension funds, insurance

companies and asset managers since 2006. These

studies aim to promote industry and public understanding

of RI and catalyse improvements by identifying both best

practice and unsatisfactory performance. ShareAction’s

surveys are the only independent evaluation of asset

managers’ RI performance in the UK and therefore a

valuable resource for asset owners selecting and

evaluating their managers. We evaluate the 33 largest

asset managers who provide services to UK institutional

clients and send the results to the UK’s 100 largest

pension funds and 40 largest charity investors. We were

pleased that 24 firms provided responses to our survey

despite the more rigorous nature of this year’s questions,

helping to ensure the validity of our findings.

What is Responsible Investment?

ShareAction promotes Responsible Investment by

pension schemes and their asset managers.

Responsible Investment is an investment approach

which takes into account environmental, social and

governance (ESG) issues which can be material to

long-term investment returns. It requires these

factors to be assessed and integrated into research

and investment decisions and for investors to

conduct active, considered voting of shareholdings

and engagement with companies. These activities

are fundamental to managing risk and maximising

investment returns over the long-term, rather than

optional extras.

There is increasing recognition that the behaviour of

asset managers matters not only for pension savers but

also for the health of the economy as a whole, the

environment and the actions of investee companies.

When ShareAction first surveyed asset managers in

2008, the industry managed an estimated £38.99 trillion

of assets globally and PwC predicts this will rise to £66.77

trillion by 2020, with growth in pension fund assets

accounting for a large proportion of the increase4. The

assets under management of the firms included in this

year’s survey total £13.8 trillion.

Automatic enrolment and the decline of company defined

benefit (salary linked) pension schemes in the UK means

that by 2018 over 12 million people in total could be

members of defined contribution (DC) pension schemes5.

In DC schemes, there are no guarantees for members; the

final pension pot depends on the level of contributions and

the investment returns achieved by asset managers, net of

charges. There is growing evidence that, although many

savers often find the jargon surrounding investments off-

putting, they care deeply about where their money is going

as well as about key RI topics such as executive pay,

climate change and labour rights, as well as unethical

practices by investors and investee companies6.

The introduction of the UK’s Stewardship Code in 2010

made it clear that asset managers are ‘well-positioned to

influence companies’ long-term performance through

stewardship’ and have a responsibility to do so7. Also, the

2012 Kay Review of UK equity markets said:

‘The asset management industry can benefit its customers– savers – taken as a whole, only to the extent that itsactivities improve the performance of companies.’’.8

The Stewardship Code also says that asset owners, as

providers of capital, ‘set the tone for stewardship’9. Asset

owners, in particular pension funds, are becoming more

concerned about RI and stewardship; a recent survey by the

National Association of Pension Funds of its members found

that 80% take stewardship into account when selecting

asset managers10. This means that asset managers’

approach and disclosures around RI and stewardship will

become increasingly important to their ability to win and

retain clients. Firms doing this well will have a commercial

advantage in the marketplace. ShareAction’s last

benchmarking survey of asset managers in 201011, shortly

after the introduction of the Code, found that the quality of

4 PwC, ‘Asset Management 2020: A Brave New World’, 20145 Financial Services Consumer Panel, ‘Investment Costs – more than meets the eye’, 20146 See National Association of Pension Funds, ‘What do pension scheme members expect of how their savings are invested?’, 2014 and UK Sustainable Investment and

Finance Association ‘Attitudes to Ownership 2014’, 2014 7 Financial Reporting Council, ‘The UK Stewardship Code’, 2012, p. 18 Kay, J., ‘The Kay Review of UK Equity Markets and Long-Term Decision Making’, 20129 Financial Reporting Council, ‘The UK Stewardship Code’, 2012, p. 110 National Association of Pension Funds, ‘NAPF Engagement Survey: pension funds’ engagement with investee companies’, 201411 FairPensions, ‘Stewardship in the Spotlight: UK asset managers’ public disclosure practices on voting and engagement’, 2010, available at

http://www.shareaction.org/sites/default/files/uploaded_files/whatwedo/StewardshipintheSpotlightReport.pdf

6

disclosures on stewardship policies and activities varied

considerably between firms. A few firms used their

statements of compliance with the Code or disclosures of

voting and engagement activities to showcase their

approach in an engaging way, positioning themselves as

leaders in the marketplace. But many firms issued ‘tick-box’

style statements, or did not cover all the areas outlined in the

Code. Voting and engagement reports were often limited to

‘information-dumps’ of reams of back office data, or

summary statistics, lacking context or explanation to make

the numbers meaningful. These shortcomings meant that

firms’ genuine commitment to stewardship and

accountability, and the results of these activities, were

difficult to gauge.

In this year’s study, ShareAction sought to find out if, and

how, asset managers’ disclosures on RI policies and

performance had improved since 2010. This year’s study

also aimed to assess if asset managers are ‘walking the

walk’ as well as ‘talking the talk’. As public scrutiny and

client interest in RI has grown there is a risk that asset

managers are becoming more skilled at ‘greenwashing’ or

marketing their RI activities rather than improving the

quality of activities themselves. This survey includes more

detailed questions on how RI policies are developed,

implemented and evaluated and, for the first time, includes

analysis of RI practices in fixed income investment.

7

Methodology

There are two sections to the study: an analysis of the

information firms have made publicly available about their

management of clients’ money and a survey examining

asset managers’ RI practices.

33 asset management firms were selected for inclusion in

this year’s study. The 30 largest asset management firms

offering equity and fixed income management services to

institutional clients in the UK were selected based on data

from the P&I/Towers Watson list of the world’s 500 largest

money managers and the IMA’s data on total retail and

institutional funds under management in the UK from April

2014. The survey also includes all asset managers

included in the 2010 survey, taking into account two

completed mergers and one firm no longer offering

meaningful equity investment management services.

The 2015 study was conducted in three stages. Firstly,

ShareAction sent surveys to 33 asset managers to

complete before a set deadline, although reasonable

extensions were granted. Where asset managers gave no

initial response to the invitations, additional efforts were

made to contact them, including by email and telephone.

In the second stage, ShareAction undertook a review and

analysis of the information publicly available for all 33

asset managers, namely their statements of compliance

with the Code, published RI policies and voting and

engagement records. This analysis of publicly available

information was carried out between 15th September-

13th October 2014.

Of the cohort of 33 asset managers, 24 provided

responses to the questionnaire and are referred to in the

report as ‘survey respondents’. The remaining nine firms

were assessed solely on the basis of publicly available

information. The report refers to ‘asset managers’ when

describing the total cohort of 33 firms.

In the third stage, ShareAction reviewed and analysed the

survey responses of the 24 firms who participated. At the

end of this stage, draft scorecards were prepared and

sent by email to all 33 asset managers. ShareAction

encouraged them to comment on the draft scorecards

and this stage encompassed considerable interaction

between asset managers and ShareAction through

telephone calls and emails. This interaction permitted

asset managers to make ShareAction aware of additional

disclosures and, where applicable, results were updated.

Finally, reminder emails were sent to asset managers

who had not responded to the invitation to provide

comments on the draft scorecards. If additional

disclosures were made without notification to ShareAction

after last updated draft scorecards had been sent to asset

managers, then these will not be reflected in either the

final scorecards or this report on the survey.

The report includes individual recommendations for each

asset manager, found on their scorecard. These

recommendations are based on the publicly available

information examined. Further recommendations are made

to the 24 survey respondents. As these are based on

confidential information supplied in their survey responses,

these additional recommendations are made privately.

Publicly Available Information

All 33 asset managers are signatories to the

Stewardship Code and 94% are signatories to the

Principles for Responsible Investment, compared with

2010 when only 24 of the 29 asset managers included in

the survey had issued formal statements of compliance

with the Code. ShareAction reviewed the UK

Stewardship Code compliance statements of each of the

33 Asset managers covered by the 2015 survey.

The UK Stewardship Code is a set of guidelines released

in 2010 by the Financial Reporting Council (FRC), and

revised in September 2012, directed at asset owners and

asset managers holding shares in UK companies. Its

principal aim is to encourage these institutional investors

to be active in their oversight of firms in the interests of

their clients and beneficiaries. It was developed following

a review of the governance failures which precipitated the

2008 financial crisis. The Code consists of 7 guiding

Principles (each accompanied by specific guidance)

concerning areas of ‘good practice’ to which the FRC

believes institutional investors should aspire. FCA

regulated asset managers must either 'comply or explain'.

The UK Stewardship Code Principles

1. Institutional investors should publicly disclose their

policy on how they will discharge their stewardship

responsibilities

2. Institutional investors should have a robust policy

on managing conflicts of interest in relation to

stewardship which should be publicly disclosed

3. Institutional investors should monitor their investee

companies

4. Institutional investors should establish clear

guidelines on when and how they will escalate

their stewardship activities

5. Institutional investors should be willing to act

collectively with other investors when appropriate

6. Institutional investors should have a clear policy

on voting and disclosure of voting activity

7. Institutional investors should report periodically on

their stewardship and voting activities

Source: the UK Stewardship Code

Environmental and Social considerations remain a low

priority for the majority of asset managers. Although the

Code still makes only a fleeting reference to environmental

and social issues (in Principle 4) as these aspects are often

sources of risk, it is still surprising that only 42% of asset

managers covered by the 2015 survey publicly disclose

policies on how they incorporate social and environmental

considerations into their investment processes. This was

judged by looking at Stewardship Code disclosures and RI

policies. This represents only a modest improvement since

2010, when 34% of asset managers surveyed had disclosed

a comprehensive policy on how they incorporate

environmental and social issues into their investment

process. We reiterate our recommendation that any future

revisions to the Code should specifically require

disclosure on how environmental, social and governance

considerations are each integrated into processes for

monitoring and engaging with investee companies.

PRI

The United Nations-backed Principles for

Responsible Investment (PRI) initiative is an

international network of investors working together to

put its six Principles for Responsible Investment into

practice. Its goal is to understand the implications of

sustainability for investors and support signatories to

incorporate these issues into their investment

decision-making and ownership practices. In

implementing the Principles, signatories contribute to

the development of a more sustainable global

financial system. The six Principles are voluntary and

aspirational, and as of January 2015, have been

adopted by over 870 institutional investors globally.

36% of asset managers still do not publicly disclose

their conflicts of interest policy. Although some of these

firms say they disclose a policy to their clients, this is less

than satisfactory given that the Code clearly states

institutional investors should have, and publicly disclose, a

robust conflicts of interest policy. Five firms neither disclose

publicly nor state that they disclose to their clients and fail to

provide an explanation for this. Furthermore, many of these

policies cannot be considered ‘robust’ as only 21% of the

asset managers disclose actual procedures on how they

manage conflicts of interests in relation to stewardship.

ShareAction has long identified conflicts of interest in and

around the investment chain as an obstacle to meeting the

8

Key Findings

best interests of clients and end beneficiaries of the asset

management industry. It is disappointing that disclosure in

this area is still lacking.

Avivia Investors, JP Morgan Asset Management and

Jupiter Asset Management all had particularly clear and

comprehensive conflicts of interest policies11. Out of the

six asset managers invited to participate who are part of

global diversified financial services groups where conflicts

of interest are potentially most likely to arise and complex

to resolve; only HSBC Global Asset Management and JP

Morgan Asset Management provided responses. The

non-respondents were Goldman Sachs Asset Management,

Morgan Stanley Investment Management, UBS Global

Asset Management and Santander Asset Management.

Based on our analysis of the best policies, a comprehensive

conflicts of interest policy should:

• Specify ways in which a conflict may arise in the

particular organisation

• Specify the procedures in place for managing such

conflicts, including:

- rules on gifts and entertainment

- internal staff training on conflicts of interest

- maintenance of conflicts register

- procedure for the voting of shares held in the

manager’s parent company

- rules on personal account dealing by staff

- disclosure to clients of conflicts of interest that

cannot be managed

- instructions for an independent third-party to make a

voting decision when the conflict cannot be managed

- Chinese Walls and other procedures to control the

exchange of information

Some of the weaker conflicts of interest policies only include

information regarding conflicts that may arise during the

exercise of proxy voting obligations, but not for engagement

activities. Other statements of compliance with the

Stewardship Code refer to a conflicts of interest policy

elsewhere on the firm’s website but we were unable to

locate the policy despite thorough checking. It would be

helpful for the FRC to publish a model conflicts of interest

policy to speed up improvements in this key area. It is

advisable for firms to include the description of their policy in

their statement of compliance with the Code.

Understanding when and how investors escalate their

stewardship activities is crucial to understanding the

overall stewardship approach, but there are many

laggards in this area. The Code plainly states that

institutional investors should have clear guidelines on

escalation of their stewardship activities when investee

companies do not respond constructively to an initial

approach. Although the Code sets out clear guidelines for

the types of escalation approaches investors can use,

only 64% of asset managers clearly disclose ‘how’ and

42% ‘when’ they would escalate stewardship activities.

Although 94% of asset managers have a collective

engagement policy, only 15% can be considered

robust in that they clearly explain when and how

collective engagements are conducted. Royal London

Asset Management, F&C Investments and Aviva

Investments had particularly good collective engagement

policies in this regard12. The Code recognises that in

some circumstances collaboration between investors is

important, or essential, for achieving engagement aims.

Some firms’ policies were extremely vague, making it

difficult to gauge genuine willingness, for example:

“[The Asset Manager] formally acts in conjunction withother investors relatively rarely, but we are prepared to doso where such engagement appears necessary in orderto materially enhance portfolio values and where we cando so in a manner that is in full compliance withapplicable laws, regulations and judicial precedents withreference to such status.”

9

11 See Appendix 1 for examples of best in class policies.12 See Appendix 1 for examples of best in class policies.

Clear Guidelines onHow to Escalate

Clear Guidelines onWhen to Escalate

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Stewardship Escalation Policies

Best-in-class collective engagement policies include clear

explanations of:

• The rationale for conducting collective engagement

and benefit to clients of doing so

• The networks and fora that the firms participate in

• The circumstances under which the asset manager

would engage collectively

• How they work with other investors in the event of a

collective engagement

The quality of reporting on voting and engagement

activities has improved amongst the asset managers

who do report, but the proportion of firms failing to

report has not improved since 2010. 91% of asset

managers disclose their policy on voting shares and 64%

disclose engagement and voting reports containing both

qualitative and quantitative information. The best

examples of voting and engagement reports came from

F&C Investments, Jupiter Asset Management, Legal and

General Investment Management, Standard Life

Investments, State Street Global Advisors, Investec Asset

Management and Henderson Global Investors.

This represents a meaningful improvement compared

with 2010, when only 24% of asset managers surveyed

by ShareAction had disclosed detailed voting reports.

However, 18% of the 33 asset managers still do not

disclose any voting records at all, compared with 17% of

the 29 asset managers surveyed in 2010. The voluntary

approach has worked for most asset managers but a hard

core refuse to be transparent and accountable. This

suggests that the time has come to regulate. It is

recommended that the government exercises its reserve

powers to make meaningful public disclosures on voting

of shares mandatory for institutional investors.

The quality of engagement and voting disclosure varies

greatly between asset managers, ranging from summary

data of limited informative value to resolution-by-resolution

voting records with their supporting rationale. Although the

Code has resulted in more transparency and large quantities

of voting information entering the public domain, it is now

clear that this information is of limited value without context

and explanation. The FRC should update the Code to specify

that voting disclosures include qualitative information to

contextualise statistics. In terms of voting policies, the leading

examples were from Aviva Investors, Capital International

and Royal London Asset Management.

A significant minority of asset managers who are

signatories to the Code are failing to either comply or

explain on some of the most basic requirements of

the Code. 27% do not provide details of a named

individual to contact for further information or to pursue

collective engagement opportunities. 30% had not

updated their policy within the last year. Although the

Code operates on a ‘comply or explain’ basis, we found

that generally where asset managers do not comply with

certain Principles of the Code, no proper explanation is

provided. In general, with the policies disclosed there is a

wide range of quality in terms of the level of detail and the

extent to which it seems that investment teams can

override them at their discretion.

Interestingly, analysis of the publicly available stewardship

compliance statements in conjunction with the responses to

ShareAction’s questionnaire revealed that sometimes firms

do comply with the elements of the Code, but fail to disclose

this. For example only 61% of the 33 asset managers

disclose publicly whether they would be willing to become an

insider13, 39% say publicly that they would be willing, but

75% of survey respondents said that they had become an

insider within the last three years. Where asset managers

are conducting stewardship activities but failing to properly

disclose this it puts their commitment to transparency and the

spirit of the Stewardship Code in doubt. It also makes it

difficult for their clients and prospective clients to compare

asset management firms and make informed judgements.

* the first bar refers to the % of the 33 asset managers includedin the survey and the second bar refers to the % of the 24survey respondents

10

13 When investors acquire non-public material information about a company, that can affect the share price, they are deemed to be ‘insiders’ and are legally restrictedfrom trading in the shares for a certain amount of time. In order to fully engage with a company investors may have to put themselves in a position where they acquireinsider information, so willingness to become an insider indicates whether an asset manager is willing to exploit a full range of asset management engagement tools.

Publicly Disclosed

Disclosed in Survey Response

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Willingness to Become Insiders

In this year’s study ShareAction sought to understand

whether published policies on stewardship and RI are

actually being put into practice throughout asset

management firms, or whether investment approaches are

largely unchanged despite these public statements. To do

this the survey asked for details around the procedures

asset managers have for putting policies into practice,

concrete examples of activities undertaken and the rationale

for these activities.

Whether or not asset managers believe conducting

stewardship is financially beneficial is a good indication of

the depth of commitment to this approach. Encouragingly,

96% of the survey respondents stated that they conduct

stewardship activities because they believe it affects

investment returns.

Having a clear, robust process for research and

monitoring investee companies is perhaps the most basic

element of conducting stewardship, and an indication that

asset managers are behaving as ‘investors’, concerned

with company strategy and actions rather than as ‘traders’

concerned primarily with the behaviour of other market

participants14. Most survey respondents were able to

demonstrate this. When asked to describe their approach,

79% of survey respondents mentioned that they use a

range of internal and external data sources and that they

have direct contact with investee companies.

Consideration of environmental, social or corporate

governance (ESG) factors in the investment process is the

most widely used method for undertaking RI. 96% of survey

respondents indicated that they analyse and give proactive

consideration to ESG factors in their investment decisions

and 92% are prepared to engage directly with investee

companies on ESG issues. This is encouraging. Despite

signing the Code, two respondents said they do not engage

directly with companies on ESG issues.

Ethical and Thematic Investing Approaches

The range of processes and activities used continues to

evolve to reflect changing RI best practice. Overall, the

procedures for researching, analysing and monitoring of

investee companies have become more structured and

comprehensive, with 83% of survey respondents involving

RI specialists in the process. ‘Negative Screening’, used

by 58% of survey respondents, is far more common than

‘Best-in-Class’ screening, used by 25%, or ‘thematic

investment’, used by 33%. Respondents who use negative

screening were asked to describe the screening criteria.

Exclusion of cluster munitions and other arms

manufacturers was most commonly cited. Excluding arms

manufacturers or for example, tobacco or alcohol

producers, is usually carried out at the request of clients

due to ethical concerns or to comply with international

agreements. It is not the result of an analysis which

concludes that these investments represent a financially

material risk to the portfolio.

11

Survey Results

14 The Kay Review, for example makes the distinction among asset managers ‘between those who “invest” on the basis of their understanding of the fundamental valueof the company and those who “trade” based on their expectations of likely short term movements in share price. While some trading is necessary to assist the provisionof liquidity to investors, current levels of trading activity exceed those necessary to support the core purposes of equity markets’ (See Kay, J., ‘The Kay Review of UKEquity Markets and Long-Term Decision Making’, 2012, p.11

Because ofEnvironmental, Social

or MacroeconomicBenefits

Because of FinancialReturn Optimisation

Because of Duty ofCare or ClientRequirements

50%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Explanation of Motivations and Commitmentto Stewardship

ShareAction has heard criticisms that RI teams or analysts

can be ‘siloed’ within asset management organisations,

meaning their research and recommendations do not

actually affect investment decisions. Encouragingly, 83% of

survey respondents could describe how RI specialists work

with internal stakeholders, such as portfolio managers.

However many firms, in their public disclosures or survey

responses, indicate that final discretion for investment

decisions rests with portfolio managers meaning it is

difficult to gauge the extent to which RI considerations

influence the actual investment process.

Resource constraints are cited as a barrier to

conducting stewardship activities for 83%. These

resource restraints include a lack of budget, time or

adequately skilled personnel to carry out the work. Many

respondents also mentioned that they hold shares in

several thousand companies so cannot possibly engage

with them all or that it is logistically difficult and costly to

engage with companies overseas. The following barriers

to conducting more and deeper engagement were cited

by at least one asset manager:

• Challenges and costs in obtaining adequate corporate

access

• Regulatory uncertainty on corporate access

• Lack of demand by clients

• Lack of receptiveness to engagement by investee

companies

Firms are trying to make reporting to clients useful

and engaging but communicating outcomes remains

challenging. Our analysis of publicly available data found

that information on voting and engagement activities is

sometimes of limited value as it lacks detail or context.

However, 83% of survey respondents said that they

disclose additional information to their clients compared

with what they disclose publicly. Based on respondent

descriptions of how and what they report to clients, the

following best practice features were identified:

• Providing information on outcomes

• Providing information on next steps

• Disclosing the scale of opposition from other

shareholders, in the case of voting activities

• Discussing trends and broader context, for example

public policy developments

• Including case studies

• Tailoring reports for different clients

• Meeting clients face to face to discuss results

• Tailoring reports according to clients’ different

investment horizons

• Avoiding jargon, for example by following the Plain

English Campaign’s15 guidelines

In general, public disclosures focus on inputs (number and

type of engagement and voting activities) rather than

outputs (result and impact from such activities). There are

limited methods and metrics currently available for

measuring the results of these activities but ShareAction

predicts this will be a key area for development in the field

of RI over the next few years. Communicating the results of

these activities is essential for allowing clients to judge the

value of the asset manager’s investment approach, and for

securing more resources for conducting stewardship.

12

Thematic Investment

Direct Engagement onESG Issues

Best-in-classScreening

Negative Screening

Consideration ofGovernance Factors

in Analysis

Consideration ofSocial Factors

in Analysis

Consideration ofEnvironmental Factors

in Analysis

Involvement ofSRI Specialist

50%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Responsible Investment Approaches and Tools Used

15 For more information see http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/

All but one survey respondent was able to clearly articulate

an example of a successful engagement, showing that

results can be communicated succinctly. 13 out of the 24

respondents cited engagements on governance issues, for

example executive remuneration, board composition or

structure and succession planning16.

All but one survey respondent said that they conduct

proactive stewardship activities. Conducting proactive

activities, rather than responding to events, shows a depth

of commitment to stewardship and acknowledgment of its

potential to create upside as well as mitigating risks. These

activities include:

• Thematic engagement programmes, for example on

animal welfare or cyber security strategies

• Identifying industry best practice and encouraging

investee companies to adopt it, for example how best to

minimise emissions and impacts on communities in the

extractives sector

• Building relationships with investee companies’ senior

management teams, so that these relationships can be

drawn on if issues arise in the future

• Encouraging companies to develop robust board

succession procedures so that these are in place before

a restructuring or new appointment is required

• Encouraging companies to improve transparency and

conduct better reporting, including of environmental

impacts, bribery and corruption or by adopting integrated

reporting. Several respondents mentioned asking

companies to report their carbon emissions via the

Carbon Disclosure Project’s investor letters

• The use of proprietary metrics to identify companies in

the portfolio with the highest ESG risks and engaging to

mitigate these risks

• Challenging boards on their lack of gender diversity

‘E’ and ‘S’ are still getting minimal attention compared

to ‘G’. The analysis of publicly available data showed that

asset managers still give most attention to governance

issues out of ESG factors. A qualitative analysis of the

survey responses, including the examples of engagements

that respondents cited, confirms this trend. Only 17% of

survey respondents said they would be willing to attend a

company AGM to engage on an environmental issue,

29% for workforce issues such as pay, safety or labour

relations and 13% for wider social issues.

A further indication that environmental risks are not

receiving attention is that only 13% of survey respondents

were able to disclose a clear strategy for managing the

risks associated with stranded carbon assets. The theory

of stranded carbon assets is gaining mainstream

acceptance; the Bank of England announced an inquiry

into the topic in late 201417.

13

16 See Appendix 1 for examples of engagements considered successful by respondents.17 see http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/pra/Pages/supervision/activities/climatechange.aspx

Robust StrategyExists

Some ConsiderationGiven

No Firm-WideStrategy

50%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Stranded Carbon Assets Risks

Investment horizons

The 2012 Kay Review of UK Equity Markets and Long

Term Decision Making found that ‘short-termism is a

problem in UK equity markets’ for both the performance of

UK investee companies and beneficiaries of the

investment industry. This problem is particularly pertinent

in the case of pension funds which are by definition long-

term investment vehicles. It is, therefore, concerning that

33% of survey respondents were unable to articulate

clearly how they adapt their investment approach

according to clients’ different investment horizons.

Portfolio turnover rates can be used as an indication of the

propensity of asset managers to genuinely execute long-

term strategies in accordance with investment mandates. In

response to client requirements, 96% of survey respondents

report on the turnover of their portfolios and 83% report

also on the costs incurred through such turnover. However,

a best-in class long-term investment approach does not

just entail holding investments for a long time. It also entails

engaging with companies to improve their performance

and risk management, the benefits of which may only be

realised over the medium to long-term.

63% of survey respondents did indicate that they adapt

their client reporting depending on the investment

horizon, but only 29% appear to do this in a structured

and comprehensive way which would allow clients to

contextualise the information contained in the reports.

Development of Responsible Investment Policies

As RI best practice is evolving rapidly, asset managers

should continually seek to evaluate and update their RI

policies and procedures. Indeed the FRC’s guidance in

the Code states ‘signatories are encouraged to review

their policy statements annually’18. 92% of survey

respondents were able to provide a meaningful

description of how their RI approach has been reviewed

and updated since its inception.

The process of developing and updating RI policies has

evolved and now often includes contributions from

different stakeholders. The survey responses confirm the

trend witnessed elsewhere in financial services that

complex tasks require a multidisciplinary approach in

order to be accomplished effectively. The process of

developing RI policies may involve not just in-house RI

specialists (92%), and dedicated committees (71%) but

also Portfolio Managers (83%), Legal Advisors (33%), C-

level executives (83%) and clients (25%).

ShareAction often hears that asset managers must

execute on the mandates they’ve been given from clients

and cannot diverge from these instructions. As such it is

disappointing that only a quarter of respondents say they

consult with clients when developing their RI policies.

14

18 Financial Reporting Council, ‘The UK Stewardship Code’, 2012, p.3

Clients

C-Level Executives

Legal Advisors

Portfolio Managers

Dedicated Committees

In-house ResponsibleInvestment Specialist

50%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Contributing to Development of ResponsibleInvestment Policies

Fixed Income

Asset managers of fixed income strategies have the

potential to make greater use of engagement tools at

their disposal to pursue ESG objectives. There is a

growing recognition amongst asset managers that investors

in corporate and government debt can and should

incorporate consideration of ESG factors into their

investment decisions. 83% of survey respondents indicated

that ESG considerations do feature in the analysis of their

fixed income portfolios. 65% of these said that over 50%

of their fixed income assets are managed on this basis

and 17% said that all fixed income assets are managed in

this way. This is a rapidly evolving area; 38% of survey

respondents said that the proportion of assets managed

subject to ESG considerations has grown by over 10%

over the past three years. ShareAction welcomes this

development and hopes that those asset managers with

room for further improvement in this regard can be

inspired by their best-in-class peers; their clients will

increasingly expect it from them in the future.

ShareAction's analysis indicates that there is still a strong

belief amongst managers of fixed income strategies that

the ability to influence change in corporate strategy and

behaviour remains the preserve of equity investors alone.

Although the range of engagement tools available to fixed

income investors is more limited than in the equity arena,

the ability to rely on affordable debt funding is critical for

many investee companies. This does afford to fixed

income investors some leverage to engage with investee

companies on ESG topics.

One survey respondent reported that its fixed income and

equity investment teams work regularly together, for

example holding joint meetings with clients, across a

range of areas including ESG issues. ShareAction

recognises the barriers preventing better practice in this

area. Asset managers should review their operational

practices given that the missed opportunity to maximise

positive ESG-relevant impact through an integrated fixed

income-equity investment approach may at times

translate into a loss of incremental investment return.

Remuneration practices

Excessive risk taking by investment professionals in the

run up to the financial crisis, fuelled by compensation

cultures rewarding short-term success, have been widely

criticised. The short-term nature of judging and rewarding

investment performance can also be a driver of damaging

misalignment between asset managers and asset owners

cited in the Kay Review19. 54% of respondents reported

that portfolio managers’ compensation structures have

been amended in the last five years.

88% of respondents report that there is a variable

component to portfolio managers’ compensation and 42%

said that ESG related criteria are incorporated into the

calculation of this component. 71% of respondents report

that bonuses are deferred for between 2-5 years, and two

respondents say that a portion of the bonus is deferred

for over five years. We would encourage clients to probe

for detail on this.

15

19 Kay Review, page 9

Over 50%

Between 5% and 50%

Under 5%

50%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percentage of Firm’s Fixed Income Assets Managed Subject to ESG Considerations

However, improvement on transparency around pay

design in the asset management sector still leaves quite

considerable room for improvement. Only 67% of survey

respondents are prepared to disclose such design to their

clients, and only one would also be prepared to disclose

the quantum if requested by clients. It is positive that both

the relevant policies and the actual variable

compensation payments are predominantly approved at

Senior Management or Board of Directors level, and

therefore approval rests outside portfolio managers’

teams or division.

16

Fund Performance

Value of Assets

Qualitative Indicators

Incorporation ofESG Criteria

Level of ClientService Provided

Third Party Reviewsof AM’s

Compensation Trends

Other

50%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Factors Taken into Account in Calculation of Variable Component of PM’s Compensation

Pay-outs by SeniorManagement or

Board of Directors

Pay-outs byRemuneration

Committee

Policy - by SeniorManagement or

Board of Directors

Policy - byRemuneration

Committee

50%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Approval of Remuneration Policies and VariableCompensation Pay-outs

ShareAction’s fourth benchmarking survey of asset

managers is the most comprehensive to date in terms of

the number of participants and the assessment criteria.

We hope our findings will be a valuable tool for asset

managers to assess themselves against their peers and

indeed for their clients.

In the four years since its introduction, the UK Stewardship

Code has catalysed improvements in the policies, practices

and transparency of many asset managers and an

acceptance of the concept of stewardship. Best practice is

evolving rapidly as evidenced by the quality of voting and

engagement disclosures, which the industry leaders show

can be engaging and informative. The survey responses

revealed a range of innovative engagements that asset

managers are conducting with investee companies. The

growing application of RI to fixed income is also

encouraging.

There is however, a wide variation in the quality and

quantity of stewardship between the leaders and the

laggards. Disappointingly, in the four years since our last

survey there has been no meaningful improvement

amongst the laggards. A significant minority of the industry

is still failing to provide evidence of their voting and

engagement activities. The failure of some firms to

comply with some integral elements of the Code, or to

provide explanations for non-compliance, shows that a

voluntary approach is not sufficient to bring about

universal accountability in this important industry.

There is much room for improvement even amongst the

leaders. Environmental and social considerations are not

getting sufficient attention from asset managers despite

the fact that they can have a meaningful impact on

returns. Overall, the industry still seems to understand RI

mainly as engaging with companies on governance

issues. It is concerning that so few respondents have a

strategy for managing the risks associated with stranded

carbon assets.

An examination of the leaders and laggards shows that

size is not a barrier to conducting good stewardship and

RI; some of the smaller firms scored the best. RI and

stewardship related headcount is a small fraction of a

firm’s total workforce, meaning that resources for these

functions can be increased significantly without

substantially impacting overall staffing cost. These results

also show that managing all or mostly passive mandates

is not a barrier to effective stewardship and RI.

Conflicts of interest, a reticence to engage collectively

and short-termism still seem to be widespread features of

the asset management industry which are likely to cause

detriment to the UK’s savers. Given the growing size of

the asset management industry and its importance not

just to the economy but to increasing numbers of savers,

a more demanding regulatory approach is justified. The

institutional clients of asset management firms should feel

emboldened to hold them to account and set demanding

mandates including requesting that asset managers

properly resource their RI teams and capabilities.

17

Conclusion

Recommendations for Asset Managers:

Asset managers covered by the 2015 survey will be able to

benchmark the performance of their various RI activities

against those of peers. Individual scorecards appended to

this report set out specific recommendations for each of the

asset managers based on public information analysed as

part of the survey. Additional recommendations based on

the analysis of non-public information provided in survey

responses are also given individually to survey

respondents. General recommendations can be made to

the asset management sector on some key topics. We

suggest that managers:

• Give more extensive consideration to Environmental

and Social issues in the analysis and management of

equity and fixed income investments and provide

disclosure on this

• Consider greater integration of investment analysis,

management and engagement functions across the

equity and fixed income asset classes, and provide

disclosure on this

• Develop and articulate clearer guidelines and

procedures on when and how to escalate stewardship

activities

• Consult with clients when developing and updating RI

policies

• Review the adequacy of existing incentives to achieve

RI objectives

Recommendations for Policymakers and Regulators:

A number of barriers still exist to the disclosure by asset

managers of data which would allow clients and other

stakeholders to better understand the relative and absolute

RI performance of asset managers. The government and

the FRC can perform important roles by removing certain

barriers and ShareAction makes a number of

recommendations in this respect:

• The government should exercise its reserve powers to

make public disclosures on voting of shares mandatory

for institutional investors

• The government and regulatory authorities should work

closely together to address the issues arising from

inappropriate management by investors of

environmental risks

• The FRC should update the Code to encourage voting

disclosures that include qualitative information to

contextualise statistics

• The FRC should publish at least an outline specimen

policy, with guidance notes, on conflicts of interest to

counter the provision of weak statements

• The FRC should update the Code, giving greater

emphasis to the management of environmental and

social issues by investors

• Disclose the extent to which portfolio managers are

bound to abide by RI and ESG related policies and

procedures

In its upcoming review of the Code, the FRC should strictly

monitor compliance. Serious cases of non-compliance

should be referred to the Financial Conduct Authority and

firms should be prevented from saying that they are

signatories until they have made necessary changes.

18

Recommendations

1919

Appendices

Appendix 1Examples of Best Practice, WorstPractice and Successful Engagements

Example of best-in-class Conflicts of Interest

Policy - JPMorgan Asset Management (JPMAM)

(edited)

JPMAM discloses a Conflicts of Interest Policy

which clearly defines and identifies

circumstances which may give rise to conflicts

of interest and outlines measures adopted for

managing these:

Types of conflicts of interests:

• Conflicts of interest resulting from the fact that

JPMAM is a member of a large group of companies

providing a wide range of financial services and

products to a very diverse client base

• Conflicts principally resulting from the fact that

JPMAM has many clients

• Conflicts principally resulting from the fact that

JPMAM may have an own account Conflict

• Conflicts specifically relating to proxy voting and

engagement on behalf of clients

Measures for management of conflicts of interests

(edited)

• Policies and procedures will be subject to

monitoring and review processes

• Use of information barriers designed to prevent the

exchange or misuse of material, non-public

information

• Separation of functions into two separately

managed businesses or managed by different

senior members of staff

• Restriction of JPMAM globally if any member of it

anywhere in the world is made an ‘insider’

• Instruction of an independent third-party to make

the voting decision in certain situations

Example of best-in-class Collective Engagement

Policy - Aviva

(edited)

“Aviva actively engages with other investors in thebelief that collaboration is an important if notessential requirement for being able to exerciseappropriate influence at companies when this isrequired. It is important to share information or areasof concern regarding companies, not just in times ofstress, but also in normal times in order to identifypotential issues or risks. Therefore regular meetingswith other investors to discuss developing concernsabout the way companies are run and to discusshow investors can collectively work to persuadecompanies to improve practices is equally asimportant as the collaboration that takes placeduring a period of crisis.

Whether we take collaborative action depends upona number of factors such as what the issue is; whatour individual influence or holding is; who the otherinvestors are and the extent to which shareholderviews and objectives may be aligned; whether otherapproaches may be more effective; and our chancesof success. When we believe collaborative actionwould be an effective means by which investors canexercise appropriate influence, we will willinglyinitiate action or support other investors' actions.”

20

APPENDIX 1: EXAMPLES OF BEST PRACTICE, WORST PRACTICE AND SUCCESSFUL ENGAGEMENTS

Best practice example of detailed voting

rationale - Newton

Redacted explanation for voting against

proposed inappropriate composition of audit

and remuneration committees of Eurasia Drilling

Company:

“Newton instructed votes against the re-election tothe board of the company’s chairman and non-independent non-executive director. Newton’sconcerns centred on the structure of the board andits committees. Executive directors are members ofthe audit and remuneration committees. A majority ofthe members of these committees are notindependent, The only independent member of theaudit committee does not possess the relevantfinancial experience. The company’s current CFOand former CFO are members of the auditcommittee. There is a lack of diversity on the boardas a whole.

First, Newton failed to appreciate the rationale forawarding free shares to the executive chairman.Newton believes that any variable pay arrangementsshould have performance conditions attached toalign the individual executive’s interests with those ofshareholders. Votes were instructed against theapproval of the remuneration report. Secondly, voteswere instructed against the appointment of fourboard members to the compensation committee,due to concerns around the remunerationarrangements for the executive chairman. Thirdly,given the company’s involvement in industry-widecontroversies including LIBOR rigging and FXmanipulation, Newton instructed votes against theresolution that sought to discharge the board ofliability. Finally, votes were instructed against theproposed amendment to the company’s articles. Theamendments would allow for non-executives toreceive a loan up to 17.5 times their fees.”

Example of poor disclosure containing only

summary statistics (anonymised):

Voted on 1,216 resolutions at 111 meetings

worldwide

Meetings

Number of meetings voted against management or

abstained/withheld votes

15 13.5%

Resolutions

Number of resolutions voted with management

1,195 98.3%

Number of resolutions voted against management or

abstained/withheld votes

21 1.7%

Number of resolutions voted against policy*

11* 0.9%

Of votes cast abstained/against management

resolutions

• 11 related to director appointments

• six related to directors' remuneration

• two related to the report and accounts

• one related to authorised share capital

• one related to other business

Of votes cast against policy

• five related to director appointments

• five related to directors' remuneration (of which 2

were against management)

• one related to the report and accounts

• of these votes two resolutions were against

management

21

APPENDIX 1: EXAMPLES OF BEST PRACTICE, WORST PRACTICE AND SUCCESSFUL ENGAGEMENTS

Example of proactive engagement: AXA

“We establish proactive engagement themes whichare linked to mitigating risk issues which may impacton a company’s long term performance. One suchthematic engagement was on the Board’s oversightof Environmental & Social Risks in relevant risksectors. Our engagement with Tullow Oil on thisissue led to the establishment of a dedicated boardcommittee with specific responsibilities forenvironmental, safety and social issues. In addition,Tullow Oil strengthened its board by appointing anon-executive director with recent and relevantexperience of managing these issues within thecontext of the company’s business.”

Examples of Successful Engagements

“We also completed an engagement this year with acompany which we had been engaging with since2012. The nature of the company’s business meansthat it is directly exposed to climate changelegislation yet it wasn’t able to demonstrate anylong-term climate change strategy. In 2013 itpublished a long term strategy, discussing thechallenges it faces in terms of meeting energydemand whilst reducing emissions as well as settingitself a carbon intensity target.” Schroders

“Following consultations with the Chair of theRemuneration Committee of a FTSE 100 company,agreement was reached to scrap salary increasesfor 2014 with more emphasis on the performanceelements of pay and higher shareholdingrequirements for the executive directors.” Anonymous

“In 2013 we undertook a benchmarking exercise toinvestigate the health and safety practices ofcompanies in the industrials and engineeringsectors. We contacted Company X to relay how itcompared with its peers and gather additionalinformation to feed into our research. The companylater contacted us to explain recent improvements ithad made to its corporate responsibility reportingand health and safety management and the CEO’sinterest in the company’s new performance rating.As a result of the changes, we believe the companyhas significantly improved in relation to its peers.”Royal London Asset Management

“A FTSE250 company approached Kames, a majorshareholder, earlier in 2014 seeking support for aone-off grant of shares to the CEO worth £5m.Kames indicated we would not be supportive(together with other shareholders) and the proposalwas dropped.”Kames

22

Appendix 2 – Individual Scorecards

Ab

erd

een

Ass

et M

anag

emen

t

23

Pub

lic In

form

atio

nS

tew

ard

ship

Que

stio

nsS

core

Prin

cipl

e 1

Inst

itutio

nal I

nves

tors

sho

uld

publ

icly

dis

clos

e th

eir p

olic

y on

how

they

w

ill d

isch

arge

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ob

ligat

ions

6P

rinci

ple

2 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d ha

ve a

robu

st p

olic

y on

man

agin

g co

nflic

ts

of in

tere

st in

rela

tion

to s

tew

ards

hip

whi

ch s

houl

d be

pub

licly

dis

clos

ed4

Prin

cipl

e 3

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

mon

itor t

heir

inve

stee

com

pani

es5

Prin

cipl

e 4

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

esta

blis

h cl

ear g

uide

lines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w th

ey w

ill e

scal

ate

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ac

tiviti

es7

Prin

cipl

e 5

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

be w

illin

g to

act

col

lect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

in

vest

ors

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te4

Prin

cipl

e 6

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

have

a c

lear

pol

icy

on v

otin

g an

d di

sclo

sure

of v

otin

g ac

tivity

7P

rinci

ple

7 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d re

port

perio

dica

lly o

n th

eir s

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g ac

tiviti

es4

TOTA

L 37

/53

Pub

lic r

eco

mm

end

atio

ns to

Ab

erd

een

Ass

et M

anag

emen

t:

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

polic

y on

how

act

ual o

r pot

entia

l con

flict

s of

inte

rest

are

man

aged

•D

iscl

ose

mor

e de

taile

d gu

idel

ines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w to

esc

alat

e S

tew

ards

hip

activ

ities

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

polic

y on

env

ironm

enta

l fac

tors

con

side

ratio

n in

the

inve

stm

ent p

roce

ss

•D

iscl

ose

ratio

nale

for c

ontro

vers

ial v

otin

g de

cisi

ons

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

enga

gem

ent a

nd v

otin

g ac

tiviti

es re

port

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

polic

y on

con

side

ratio

n of

env

ironm

enta

l fac

tors

in th

e in

vest

men

t Pro

cess

Ad

ditio

nal re

com

mend

ations a

re m

ad

e p

rivate

ly b

ased

on s

urv

ey r

esp

onses.

Alli

ance

Ber

nste

in

24

Pub

lic In

form

atio

nS

tew

ard

ship

Que

stio

nsS

core

Prin

cipl

e 1

Inst

itutio

nal I

nves

tors

sho

uld

publ

icly

dis

clos

e th

eir p

olic

y on

how

they

w

ill d

isch

arge

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ob

ligat

ions

7P

rinci

ple

2 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d ha

ve a

robu

st p

olic

y on

man

agin

g co

nflic

ts

of in

tere

st in

rela

tion

to s

tew

ards

hip

whi

ch s

houl

d be

pub

licly

dis

clos

ed4

Prin

cipl

e 3

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

mon

itor t

heir

inve

stee

com

pani

es3

Prin

cipl

e 4

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

esta

blis

h cl

ear g

uide

lines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w th

ey w

ill e

scal

ate

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ac

tiviti

es4

Prin

cipl

e 5

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

be w

illin

g to

act

col

lect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

in

vest

ors

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te2

Prin

cipl

e 6

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

have

a c

lear

pol

icy

on v

otin

g an

d di

sclo

sure

of v

otin

g ac

tivity

5P

rinci

ple

7 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d re

port

perio

dica

lly o

n th

eir s

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g ac

tiviti

es4

TOTA

L 29

/53

Sur

vey

Res

po

nse

Ste

war

dsh

ip C

od

eS

core

1C

lear

pro

cess

for r

esea

rch

and

mon

itorin

g of

inve

stee

com

pani

es4

2C

omm

itmen

t to

and

mot

ivat

ion

for c

ondu

ctin

g st

ewar

dshi

p2

3R

ange

of m

etho

ds o

f eng

agem

ent a

dopt

ed a

nd o

n w

hich

topi

cs in

the

past

yea

r7.

54

Will

ingn

ess

to b

e te

mpo

raril

y de

sign

ated

an

insi

der a

nd w

heth

er th

is h

as

occu

rred

in th

e la

st 3

yea

rs1

5A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f eng

agem

ent w

ith in

vest

ee c

ompa

nies

du

ring

the

last

yea

r3

6S

tew

ards

hip

and

enga

gem

ent d

iscl

osur

e to

clie

nts

in a

dditi

on to

wha

t is

publ

ic1

7A

ppro

ach

to m

akin

g cl

ient

repo

rting

on

Ste

war

dshi

p an

d vo

ting

succ

inct

an

d en

gagi

ng0

8R

evie

w a

nd u

pdat

e of

the

stew

ards

hip

appr

oach

sin

ce in

cept

ion

19

Bud

get a

lloca

ted

to S

tew

ards

hip,

and

if th

is h

as in

crea

sed

or d

ecre

ased

2TO

TAL

21.5

/30

Co

nflic

ts o

f In

tere

stS

core

10A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

e of

how

a re

cent

con

flict

of i

nter

ests

has

be

en m

anag

ed

011

Stro

ng c

onfli

ct o

f int

eres

ts re

solu

tion

polic

y 2

TOTA

L 2/

3

ES

G

Sco

re12

Ran

ge o

f inv

estm

ent a

ppro

ache

s ap

plie

d in

vest

men

ts in

OE

CD

list

ed s

ecur

ities

:2

13C

lear

pro

cess

of d

esig

ning

, rev

iew

ing,

upd

atin

g an

d ap

prov

ing

the

RI p

olic

y5

14E

ffect

ive

stra

tegy

for m

itiga

ting

stra

nded

car

bon

asse

ts ri

sks

115

Abl

e to

pro

vide

robu

st e

xam

ples

of i

nteg

ratio

n of

env

ironm

enta

l con

side

ratio

ns

into

sto

ck s

elec

tion

116

Abl

e to

pro

vide

robu

st e

xam

ples

of i

nteg

ratio

n of

soc

ial c

onsi

dera

tions

into

st

ock

sele

ctio

n1

TOTA

L 10

/17

Inve

stm

ent H

ori

zon

Sco

re17

Qua

lity

of re

porti

ng to

clie

nts

218

Qua

lity

of m

etric

s us

ed to

mea

sure

long

-term

risk

s in

the

portf

olio

119

Ada

ptat

ion

of in

vest

men

t app

roac

h an

d re

porti

ng to

clie

nts’

diff

eren

t in

vest

men

t hor

izon

s2

TOTA

L 5/

8

Rem

uner

atio

nS

core

20Va

riabl

e co

mpe

nsat

ion

com

pone

nt o

f por

tfolio

man

ager

s (P

M)

221

Cha

nges

to c

ompe

nsat

ion

stru

ctur

e of

PM

in th

e la

st fi

ve y

ears

0

22Fa

ctor

s ta

ken

into

acc

ount

in c

alcu

latio

n of

var

iabl

e co

mpo

nent

of P

M’s

com

pens

atio

n5

23Pe

rcen

tage

of P

M’s

bon

us d

efer

red

and

defe

rral

per

iod

224

App

rova

l of t

he fi

rm’s

com

pens

atio

n po

licy

for P

M2

25A

ppro

val o

f the

firm

’s a

ctua

l ann

ual v

aria

ble

com

pens

atio

n pa

y-ou

ts2

26D

iscl

osur

e by

the

firm

of q

uant

um a

nd d

esig

n pf

PM

’s c

ompe

nsat

ion

0TO

TAL

13/2

0

Fixe

d In

com

eS

core

27Pe

rcen

tage

of t

he fi

rm’s

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG c

onsi

dera

tions

3

28C

hang

e of

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG

con

side

ratio

ns in

la

st th

ree

year

s3

29Ad

optio

n o

f neg

ativ

e sc

reen

ing

or b

est-i

n-cl

ass

appr

oach

es in

fixe

d in

com

e po

rtfol

ios

130

Pro

cedu

re fo

r ide

ntify

ing

ES

G-c

ompl

iant

pro

spec

tive

inve

stm

ents

2TO

TAL

9/12

SU

RV

EY

RE

SP

ON

SE

TO

TAL

60.5

/90

OV

ER

ALL

SU

RV

EY

TO

TAL

89.5

/143

Pub

lic r

eco

mm

end

atio

ns to

Alli

ance

Ber

nste

in:

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

polic

y on

con

side

ratio

n of

env

ironm

enta

l fac

tors

in th

e in

vest

men

t pro

cess

•D

iscl

ose

mor

e de

taile

d en

gage

men

t and

vot

ing

activ

ities

repo

rts

•D

iscl

ose

mor

e cl

early

pos

ition

on

will

ingn

ess

to b

ecom

e an

insi

der

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

polic

y on

col

lect

ive

actio

n •

Dis

clos

e ra

tiona

le fo

r con

trove

rsia

l vot

ing

deci

sion

sA

dd

itio

nal re

com

mend

ations a

re m

ad

e p

rivate

ly b

ased

on s

urv

ey r

esp

onses.

Art

emis

Inve

stm

ent M

anag

emen

t

25

Pub

lic In

form

atio

nS

tew

ard

ship

Que

stio

nsS

core

Prin

cipl

e 1

Inst

itutio

nal I

nves

tors

sho

uld

publ

icly

dis

clos

e th

eir p

olic

y on

how

they

w

ill d

isch

arge

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ob

ligat

ions

5P

rinci

ple

2 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d ha

ve a

robu

st p

olic

y on

man

agin

g co

nflic

ts

of in

tere

st in

rela

tion

to s

tew

ards

hip

whi

ch s

houl

d be

pub

licly

dis

clos

ed4

Prin

cipl

e 3

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

mon

itor t

heir

inve

stee

com

pani

es5

Prin

cipl

e 4

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

esta

blis

h cl

ear g

uide

lines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w th

ey w

ill e

scal

ate

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ac

tiviti

es6

Prin

cipl

e 5

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

be w

illin

g to

act

col

lect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

in

vest

ors

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te3

Prin

cipl

e 6

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

have

a c

lear

pol

icy

on v

otin

g an

d di

sclo

sure

of v

otin

g ac

tivity

7P

rinci

ple

7 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d re

port

perio

dica

lly o

n th

eir s

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g ac

tiviti

es7

TOTA

L 37

/53

Sur

vey

Res

po

nse

Ste

war

dsh

ip C

od

eS

core

1C

lear

pro

cess

for r

esea

rch

and

mon

itorin

g of

inve

stee

com

pani

es2

2C

omm

itmen

t to

and

mot

ivat

ion

for c

ondu

ctin

g st

ewar

dshi

p1

3R

ange

of m

etho

ds o

f eng

agem

ent a

dopt

ed a

nd o

n w

hich

topi

cs in

the

past

yea

r3

4W

illin

gnes

s to

be

tem

pora

rily

desi

gnat

ed a

n in

side

r and

whe

ther

this

has

oc

curr

ed in

the

last

3 y

ears

15

Abl

e to

pro

vide

robu

st e

xam

ples

of e

ngag

emen

t with

inve

stee

com

pani

es

durin

g th

e la

st y

ear

26

Ste

war

dshi

p an

d en

gage

men

t dis

clos

ure

to c

lient

s in

add

ition

to w

hat i

s pu

blic

17

App

roac

h to

mak

ing

clie

nt re

porti

ng o

n S

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g su

ccin

ct

and

enga

ging

18

Rev

iew

and

upd

ate

of th

e st

ewar

dshi

p ap

proa

ch s

ince

ince

ptio

n0

9B

udge

t allo

cate

d to

Ste

war

dshi

p, a

nd if

this

has

incr

ease

d or

dec

reas

ed2

TOTA

L 13

/30

Co

nflic

ts o

f In

tere

stS

core

10A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

e of

how

a re

cent

con

flict

of i

nter

ests

has

be

en m

anag

ed

011

Stro

ng c

onfli

ct o

f int

eres

ts re

solu

tion

polic

y 2

TOTA

L 2/

3

ES

G

Sco

re12

Ran

ge o

f inv

estm

ent a

ppro

ache

s ap

plie

d in

vest

men

ts in

OE

CD

list

ed s

ecur

ities

:2

13C

lear

pro

cess

of d

esig

ning

, rev

iew

ing,

upd

atin

g an

d ap

prov

ing

the

RI p

olic

y3.

514

Effe

ctiv

e st

rate

gy fo

r miti

gatin

g st

rand

ed c

arbo

n as

sets

risk

s 1

15A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f int

egra

tion

of e

nviro

nmen

tal c

onsi

dera

tions

in

to s

tock

sel

ectio

n1

16A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f int

egra

tion

of s

ocia

l con

side

ratio

ns in

to

stoc

k se

lect

ion

0TO

TAL

7.5/

17

Inve

stm

ent H

ori

zon

Sco

re17

Qua

lity

of re

porti

ng to

clie

nts

218

Qua

lity

of m

etric

s us

ed to

mea

sure

long

-term

risk

s in

the

portf

olio

119

Ada

ptat

ion

of in

vest

men

t app

roac

h an

d re

porti

ng to

clie

nts’

diff

eren

t in

vest

men

t hor

izon

s0

TOTA

L 3/

8

Rem

uner

atio

nS

core

20Va

riabl

e co

mpe

nsat

ion

com

pone

nt o

f por

tfolio

man

ager

s (P

M)

121

Cha

nges

to c

ompe

nsat

ion

stru

ctur

e of

PM

in th

e la

st fi

ve y

ears

0

22Fa

ctor

s ta

ken

into

acc

ount

in c

alcu

latio

n of

var

iabl

e co

mpo

nent

of P

M’s

com

pens

atio

n5

23Pe

rcen

tage

of P

M’s

bon

us d

efer

red

and

defe

rral

per

iod

2.5

24A

ppro

val o

f the

firm

’s c

ompe

nsat

ion

polic

y fo

r PM

225

App

rova

l of t

he fi

rm’s

act

ual a

nnua

l var

iabl

e co

mpe

nsat

ion

pay-

outs

126

Dis

clos

ure

by th

e fir

m o

f qua

ntum

and

des

ign

pf P

M’s

com

pens

atio

n0.

5TO

TAL

12/2

0

Fixe

d In

com

eS

core

27Pe

rcen

tage

of t

he fi

rm’s

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG c

onsi

dera

tions

0

28C

hang

e of

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG

con

side

ratio

ns in

la

st th

ree

year

s0

29Ad

optio

n o

f neg

ativ

e sc

reen

ing

or b

est-i

n-cl

ass

appr

oach

es in

fixe

d in

com

e po

rtfol

ios

030

Pro

cedu

re fo

r ide

ntify

ing

ES

G-c

ompl

iant

pro

spec

tive

inve

stm

ents

0TO

TAL

0/12

SU

RV

EY

RE

SP

ON

SE

TO

TAL

37.5

/90

OV

ER

ALL

SU

RV

EY

TO

TAL

74.5

/143

Pub

lic r

eco

mm

end

atio

ns to

Art

emis

Inve

stm

ent M

anag

emen

t:

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

polic

y on

con

side

ratio

n of

env

ironm

enta

l fac

tors

in th

e in

vest

men

t pro

cess

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

conf

licts

of i

nter

est p

olic

y •

Dis

clos

e a

mor

e de

taile

d co

llect

ive

actio

n po

licy

•D

iscl

ose

ratio

nale

for c

ontro

vers

ial v

otin

g de

cisi

ons

•S

eek

to o

btai

n an

inde

pend

ent o

pini

on o

n en

gage

men

t and

vot

ing

proc

esse

sA

dd

itio

nal re

com

mend

ations a

re m

ad

e p

rivate

ly b

ased

on s

urv

ey r

esp

onses.

Avi

va In

vest

ors

26

Pub

lic In

form

atio

nS

tew

ard

ship

Que

stio

nsS

core

Prin

cipl

e 1

Inst

itutio

nal I

nves

tors

sho

uld

publ

icly

dis

clos

e th

eir p

olic

y on

how

they

w

ill d

isch

arge

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ob

ligat

ions

7P

rinci

ple

2 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d ha

ve a

robu

st p

olic

y on

man

agin

g co

nflic

ts

of in

tere

st in

rela

tion

to s

tew

ards

hip

whi

ch s

houl

d be

pub

licly

dis

clos

ed6

Prin

cipl

e 3

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

mon

itor t

heir

inve

stee

com

pani

es7

Prin

cipl

e 4

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

esta

blis

h cl

ear g

uide

lines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w th

ey w

ill e

scal

ate

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ac

tiviti

es6

Prin

cipl

e 5

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

be w

illin

g to

act

col

lect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

in

vest

ors

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te5

Prin

cipl

e 6

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

have

a c

lear

pol

icy

on v

otin

g an

d di

sclo

sure

of v

otin

g ac

tivity

8P

rinci

ple

7 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d re

port

perio

dica

lly o

n th

eir s

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g ac

tiviti

es7

TOTA

L 46

/53

Sur

vey

Res

po

nse

Ste

war

dsh

ip C

od

eS

core

1C

lear

pro

cess

for r

esea

rch

and

mon

itorin

g of

inve

stee

com

pani

es4

2C

omm

itmen

t to

and

mot

ivat

ion

for c

ondu

ctin

g st

ewar

dshi

p3

3R

ange

of m

etho

ds o

f eng

agem

ent a

dopt

ed a

nd o

n w

hich

topi

cs in

the

past

yea

r9

4W

illin

gnes

s to

be

tem

pora

rily

desi

gnat

ed a

n in

side

r and

whe

ther

this

has

oc

curr

ed in

the

last

3 y

ears

25

Abl

e to

pro

vide

robu

st e

xam

ples

of e

ngag

emen

t with

inve

stee

com

pani

es

durin

g th

e la

st y

ear

36

Ste

war

dshi

p an

d en

gage

men

t dis

clos

ure

to c

lient

s in

add

ition

to w

hat i

s pu

blic

17

App

roac

h to

mak

ing

clie

nt re

porti

ng o

n S

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g su

ccin

ct

and

enga

ging

18

Rev

iew

and

upd

ate

of th

e st

ewar

dshi

p ap

proa

ch s

ince

ince

ptio

n1

9B

udge

t allo

cate

d to

Ste

war

dshi

p, a

nd if

this

has

incr

ease

d or

dec

reas

ed4

TOTA

L 28

/30

Co

nflic

ts o

f In

tere

stS

core

10A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

e of

how

a re

cent

con

flict

of i

nter

ests

has

be

en m

anag

ed

111

Stro

ng c

onfli

ct o

f int

eres

ts re

solu

tion

polic

y 2

TOTA

L 3/

3

ES

G

Sco

re12

Ran

ge o

f inv

estm

ent a

ppro

ache

s ap

plie

d in

vest

men

ts in

OE

CD

list

ed s

ecur

ities

:2.

513

Cle

ar p

roce

ss o

f des

igni

ng, r

evie

win

g, u

pdat

ing

and

appr

ovin

g th

e R

I pol

icy

614

Effe

ctiv

e st

rate

gy fo

r miti

gatin

g st

rand

ed c

arbo

n as

sets

risk

s 2

15A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f int

egra

tion

of e

nviro

nmen

tal c

onsi

dera

tions

in

to s

tock

sel

ectio

n1

16A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f int

egra

tion

of s

ocia

l con

side

ratio

ns in

to

stoc

k se

lect

ion

1TO

TAL

12.5

/17

Inve

stm

ent H

ori

zon

Sco

re17

Qua

lity

of re

porti

ng to

clie

nts

218

Qua

lity

of m

etric

s us

ed to

mea

sure

long

-term

risk

s in

the

portf

olio

119

Ada

ptat

ion

of in

vest

men

t app

roac

h an

d re

porti

ng to

clie

nts’

diff

eren

t in

vest

men

t hor

izon

s3

TOTA

L 6/

8

Rem

uner

atio

nS

core

20Va

riabl

e co

mpe

nsat

ion

com

pone

nt o

f por

tfolio

man

ager

s (P

M)

221

Cha

nges

to c

ompe

nsat

ion

stru

ctur

e of

PM

in th

e la

st fi

ve y

ears

2

22Fa

ctor

s ta

ken

into

acc

ount

in c

alcu

latio

n of

var

iabl

e co

mpo

nent

of P

M’s

com

pens

atio

n7

23Pe

rcen

tage

of P

M’s

bon

us d

efer

red

and

defe

rral

per

iod

324

App

rova

l of t

he fi

rm’s

com

pens

atio

n po

licy

for P

M2

25A

ppro

val o

f the

firm

’s a

ctua

l ann

ual v

aria

ble

com

pens

atio

n pa

y-ou

ts2

26D

iscl

osur

e by

the

firm

of q

uant

um a

nd d

esig

n pf

PM

’s c

ompe

nsat

ion

0.5

TOTA

L 18

.5/2

0

Fixe

d In

com

eS

core

27Pe

rcen

tage

of t

he fi

rm’s

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG c

onsi

dera

tions

3

28C

hang

e of

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG

con

side

ratio

ns in

la

st th

ree

year

s2

29Ad

optio

n o

f neg

ativ

e sc

reen

ing

or b

est-i

n-cl

ass

appr

oach

es in

fixe

d in

com

e po

rtfol

ios

130

Pro

cedu

re fo

r ide

ntify

ing

ES

G-c

ompl

iant

pro

spec

tive

inve

stm

ents

1TO

TAL

7/12

SU

RV

EY

RE

SP

ON

SE

TO

TAL

75/9

0O

VE

RA

LL S

UR

VE

Y T

OTA

L12

1/14

3

Pub

lic r

eco

mm

end

atio

ns to

Avi

va In

vest

ors

: •

Dis

clos

e a

mor

e de

taile

d po

licy

on c

onsi

dera

tion

of e

nviro

nmen

tal f

acto

rs in

the

inve

stm

ent p

roce

ss

•D

iscl

ose

in g

reat

er d

etai

l the

pol

icy

setti

ng o

ut th

e gu

idel

ines

on

whe

n to

esc

alat

e S

tew

ards

hip

activ

ities

•D

iscl

ose

mor

e de

taile

d en

gage

men

t and

vot

ing

activ

ities

repo

rts

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

conf

licts

of i

nter

est

Ad

ditio

nal re

com

mend

ations a

re m

ad

e p

rivate

ly b

ased

on s

urv

ey r

esp

onses.

AX

A In

vest

men

t Man

ager

s

27

Pub

lic In

form

atio

nS

tew

ard

ship

Que

stio

nsS

core

Prin

cipl

e 1

Inst

itutio

nal I

nves

tors

sho

uld

publ

icly

dis

clos

e th

eir p

olic

y on

how

they

w

ill d

isch

arge

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ob

ligat

ions

7P

rinci

ple

2 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d ha

ve a

robu

st p

olic

y on

man

agin

g co

nflic

ts

of in

tere

st in

rela

tion

to s

tew

ards

hip

whi

ch s

houl

d be

pub

licly

dis

clos

ed1

Prin

cipl

e 3

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

mon

itor t

heir

inve

stee

com

pani

es4

Prin

cipl

e 4

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

esta

blis

h cl

ear g

uide

lines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w th

ey w

ill e

scal

ate

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ac

tiviti

es4

Prin

cipl

e 5

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

be w

illin

g to

act

col

lect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

in

vest

ors

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te1

Prin

cipl

e 6

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

have

a c

lear

pol

icy

on v

otin

g an

d di

sclo

sure

of v

otin

g ac

tivity

6P

rinci

ple

7 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d re

port

perio

dica

lly o

n th

eir s

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g ac

tiviti

es7

TOTA

L 30

/53

Sur

vey

Res

po

nse

Ste

war

dsh

ip C

od

eS

core

1C

lear

pro

cess

for r

esea

rch

and

mon

itorin

g of

inve

stee

com

pani

es3

2C

omm

itmen

t to

and

mot

ivat

ion

for c

ondu

ctin

g st

ewar

dshi

p2

3R

ange

of m

etho

ds o

f eng

agem

ent a

dopt

ed a

nd o

n w

hich

topi

cs in

the

past

yea

r4

4W

illin

gnes

s to

be

tem

pora

rily

desi

gnat

ed a

n in

side

r and

whe

ther

this

has

oc

curr

ed in

the

last

3 y

ears

25

Abl

e to

pro

vide

robu

st e

xam

ples

of e

ngag

emen

t with

inve

stee

com

pani

es

durin

g th

e la

st y

ear

36

Ste

war

dshi

p an

d en

gage

men

t dis

clos

ure

to c

lient

s in

add

ition

to w

hat i

s pu

blic

17

App

roac

h to

mak

ing

clie

nt re

porti

ng o

n S

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g su

ccin

ct

and

enga

ging

18

Rev

iew

and

upd

ate

of th

e st

ewar

dshi

p ap

proa

ch s

ince

ince

ptio

n1

9B

udge

t allo

cate

d to

Ste

war

dshi

p, a

nd if

this

has

incr

ease

d or

dec

reas

ed4

TOTA

L 21

/30

Co

nflic

ts o

f In

tere

stS

core

10A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

e of

how

a re

cent

con

flict

of i

nter

ests

has

be

en m

anag

ed

011

Stro

ng c

onfli

ct o

f int

eres

ts re

solu

tion

polic

y 2

TOTA

L 2/

3

ES

G

Sco

re12

Ran

ge o

f inv

estm

ent a

ppro

ache

s ap

plie

d in

vest

men

ts in

OE

CD

list

ed s

ecur

ities

:2.

513

Cle

ar p

roce

ss o

f des

igni

ng, r

evie

win

g, u

pdat

ing

and

appr

ovin

g th

e R

I pol

icy

414

Effe

ctiv

e st

rate

gy fo

r miti

gatin

g st

rand

ed c

arbo

n as

sets

risk

s 1

15A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f int

egra

tion

of e

nviro

nmen

tal c

onsi

dera

tions

in

to s

tock

sel

ectio

n1

16A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f int

egra

tion

of s

ocia

l con

side

ratio

ns in

to

stoc

k se

lect

ion

1TO

TAL

9.5/

17

Inve

stm

ent H

ori

zon

Sco

re17

Qua

lity

of re

porti

ng to

clie

nts

018

Qua

lity

of m

etric

s us

ed to

mea

sure

long

-term

risk

s in

the

portf

olio

019

Ada

ptat

ion

of in

vest

men

t app

roac

h an

d re

porti

ng to

clie

nts’

diff

eren

t in

vest

men

t hor

izon

s0

TOTA

L 0/

8

Rem

uner

atio

nS

core

20Va

riabl

e co

mpe

nsat

ion

com

pone

nt o

f por

tfolio

man

ager

s (P

M)

021

Cha

nges

to c

ompe

nsat

ion

stru

ctur

e of

PM

in th

e la

st fi

ve y

ears

0

22Fa

ctor

s ta

ken

into

acc

ount

in c

alcu

latio

n of

var

iabl

e co

mpo

nent

of P

M’s

com

pens

atio

n0

23Pe

rcen

tage

of P

M’s

bon

us d

efer

red

and

defe

rral

per

iod

024

App

rova

l of t

he fi

rm’s

com

pens

atio

n po

licy

for P

M0

25A

ppro

val o

f the

firm

’s a

ctua

l ann

ual v

aria

ble

com

pens

atio

n pa

y-ou

ts0

26D

iscl

osur

e by

the

firm

of q

uant

um a

nd d

esig

n pf

PM

’s c

ompe

nsat

ion

0TO

TAL

0/20

Fixe

d In

com

eS

core

27Pe

rcen

tage

of t

he fi

rm’s

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG c

onsi

dera

tions

3

28C

hang

e of

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG

con

side

ratio

ns in

la

st th

ree

year

s1

29Ad

optio

n o

f neg

ativ

e sc

reen

ing

or b

est-i

n-cl

ass

appr

oach

es in

fixe

d in

com

e po

rtfol

ios

230

Pro

cedu

re fo

r ide

ntify

ing

ES

G-c

ompl

iant

pro

spec

tive

inve

stm

ents

3TO

TAL

9/12

SU

RV

EY

RE

SP

ON

SE

TO

TAL

41.5

/90

OV

ER

ALL

SU

RV

EY

TO

TAL

71.5

/143

Pub

lic r

eco

mm

end

atio

ns to

AX

A In

vest

men

t Man

ager

s:

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

polic

y an

d gu

idel

ines

on

whe

n to

esc

alat

e S

tew

ards

hip

activ

ities

•

Dis

clos

e w

heth

er a

n in

depe

nden

t opi

nion

on

enga

gem

ent a

nd v

otin

g pr

oces

ses

was

obt

aine

d •

Dis

clos

e m

ore

timel

y up

date

d an

d de

taile

d en

gage

men

t and

vot

ing

activ

ities

repo

rts

•D

iscl

ose

mor

e cl

early

pos

ition

on

will

ingn

ess

to b

ecom

e an

insi

der

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

conf

licts

of i

nter

est p

olic

y •

Dis

clos

e a

mor

e de

taile

d co

llect

ive

actio

n po

licy

•D

iscl

ose

ratio

nale

for c

ontro

vers

ial v

otin

g de

cisi

ons

Ad

ditio

nal re

com

mend

ations a

re m

ad

e p

rivate

ly b

ased

on s

urv

ey r

esp

onses.

Bai

llie

Giff

ord

& C

o.

28

Pub

lic In

form

atio

nS

tew

ard

ship

Que

stio

nsS

core

Prin

cipl

e 1

Inst

itutio

nal I

nves

tors

sho

uld

publ

icly

dis

clos

e th

eir p

olic

y on

how

they

w

ill d

isch

arge

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ob

ligat

ions

6P

rinci

ple

2 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d ha

ve a

robu

st p

olic

y on

man

agin

g co

nflic

ts

of in

tere

st in

rela

tion

to s

tew

ards

hip

whi

ch s

houl

d be

pub

licly

dis

clos

ed3

Prin

cipl

e 3

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

mon

itor t

heir

inve

stee

com

pani

es4

Prin

cipl

e 4

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

esta

blis

h cl

ear g

uide

lines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w th

ey w

ill e

scal

ate

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ac

tiviti

es7

Prin

cipl

e 5

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

be w

illin

g to

act

col

lect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

in

vest

ors

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te2

Prin

cipl

e 6

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

have

a c

lear

pol

icy

on v

otin

g an

d di

sclo

sure

of v

otin

g ac

tivity

6P

rinci

ple

7 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d re

port

perio

dica

lly o

n th

eir s

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g ac

tiviti

es8

TOTA

L 36

/53

Sur

vey

Res

po

nse

Ste

war

dsh

ip C

od

eS

core

1C

lear

pro

cess

for r

esea

rch

and

mon

itorin

g of

inve

stee

com

pani

es4

2C

omm

itmen

t to

and

mot

ivat

ion

for c

ondu

ctin

g st

ewar

dshi

p2

3R

ange

of m

etho

ds o

f eng

agem

ent a

dopt

ed a

nd o

n w

hich

topi

cs in

the

past

yea

r4

4W

illin

gnes

s to

be

tem

pora

rily

desi

gnat

ed a

n in

side

r and

whe

ther

this

has

oc

curr

ed in

the

last

3 y

ears

25

Abl

e to

pro

vide

robu

st e

xam

ples

of e

ngag

emen

t with

inve

stee

com

pani

es

durin

g th

e la

st y

ear

36

Ste

war

dshi

p an

d en

gage

men

t dis

clos

ure

to c

lient

s in

add

ition

to w

hat i

s pu

blic

17

App

roac

h to

mak

ing

clie

nt re

porti

ng o

n S

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g su

ccin

ct

and

enga

ging

28

Rev

iew

and

upd

ate

of th

e st

ewar

dshi

p ap

proa

ch s

ince

ince

ptio

n1

9B

udge

t allo

cate

d to

Ste

war

dshi

p, a

nd if

this

has

incr

ease

d or

dec

reas

ed4

TOTA

L 23

/30

Co

nflic

ts o

f In

tere

stS

core

10A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

e of

how

a re

cent

con

flict

of i

nter

ests

has

be

en m

anag

ed

111

Stro

ng c

onfli

ct o

f int

eres

ts re

solu

tion

polic

y 2

TOTA

L 3/

3

ES

G

Sco

re12

Ran

ge o

f inv

estm

ent a

ppro

ache

s ap

plie

d in

vest

men

ts in

OE

CD

list

ed s

ecur

ities

:2

13C

lear

pro

cess

of d

esig

ning

, rev

iew

ing,

upd

atin

g an

d ap

prov

ing

the

RI p

olic

y4

14E

ffect

ive

stra

tegy

for m

itiga

ting

stra

nded

car

bon

asse

ts ri

sks

115

Abl

e to

pro

vide

robu

st e

xam

ples

of i

nteg

ratio

n of

env

ironm

enta

l con

side

ratio

ns

into

sto

ck s

elec

tion

116

Abl

e to

pro

vide

robu

st e

xam

ples

of i

nteg

ratio

n of

soc

ial c

onsi

dera

tions

into

st

ock

sele

ctio

n1

TOTA

L 9/

17

Inve

stm

ent H

ori

zon

Sco

re17

Qua

lity

of re

porti

ng to

clie

nts

218

Qua

lity

of m

etric

s us

ed to

mea

sure

long

-term

risk

s in

the

portf

olio

119

Ada

ptat

ion

of in

vest

men

t app

roac

h an

d re

porti

ng to

clie

nts’

diff

eren

t in

vest

men

t hor

izon

s4

TOTA

L 7/

8

Rem

uner

atio

nS

core

20Va

riabl

e co

mpe

nsat

ion

com

pone

nt o

f por

tfolio

man

ager

s (P

M)

221

Cha

nges

to c

ompe

nsat

ion

stru

ctur

e of

PM

in th

e la

st fi

ve y

ears

2

22Fa

ctor

s ta

ken

into

acc

ount

in c

alcu

latio

n of

var

iabl

e co

mpo

nent

of P

M’s

com

pens

atio

n6

23Pe

rcen

tage

of P

M’s

bon

us d

efer

red

and

defe

rral

per

iod

324

App

rova

l of t

he fi

rm’s

com

pens

atio

n po

licy

for P

M2

25A

ppro

val o

f the

firm

’s a

ctua

l ann

ual v

aria

ble

com

pens

atio

n pa

y-ou

ts2

26D

iscl

osur

e by

the

firm

of q

uant

um a

nd d

esig

n pf

PM

’s c

ompe

nsat

ion

0.5

TOTA

L 17

.5/2

0

Fixe

d In

com

eS

core

27Pe

rcen

tage

of t

he fi

rm’s

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG c

onsi

dera

tions

0

28C

hang

e of

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG

con

side

ratio

ns in

la

st th

ree

year

s0

29Ad

optio

n o

f neg

ativ

e sc

reen

ing

or b

est-i

n-cl

ass

appr

oach

es in

fixe

d in

com

e po

rtfol

ios

030

Pro

cedu

re fo

r ide

ntify

ing

ES

G-c

ompl

iant

pro

spec

tive

inve

stm

ents

1TO

TAL

1/12

SU

RV

EY

RE

SP

ON

SE

TO

TAL

60.5

/90

OV

ER

ALL

SU

RV

EY

TO

TAL

96.5

/143

Pub

lic r

eco

mm

end

atio

ns to

Bai

llie

Giff

ord

& C

o.:

•

Dis

clos

e na

me

and

cont

act d

etai

ls o

f em

ploy

ee to

con

tact

for C

orpo

rate

Gov

erna

nce

and

Ste

war

dshi

p qu

estio

ns

•D

iscl

ose

mor

e de

taile

d en

gage

men

t and

vot

ing

activ

ities

repo

rts c

over

ing

spec

ific

enga

gem

ents

not c

over

ed b

y th

e C

orpo

rate

Gov

erna

nce

Ann

ual R

evie

w

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

conf

licts

of i

nter

est p

olic

y •

Dis

clos

e a

mor

e de

taile

d co

llect

ive

actio

n po

licy

•D

iscl

ose

ratio

nale

for c

ontro

vers

ial v

otin

g de

cisi

ons

Ad

ditio

nal re

com

mend

ations a

re m

ad

e p

rivate

ly b

ased

on s

urv

ey r

esp

onses.

Bla

ckR

ock

29

Pub

lic In

form

atio

nS

tew

ard

ship

Que

stio

nsS

core

Prin

cipl

e 1

Inst

itutio

nal I

nves

tors

sho

uld

publ

icly

dis

clos

e th

eir p

olic

y on

how

they

w

ill d

isch

arge

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ob

ligat

ions

7P

rinci

ple

2 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d ha

ve a

robu

st p

olic

y on

man

agin

g co

nflic

ts

of in

tere

st in

rela

tion

to s

tew

ards

hip

whi

ch s

houl

d be

pub

licly

dis

clos

ed4

Prin

cipl

e 3

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

mon

itor t

heir

inve

stee

com

pani

es3

Prin

cipl

e 4

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

esta

blis

h cl

ear g

uide

lines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w th

ey w

ill e

scal

ate

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ac

tiviti

es7

Prin

cipl

e 5

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

be w

illin

g to

act

col

lect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

in

vest

ors

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te3

Prin

cipl

e 6

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

have

a c

lear

pol

icy

on v

otin

g an

d di

sclo

sure

of v

otin

g ac

tivity

8P

rinci

ple

7 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d re

port

perio

dica

lly o

n th

eir s

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g ac

tiviti

es8

TOTA

L 40

/53

Sur

vey

Res

po

nse

Ste

war

dsh

ip C

od

eS

core

1C

lear

pro

cess

for r

esea

rch

and

mon

itorin

g of

inve

stee

com

pani

es3

2C

omm

itmen

t to

and

mot

ivat

ion

for c

ondu

ctin

g st

ewar

dshi

p3

3R

ange

of m

etho

ds o

f eng

agem

ent a

dopt

ed a

nd o

n w

hich

topi

cs in

the

past

yea

r4.

54

Will

ingn

ess

to b

e te

mpo

raril

y de

sign

ated

an

insi

der a

nd w

heth

er th

is h

as

occu

rred

in th

e la

st 3

yea

rs2

5A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f eng

agem

ent w

ith in

vest

ee c

ompa

nies

du

ring

the

last

yea

r3

6S

tew

ards

hip

and

enga

gem

ent d

iscl

osur

e to

clie

nts

in a

dditi

on to

wha

t is

publ

ic0

7A

ppro

ach

to m

akin

g cl

ient

repo

rting

on

Ste

war

dshi

p an

d vo

ting

succ

inct

an

d en

gagi

ng1

8R

evie

w a

nd u

pdat

e of

the

stew

ards

hip

appr

oach

sin

ce in

cept

ion

19

Bud

get a

lloca

ted

to S

tew

ards

hip,

and

if th

is h

as in

crea

sed

or d

ecre

ased

0TO

TAL

17.5

/30

Co

nflic

ts o

f In

tere

stS

core

10A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

e of

how

a re

cent

con

flict

of i

nter

ests

has

be

en m

anag

ed

011

Stro

ng c

onfli

ct o

f int

eres

ts re

solu

tion

polic

y 2

TOTA

L 2/

3

ES

G

Sco

re12

Ran

ge o

f inv

estm

ent a

ppro

ache

s ap

plie

d in

vest

men

ts in

OE

CD

list

ed s

ecur

ities

:2

13C

lear

pro

cess

of d

esig

ning

, rev

iew

ing,

upd

atin

g an

d ap

prov

ing

the

RI p

olic

y4.

514

Effe

ctiv

e st

rate

gy fo

r miti

gatin

g st

rand

ed c

arbo

n as

sets

risk

s 2

15A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f int

egra

tion

of e

nviro

nmen

tal c

onsi

dera

tions

in

to s

tock

sel

ectio

n0

16A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f int

egra

tion

of s

ocia

l con

side

ratio

ns in

to

stoc

k se

lect

ion

0TO

TAL

8.5/

17

Inve

stm

ent H

ori

zon

Sco

re17

Qua

lity

of re

porti

ng to

clie

nts

218

Qua

lity

of m

etric

s us

ed to

mea

sure

long

-term

risk

s in

the

portf

olio

119

Ada

ptat

ion

of in

vest

men

t app

roac

h an

d re

porti

ng to

clie

nts’

diff

eren

t in

vest

men

t hor

izon

s3

TOTA

L 6/

8

Rem

uner

atio

nS

core

20Va

riabl

e co

mpe

nsat

ion

com

pone

nt o

f por

tfolio

man

ager

s (P

M)

121

Cha

nges

to c

ompe

nsat

ion

stru

ctur

e of

PM

in th

e la

st fi

ve y

ears

0

22Fa

ctor

s ta

ken

into

acc

ount

in c

alcu

latio

n of

var

iabl

e co

mpo

nent

of P

M’s

com

pens

atio

n5

23Pe

rcen

tage

of P

M’s

bon

us d

efer

red

and

defe

rral

per

iod

224

App

rova

l of t

he fi

rm’s

com

pens

atio

n po

licy

for P

M1

25A

ppro

val o

f the

firm

’s a

ctua

l ann

ual v

aria

ble

com

pens

atio

n pa

y-ou

ts1

26D

iscl

osur

e by

the

firm

of q

uant

um a

nd d

esig

n pf

PM

’s c

ompe

nsat

ion

0.5

TOTA

L 10

.5/2

0

Fixe

d In

com

eS

core

27Pe

rcen

tage

of t

he fi

rm’s

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG c

onsi

dera

tions

2

28C

hang

e of

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG

con

side

ratio

ns in

la

st th

ree

year

s0

29Ad

optio

n o

f neg

ativ

e sc

reen

ing

or b

est-i

n-cl

ass

appr

oach

es in

fixe

d in

com

e po

rtfol

ios

230

Pro

cedu

re fo

r ide

ntify

ing

ES

G-c

ompl

iant

pro

spec

tive

inve

stm

ents

3TO

TAL

7/12

SU

RV

EY

RE

SP

ON

SE

TO

TAL

51.5

/90

OV

ER

ALL

SU

RV

EY

TO

TAL

91.5

/143

Pub

lic r

eco

mm

end

atio

ns to

Bla

ckR

ock

: •

Dis

clos

e a

mor

e de

taile

d po

licy

on c

onsi

dera

tion

of e

nviro

nmen

tal f

acto

rs in

the

inve

stm

ent p

roce

ss•

Dis

clos

e a

mor

e de

taile

d co

llect

ive

actio

n po

licy

•D

iscl

ose

ratio

nale

for c

ontro

vers

ial v

otin

g de

cisi

ons

Ad

ditio

nal re

com

mend

ations a

re m

ad

e p

rivate

ly b

ased

on s

urv

ey r

esp

onses.

Cap

ital I

nter

natio

nal

30

Pub

lic In

form

atio

nS

tew

ard

ship

Que

stio

nsS

core

Prin

cipl

e 1

Inst

itutio

nal I

nves

tors

sho

uld

publ

icly

dis

clos

e th

eir p

olic

y on

how

they

w

ill d

isch

arge

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ob

ligat

ions

5P

rinci

ple

2 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d ha

ve a

robu

st p

olic

y on

man

agin

g co

nflic

ts

of in

tere

st in

rela

tion

to s

tew

ards

hip

whi

ch s

houl

d be

pub

licly

dis

clos

ed3

Prin

cipl

e 3

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

mon

itor t

heir

inve

stee

com

pani

es4

Prin

cipl

e 4

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

esta

blis

h cl

ear g

uide

lines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w th

ey w

ill e

scal

ate

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ac

tiviti

es4

Prin

cipl

e 5

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

be w

illin

g to

act

col

lect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

in

vest

ors

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te3

Prin

cipl

e 6

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

have

a c

lear

pol

icy

on v

otin

g an

d di

sclo

sure

of v

otin

g ac

tivity

7P

rinci

ple

7 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d re

port

perio

dica

lly o

n th

eir s

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g ac

tiviti

es4

TOTA

L 30

/53

Sur

vey

Res

po

nse

Ste

war

dsh

ip C

od

eS

core

1C

lear

pro

cess

for r

esea

rch

and

mon

itorin

g of

inve

stee

com

pani

es2

2C

omm

itmen

t to

and

mot

ivat

ion

for c

ondu

ctin

g st

ewar

dshi

p2

3R

ange

of m

etho

ds o

f eng

agem

ent a

dopt

ed a

nd o

n w

hich

topi

cs in

the

past

yea

r2.

54

Will

ingn

ess

to b

e te

mpo

raril

y de

sign

ated

an

insi

der a

nd w

heth

er th

is h

as

occu

rred

in th

e la

st 3

yea

rs2

5A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f eng

agem

ent w

ith in

vest

ee c

ompa

nies

du

ring

the

last

yea

r3

6S

tew

ards

hip

and

enga

gem

ent d

iscl

osur

e to

clie

nts

in a

dditi

on to

wha

t is

publ

ic1

7A

ppro

ach

to m

akin

g cl

ient

repo

rting

on

Ste

war

dshi

p an

d vo

ting

succ

inct

an

d en

gagi

ng1

8R

evie

w a

nd u

pdat

e of

the

stew

ards

hip

appr

oach

sin

ce in

cept

ion

19

Bud

get a

lloca

ted

to S

tew

ards

hip,

and

if th

is h

as in

crea

sed

or d

ecre

ased

0TO

TAL

14.5

/30

Co

nflic

ts o

f In

tere

stS

core

10A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

e of

how

a re

cent

con

flict

of i

nter

ests

has

be

en m

anag

ed

111

Stro

ng c

onfli

ct o

f int

eres

ts re

solu

tion

polic

y 2

TOTA

L 3/

3

ES

G

Sco

re12

Ran

ge o

f inv

estm

ent a

ppro

ache

s ap

plie

d in

vest

men

ts in

OE

CD

list

ed s

ecur

ities

:2

13C

lear

pro

cess

of d

esig

ning

, rev

iew

ing,

upd

atin

g an

d ap

prov

ing

the

RI p

olic

y3

14E

ffect

ive

stra

tegy

for m

itiga

ting

stra

nded

car

bon

asse

ts ri

sks

015

Abl

e to

pro

vide

robu

st e

xam

ples

of i

nteg

ratio

n of

env

ironm

enta

l con

side

ratio

ns

into

sto

ck s

elec

tion

116

Abl

e to

pro

vide

robu

st e

xam

ples

of i

nteg

ratio

n of

soc

ial c

onsi

dera

tions

into

st

ock

sele

ctio

n1

TOTA

L 7/

17

Inve

stm

ent H

ori

zon

Sco

re17

Qua

lity

of re

porti

ng to

clie

nts

218

Qua

lity

of m

etric

s us

ed to

mea

sure

long

-term

risk

s in

the

portf

olio

019

Ada

ptat

ion

of in

vest

men

t app

roac

h an

d re

porti

ng to

clie

nts’

diff

eren

t in

vest

men

t hor

izon

s2

TOTA

L 4/

8

Rem

uner

atio

nS

core

20Va

riabl

e co

mpe

nsat

ion

com

pone

nt o

f por

tfolio

man

ager

s (P

M)

221

Cha

nges

to c

ompe

nsat

ion

stru

ctur

e of

PM

in th

e la

st fi

ve y

ears

0

22Fa

ctor

s ta

ken

into

acc

ount

in c

alcu

latio

n of

var

iabl

e co

mpo

nent

of P

M’s

com

pens

atio

n4

23Pe

rcen

tage

of P

M’s

bon

us d

efer

red

and

defe

rral

per

iod

024

App

rova

l of t

he fi

rm’s

com

pens

atio

n po

licy

for P

M1

25A

ppro

val o

f the

firm

’s a

ctua

l ann

ual v

aria

ble

com

pens

atio

n pa

y-ou

ts2

26D

iscl

osur

e by

the

firm

of q

uant

um a

nd d

esig

n pf

PM

’s c

ompe

nsat

ion

0.5

TOTA

L 9.

5/20

Fixe

d In

com

eS

core

27Pe

rcen

tage

of t

he fi

rm’s

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG c

onsi

dera

tions

3

28C

hang

e of

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG

con

side

ratio

ns in

la

st th

ree

year

s3

29Ad

optio

n o

f neg

ativ

e sc

reen

ing

or b

est-i

n-cl

ass

appr

oach

es in

fixe

d in

com

e po

rtfol

ios

130

Pro

cedu

re fo

r ide

ntify

ing

ES

G-c

ompl

iant

pro

spec

tive

inve

stm

ents

3TO

TAL

10/1

2S

UR

VE

Y R

ES

PO

NS

E T

OTA

L48

/90

OV

ER

ALL

SU

RV

EY

TO

TAL

78/1

43

Pub

lic r

eco

mm

end

atio

ns to

Cap

ital I

nter

natio

nal:

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

polic

y on

con

side

ratio

n of

env

ironm

enta

l fac

tors

in th

e in

vest

men

t pro

cess

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

polic

y an

d gu

idel

ines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w to

esc

alat

e St

ewar

dshi

p ac

tiviti

es

•D

iscl

ose

mor

e de

taile

d re

ports

on

votin

g de

cisi

ons

incl

udin

g ra

tiona

le fo

r con

trove

rsia

l vot

es

•D

iscl

ose

mor

e cl

early

pos

ition

on

will

ingn

ess

to b

ecom

e an

insi

der

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

colle

ctiv

e ac

tion

polic

y •

Dis

clos

e a

mor

e de

taile

d co

nflic

ts o

f int

eres

t pol

icy

Ad

ditio

nal re

com

mend

ations a

re m

ad

e p

rivate

ly b

ased

on s

urv

ey r

esp

onses.

F&C

Inve

stm

ents

31

Pub

lic In

form

atio

nS

tew

ard

ship

Que

stio

nsS

core

Prin

cipl

e 1

Inst

itutio

nal I

nves

tors

sho

uld

publ

icly

dis

clos

e th

eir p

olic

y on

how

they

w

ill d

isch

arge

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ob

ligat

ions

7P

rinci

ple

2 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d ha

ve a

robu

st p

olic

y on

man

agin

g co

nflic

ts

of in

tere

st in

rela

tion

to s

tew

ards

hip

whi

ch s

houl

d be

pub

licly

dis

clos

ed5

Prin

cipl

e 3

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

mon

itor t

heir

inve

stee

com

pani

es5

Prin

cipl

e 4

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

esta

blis

h cl

ear g

uide

lines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w th

ey w

ill e

scal

ate

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ac

tiviti

es5

Prin

cipl

e 5

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

be w

illin

g to

act

col

lect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

in

vest

ors

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te5

Prin

cipl

e 6

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

have

a c

lear

pol

icy

on v

otin

g an

d di

sclo

sure

of v

otin

g ac

tivity

8P

rinci

ple

7 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d re

port

perio

dica

lly o

n th

eir s

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g ac

tiviti

es9

TOTA

L 44

/53

Sur

vey

Res

po

nse

Ste

war

dsh

ip C

od

eS

core

1C

lear

pro

cess

for r

esea

rch

and

mon

itorin

g of

inve

stee

com

pani

es4

2C

omm

itmen

t to

and

mot

ivat

ion

for c

ondu

ctin

g st

ewar

dshi

p1

3R

ange

of m

etho

ds o

f eng

agem

ent a

dopt

ed a

nd o

n w

hich

topi

cs in

the

past

yea

r6.

54

Will

ingn

ess

to b

e te

mpo

raril

y de

sign

ated

an

insi

der a

nd w

heth

er th

is h

as

occu

rred

in th

e la

st 3

yea

rs1

5A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f eng

agem

ent w

ith in

vest

ee c

ompa

nies

du

ring

the

last

yea

r3

6S

tew

ards

hip

and

enga

gem

ent d

iscl

osur

e to

clie

nts

in a

dditi

on to

wha

t is

publ

ic1

7A

ppro

ach

to m

akin

g cl

ient

repo

rting

on

Ste

war

dshi

p an

d vo

ting

succ

inct

an

d en

gagi

ng1

8R

evie

w a

nd u

pdat

e of

the

stew

ards

hip

appr

oach

sin

ce in

cept

ion

19

Bud

get a

lloca

ted

to S

tew

ards

hip,

and

if th

is h

as in

crea

sed

or d

ecre

ased

1TO

TAL

19.5

/30

Co

nflic

ts o

f In

tere

stS

core

10A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

e of

how

a re

cent

con

flict

of i

nter

ests

has

be

en m

anag

ed

111

Stro

ng c

onfli

ct o

f int

eres

ts re

solu

tion

polic

y 2

TOTA

L 3/

3

ES

G

Sco

re12

Ran

ge o

f inv

estm

ent a

ppro

ache

s ap

plie

d in

vest

men

ts in

OE

CD

list

ed s

ecur

ities

:3

13C

lear

pro

cess

of d

esig

ning

, rev

iew

ing,

upd

atin

g an

d ap

prov

ing

the

RI p

olic

y3.

514

Effe

ctiv

e st

rate

gy fo

r miti

gatin

g st

rand

ed c

arbo

n as

sets

risk

s 2

15A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f int

egra

tion

of e

nviro

nmen

tal c

onsi

dera

tions

in

to s

tock

sel

ectio

n1

16A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f int

egra

tion

of s

ocia

l con

side

ratio

ns in

to

stoc

k se

lect

ion

1TO

TAL

10.5

/17

Inve

stm

ent H

ori

zon

Sco

re17

Qua

lity

of re

porti

ng to

clie

nts

218

Qua

lity

of m

etric

s us

ed to

mea

sure

long

-term

risk

s in

the

portf

olio

019

Ada

ptat

ion

of in

vest

men

t app

roac

h an

d re

porti

ng to

clie

nts’

diff

eren

t in

vest

men

t hor

izon

s1

TOTA

L 3/

8

Rem

uner

atio

nS

core

20Va

riabl

e co

mpe

nsat

ion

com

pone

nt o

f por

tfolio

man

ager

s (P

M)

121

Cha

nges

to c

ompe

nsat

ion

stru

ctur

e of

PM

in th

e la

st fi

ve y

ears

0

22Fa

ctor

s ta

ken

into

acc

ount

in c

alcu

latio

n of

var

iabl

e co

mpo

nent

of P

M’s

com

pens

atio

n4

23Pe

rcen

tage

of P

M’s

bon

us d

efer

red

and

defe

rral

per

iod

324

App

rova

l of t

he fi

rm’s

com

pens

atio

n po

licy

for P

M1

25A

ppro

val o

f the

firm

’s a

ctua

l ann

ual v

aria

ble

com

pens

atio

n pa

y-ou

ts2

26D

iscl

osur

e by

the

firm

of q

uant

um a

nd d

esig

n pf

PM

’s c

ompe

nsat

ion

0.5

TOTA

L 11

.5/2

0

Fixe

d In

com

eS

core

27Pe

rcen

tage

of t

he fi

rm’s

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG c

onsi

dera

tions

3

28C

hang

e of

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG

con

side

ratio

ns in

la

st th

ree

year

s3

29Ad

optio

n o

f neg

ativ

e sc

reen

ing

or b

est-i

n-cl

ass

appr

oach

es in

fixe

d in

com

e po

rtfol

ios

230

Pro

cedu

re fo

r ide

ntify

ing

ES

G-c

ompl

iant

pro

spec

tive

inve

stm

ents

3TO

TAL

11/1

2S

UR

VE

Y R

ES

PO

NS

E T

OTA

L58

.5/9

0O

VE

RA

LL S

UR

VE

Y T

OTA

L10

2.5/

143

Pub

lic r

eco

mm

end

atio

ns to

F&

C In

vest

men

t:

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

polic

y an

d gu

idel

ines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w to

esc

alat

e St

ewar

dshi

p ac

tiviti

es

•D

iscl

ose

mor

e cl

early

pos

ition

on

will

ingn

ess

to b

ecom

e an

insi

der

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

colle

ctiv

e ac

tion

polic

yA

dd

itio

nal re

com

mend

ations a

re m

ad

e p

rivate

ly b

ased

on s

urv

ey r

esp

onses.

Fid

elity

Wo

rld

wid

e In

vest

men

ts

32

Pub

lic In

form

atio

nS

tew

ard

ship

Que

stio

nsS

core

Prin

cipl

e 1

Inst

itutio

nal I

nves

tors

sho

uld

publ

icly

dis

clos

e th

eir p

olic

y on

how

they

w

ill d

isch

arge

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ob

ligat

ions

6P

rinci

ple

2 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d ha

ve a

robu

st p

olic

y on

man

agin

g co

nflic

ts

of in

tere

st in

rela

tion

to s

tew

ards

hip

whi

ch s

houl

d be

pub

licly

dis

clos

ed3

Prin

cipl

e 3

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

mon

itor t

heir

inve

stee

com

pani

es4

Prin

cipl

e 4

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

esta

blis

h cl

ear g

uide

lines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w th

ey w

ill e

scal

ate

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ac

tiviti

es6

Prin

cipl

e 5

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

be w

illin

g to

act

col

lect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

in

vest

ors

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te4

Prin

cipl

e 6

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

have

a c

lear

pol

icy

on v

otin

g an

d di

sclo

sure

of v

otin

g ac

tivity

8P

rinci

ple

7 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d re

port

perio

dica

lly o

n th

eir s

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g ac

tiviti

es4

TOTA

L 35

/53

Sur

vey

Res

po

nse

Ste

war

dsh

ip C

od

eS

core

1C

lear

pro

cess

for r

esea

rch

and

mon

itorin

g of

inve

stee

com

pani

es4

2C

omm

itmen

t to

and

mot

ivat

ion

for c

ondu

ctin

g st

ewar

dshi

p2

3R

ange

of m

etho

ds o

f eng

agem

ent a

dopt

ed a

nd o

n w

hich

topi

cs in

the

past

yea

r4.

54

Will

ingn

ess

to b

e te

mpo

raril

y de

sign

ated

an

insi

der a

nd w

heth

er th

is h

as

occu

rred

in th

e la

st 3

yea

rs2

5A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f eng

agem

ent w

ith in

vest

ee c

ompa

nies

du

ring

the

last

yea

r1

6S

tew

ards

hip

and

enga

gem

ent d

iscl

osur

e to

clie

nts

in a

dditi

on to

wha

t is

publ

ic1

7A

ppro

ach

to m

akin

g cl

ient

repo

rting

on

Ste

war

dshi

p an

d vo

ting

succ

inct

an

d en

gagi

ng1

8R

evie

w a

nd u

pdat

e of

the

stew

ards

hip

appr

oach

sin

ce in

cept

ion

19

Bud

get a

lloca

ted

to S

tew

ards

hip,

and

if th

is h

as in

crea

sed

or d

ecre

ased

2TO

TAL

18.5

/30

Co

nflic

ts o

f In

tere

stS

core

10A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

e of

how

a re

cent

con

flict

of i

nter

ests

has

be

en m

anag

ed

011

Stro

ng c

onfli

ct o

f int

eres

ts re

solu

tion

polic

y 0

TOTA

L 0/

3

ES

G

Sco

re12

Ran

ge o

f inv

estm

ent a

ppro

ache

s ap

plie

d in

vest

men

ts in

OE

CD

list

ed s

ecur

ities

:3

13C

lear

pro

cess

of d

esig

ning

, rev

iew

ing,

upd

atin

g an

d ap

prov

ing

the

RI p

olic

y1.

514

Effe

ctiv

e st

rate

gy fo

r miti

gatin

g st

rand

ed c

arbo

n as

sets

risk

s 0

15A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f int

egra

tion

of e

nviro

nmen

tal c

onsi

dera

tions

in

to s

tock

sel

ectio

n0

16A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f int

egra

tion

of s

ocia

l con

side

ratio

ns in

to

stoc

k se

lect

ion

0TO

TAL

4.5/

17

Inve

stm

ent H

ori

zon

Sco

re17

Qua

lity

of re

porti

ng to

clie

nts

218

Qua

lity

of m

etric

s us

ed to

mea

sure

long

-term

risk

s in

the

portf

olio

119

Ada

ptat

ion

of in

vest

men

t app

roac

h an

d re

porti

ng to

clie

nts’

diff

eren

t in

vest

men

t hor

izon

s1

TOTA

L 4/

8

Rem

uner

atio

nS

core

20Va

riabl

e co

mpe

nsat

ion

com

pone

nt o

f por

tfolio

man

ager

s (P

M)

021

Cha

nges

to c

ompe

nsat

ion

stru

ctur

e of

PM

in th

e la

st fi

ve y

ears

0

22Fa

ctor

s ta

ken

into

acc

ount

in c

alcu

latio

n of

var

iabl

e co

mpo

nent

of P

M’s

com

pens

atio

n0

23Pe

rcen

tage

of P

M’s

bon

us d

efer

red

and

defe

rral

per

iod

0.5

24A

ppro

val o

f the

firm

’s c

ompe

nsat

ion

polic

y fo

r PM

025

App

rova

l of t

he fi

rm’s

act

ual a

nnua

l var

iabl

e co

mpe

nsat

ion

pay-

outs

026

Dis

clos

ure

by th

e fir

m o

f qua

ntum

and

des

ign

pf P

M’s

com

pens

atio

n0

TOTA

L 0.

5/20

Fixe

d In

com

eS

core

27Pe

rcen

tage

of t

he fi

rm’s

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG c

onsi

dera

tions

3

28C

hang

e of

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG

con

side

ratio

ns in

la

st th

ree

year

s0

29Ad

optio

n o

f neg

ativ

e sc

reen

ing

or b

est-i

n-cl

ass

appr

oach

es in

fixe

d in

com

e po

rtfol

ios

130

Pro

cedu

re fo

r ide

ntify

ing

ES

G-c

ompl

iant

pro

spec

tive

inve

stm

ents

1TO

TAL

5/12

SU

RV

EY

RE

SP

ON

SE

TO

TAL

32.5

/90

OV

ER

ALL

SU

RV

EY

TO

TAL

67.5

/143

Pub

lic r

eco

mm

end

atio

ns to

Fid

elity

Wo

rld

wid

e In

vest

men

ts:

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

polic

y on

con

side

ratio

n of

env

ironm

enta

l fac

tors

in th

e in

vest

men

t pro

cess

•

Dis

clos

e a

mor

e de

taile

d po

licy

and

guid

elin

es o

n w

hen

and

how

to e

scal

ate

Stew

ards

hip

activ

ities

•

Dis

clos

e ra

tiona

le fo

r con

trove

rsia

l vot

ing

deci

sion

s

•D

iscl

ose

mor

e cl

early

pos

ition

on

will

ingn

ess

to b

ecom

e an

insi

der

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

colle

ctiv

e ac

tion

polic

y •

Dis

clos

e a

mor

e de

taile

d co

nflic

ts o

f int

eres

t pol

icy

Ad

ditio

nal re

com

mend

ations a

re m

ad

e p

rivate

ly b

ased

on s

urv

ey r

esp

onses.

Firs

t Sta

te In

vest

men

ts

33

Pub

lic In

form

atio

nS

tew

ard

ship

Que

stio

nsS

core

Prin

cipl

e 1

Inst

itutio

nal I

nves

tors

sho

uld

publ

icly

dis

clos

e th

eir p

olic

y on

how

they

w

ill d

isch

arge

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ob

ligat

ions

8P

rinci

ple

2 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d ha

ve a

robu

st p

olic

y on

man

agin

g co

nflic

ts

of in

tere

st in

rela

tion

to s

tew

ards

hip

whi

ch s

houl

d be

pub

licly

dis

clos

ed5

Prin

cipl

e 3

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

mon

itor t

heir

inve

stee

com

pani

es5

Prin

cipl

e 4

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

esta

blis

h cl

ear g

uide

lines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w th

ey w

ill e

scal

ate

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ac

tiviti

es5

Prin

cipl

e 5

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

be w

illin

g to

act

col

lect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

in

vest

ors

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te4

Prin

cipl

e 6

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

have

a c

lear

pol

icy

on v

otin

g an

d di

sclo

sure

of v

otin

g ac

tivity

7P

rinci

ple

7 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d re

port

perio

dica

lly o

n th

eir s

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g ac

tiviti

es6

TOTA

L 40

/53

Pub

lic r

eco

mm

end

atio

ns to

Fir

st S

tate

Inve

stm

ents

: •

Dis

clos

e a

mor

e de

taile

d po

licy

on c

onsi

dera

tion

of e

nviro

nmen

tal f

acto

rs in

the

inve

stm

ent p

roce

ss

•D

iscl

ose

mor

e cl

early

pos

ition

on

will

ingn

ess

to b

ecom

e an

insi

der

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

colle

ctiv

e ac

tion

polic

y A

dd

itio

nal re

com

mend

ations a

re m

ad

e p

rivate

ly b

ased

on s

urv

ey r

esp

onses.

Go

ldm

an S

achs

Ass

et M

anag

emen

t Int

erna

tiona

l

34

Pub

lic In

form

atio

nS

tew

ard

ship

Que

stio

nsS

core

Prin

cipl

e 1

Inst

itutio

nal I

nves

tors

sho

uld

publ

icly

dis

clos

e th

eir p

olic

y on

how

they

w

ill d

isch

arge

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ob

ligat

ions

8P

rinci

ple

2 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d ha

ve a

robu

st p

olic

y on

man

agin

g co

nflic

ts

of in

tere

st in

rela

tion

to s

tew

ards

hip

whi

ch s

houl

d be

pub

licly

dis

clos

ed1

Prin

cipl

e 3

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

mon

itor t

heir

inve

stee

com

pani

es2

Prin

cipl

e 4

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

esta

blis

h cl

ear g

uide

lines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w th

ey w

ill e

scal

ate

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ac

tiviti

es4

Prin

cipl

e 5

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

be w

illin

g to

act

col

lect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

in

vest

ors

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te3

Prin

cipl

e 6

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

have

a c

lear

pol

icy

on v

otin

g an

d di

sclo

sure

of v

otin

g ac

tivity

7P

rinci

ple

7 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d re

port

perio

dica

lly o

n th

eir s

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g ac

tiviti

es6

TOTA

L 31

/53

Pub

lic r

eco

mm

end

atio

ns to

Go

ldm

an S

achs

Ass

et M

anag

emen

t:

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

polic

y on

con

side

ratio

n of

env

ironm

enta

l fac

tors

in th

e in

vest

men

t pro

cess

•

Dis

clos

e a

mor

e de

taile

d po

licy

and

guid

elin

es o

n w

hen

and

how

to e

scal

ate

Stew

ards

hip

activ

ities

•

Dis

clos

e ra

tiona

le fo

r con

trove

rsia

l vot

ing

deci

sion

s

•D

iscl

ose

mor

e cl

early

pos

ition

on

will

ingn

ess

to b

ecom

e an

insi

der

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

conf

licts

of i

nter

est p

olic

y A

dd

itio

nal re

com

mend

ations a

re m

ad

e p

rivate

ly b

ased

on s

urv

ey r

esp

onses.

Hen

der

son

Glo

bal

Inve

sto

rs

35

Pub

lic In

form

atio

nS

tew

ard

ship

Que

stio

nsS

core

Prin

cipl

e 1

Inst

itutio

nal I

nves

tors

sho

uld

publ

icly

dis

clos

e th

eir p

olic

y on

how

they

w

ill d

isch

arge

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ob

ligat

ions

3P

rinci

ple

2 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d ha

ve a

robu

st p

olic

y on

man

agin

g co

nflic

ts

of in

tere

st in

rela

tion

to s

tew

ards

hip

whi

ch s

houl

d be

pub

licly

dis

clos

ed5

Prin

cipl

e 3

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

mon

itor t

heir

inve

stee

com

pani

es4

Prin

cipl

e 4

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

esta

blis

h cl

ear g

uide

lines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w th

ey w

ill e

scal

ate

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ac

tiviti

es4

Prin

cipl

e 5

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

be w

illin

g to

act

col

lect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

in

vest

ors

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te3

Prin

cipl

e 6

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

have

a c

lear

pol

icy

on v

otin

g an

d di

sclo

sure

of v

otin

g ac

tivity

5P

rinci

ple

7 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d re

port

perio

dica

lly o

n th

eir s

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g ac

tiviti

es9

TOTA

L 33

/53

Sur

vey

Res

po

nse

Ste

war

dsh

ip C

od

eS

core

1C

lear

pro

cess

for r

esea

rch

and

mon

itorin

g of

inve

stee

com

pani

es3

2C

omm

itmen

t to

and

mot

ivat

ion

for c

ondu

ctin

g st

ewar

dshi

p2

3R

ange

of m

etho

ds o

f eng

agem

ent a

dopt

ed a

nd o

n w

hich

topi

cs in

the

past

yea

r5

4W

illin

gnes

s to

be

tem

pora

rily

desi

gnat

ed a

n in

side

r and

whe

ther

this

has

oc

curr

ed in

the

last

3 y

ears

25

Abl

e to

pro

vide

robu

st e

xam

ples

of e

ngag

emen

t with

inve

stee

com

pani

es

durin

g th

e la

st y

ear

36

Ste

war

dshi

p an

d en

gage

men

t dis

clos

ure

to c

lient

s in

add

ition

to w

hat i

s pu

blic

17

App

roac

h to

mak

ing

clie

nt re

porti

ng o

n S

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g su

ccin

ct

and

enga

ging

28

Rev

iew

and

upd

ate

of th

e st

ewar

dshi

p ap

proa

ch s

ince

ince

ptio

n1

9B

udge

t allo

cate

d to

Ste

war

dshi

p, a

nd if

this

has

incr

ease

d or

dec

reas

ed2

TOTA

L 21

/30

Co

nflic

ts o

f In

tere

stS

core

10A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

e of

how

a re

cent

con

flict

of i

nter

ests

has

be

en m

anag

ed

111

Stro

ng c

onfli

ct o

f int

eres

ts re

solu

tion

polic

y 2

TOTA

L 3/

3

ES

G

Sco

re12

Ran

ge o

f inv

estm

ent a

ppro

ache

s ap

plie

d in

vest

men

ts in

OE

CD

list

ed s

ecur

ities

:3.

513

Cle

ar p

roce

ss o

f des

igni

ng, r

evie

win

g, u

pdat

ing

and

appr

ovin

g th

e R

I pol

icy

4.5

14E

ffect

ive

stra

tegy

for m

itiga

ting

stra

nded

car

bon

asse

ts ri

sks

015

Abl

e to

pro

vide

robu

st e

xam

ples

of i

nteg

ratio

n of

env

ironm

enta

l con

side

ratio

ns

into

sto

ck s

elec

tion

016

Abl

e to

pro

vide

robu

st e

xam

ples

of i

nteg

ratio

n of

soc

ial c

onsi

dera

tions

into

st

ock

sele

ctio

n1

TOTA

L 9/

17

Inve

stm

ent H

ori

zon

Sco

re17

Qua

lity

of re

porti

ng to

clie

nts

118

Qua

lity

of m

etric

s us

ed to

mea

sure

long

-term

risk

s in

the

portf

olio

119

Ada

ptat

ion

of in

vest

men

t app

roac

h an

d re

porti

ng to

clie

nts’

diff

eren

t in

vest

men

t hor

izon

s2

TOTA

L 4/

8

Rem

uner

atio

nS

core

20Va

riabl

e co

mpe

nsat

ion

com

pone

nt o

f por

tfolio

man

ager

s (P

M)

121

Cha

nges

to c

ompe

nsat

ion

stru

ctur

e of

PM

in th

e la

st fi

ve y

ears

1

22Fa

ctor

s ta

ken

into

acc

ount

in c

alcu

latio

n of

var

iabl

e co

mpo

nent

of P

M’s

com

pens

atio

n4

23Pe

rcen

tage

of P

M’s

bon

us d

efer

red

and

defe

rral

per

iod

224

App

rova

l of t

he fi

rm’s

com

pens

atio

n po

licy

for P

M2

25A

ppro

val o

f the

firm

’s a

ctua

l ann

ual v

aria

ble

com

pens

atio

n pa

y-ou

ts2

26D

iscl

osur

e by

the

firm

of q

uant

um a

nd d

esig

n pf

PM

’s c

ompe

nsat

ion

0.5

TOTA

L 12

.5/2

0

Fixe

d In

com

eS

core

27Pe

rcen

tage

of t

he fi

rm’s

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG c

onsi

dera

tions

3

28C

hang

e of

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG

con

side

ratio

ns in

la

st th

ree

year

s3

29Ad

optio

n o

f neg

ativ

e sc

reen

ing

or b

est-i

n-cl

ass

appr

oach

es in

fixe

d in

com

e po

rtfol

ios

030

Pro

cedu

re fo

r ide

ntify

ing

ES

G-c

ompl

iant

pro

spec

tive

inve

stm

ents

3TO

TAL

9/12

SU

RV

EY

RE

SP

ON

SE

TO

TAL

58.5

/90

OV

ER

ALL

SU

RV

EY

TO

TAL

91.5

/143

Pub

lic r

eco

mm

end

atio

ns to

Hen

der

son

Glo

bal

Inve

sto

rs:

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

polic

y an

d gu

idel

ines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w to

esc

alat

e St

ewar

dshi

p ac

tiviti

es

•D

iscl

ose

mor

e cl

early

pos

ition

on

will

ingn

ess

to b

ecom

e an

insi

der

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

conf

licts

of i

nter

est p

olic

y

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

colle

ctiv

e ac

tion

polic

y A

dd

itio

nal re

com

mend

ations a

re m

ad

e p

rivate

ly b

ased

on s

urv

ey r

esp

onses.

Her

mes

Inve

stm

ent M

anag

emen

t

36

Pub

lic In

form

atio

nS

tew

ard

ship

Que

stio

nsS

core

Prin

cipl

e 1

Inst

itutio

nal I

nves

tors

sho

uld

publ

icly

dis

clos

e th

eir p

olic

y on

how

they

w

ill d

isch

arge

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ob

ligat

ions

7P

rinci

ple

2 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d ha

ve a

robu

st p

olic

y on

man

agin

g co

nflic

ts

of in

tere

st in

rela

tion

to s

tew

ards

hip

whi

ch s

houl

d be

pub

licly

dis

clos

ed4

Prin

cipl

e 3

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

mon

itor t

heir

inve

stee

com

pani

es5

Prin

cipl

e 4

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

esta

blis

h cl

ear g

uide

lines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w th

ey w

ill e

scal

ate

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ac

tiviti

es5

Prin

cipl

e 5

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

be w

illin

g to

act

col

lect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

in

vest

ors

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te3

Prin

cipl

e 6

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

have

a c

lear

pol

icy

on v

otin

g an

d di

sclo

sure

of v

otin

g ac

tivity

7P

rinci

ple

7 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d re

port

perio

dica

lly o

n th

eir s

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g ac

tiviti

es9

TOTA

L 40

/53

Sur

vey

Res

po

nse

Ste

war

dsh

ip C

od

eS

core

1C

lear

pro

cess

for r

esea

rch

and

mon

itorin

g of

inve

stee

com

pani

es3

2C

omm

itmen

t to

and

mot

ivat

ion

for c

ondu

ctin

g st

ewar

dshi

p3

3R

ange

of m

etho

ds o

f eng

agem

ent a

dopt

ed a

nd o

n w

hich

topi

cs in

the

past

yea

r8

4W

illin

gnes

s to

be

tem

pora

rily

desi

gnat

ed a

n in

side

r and

whe

ther

this

has

oc

curr

ed in

the

last

3 y

ears

15

Abl

e to

pro

vide

robu

st e

xam

ples

of e

ngag

emen

t with

inve

stee

com

pani

es

durin

g th

e la

st y

ear

36

Ste

war

dshi

p an

d en

gage

men

t dis

clos

ure

to c

lient

s in

add

ition

to w

hat i

s pu

blic

17

App

roac

h to

mak

ing

clie

nt re

porti

ng o

n S

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g su

ccin

ct

and

enga

ging

28

Rev

iew

and

upd

ate

of th

e st

ewar

dshi

p ap

proa

ch s

ince

ince

ptio

n1

9B

udge

t allo

cate

d to

Ste

war

dshi

p, a

nd if

this

has

incr

ease

d or

dec

reas

ed2

TOTA

L 24

/30

Co

nflic

ts o

f In

tere

stS

core

10A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

e of

how

a re

cent

con

flict

of i

nter

ests

has

be

en m

anag

ed

111

Stro

ng c

onfli

ct o

f int

eres

ts re

solu

tion

polic

y 2

TOTA

L 3/

3

ES

G

Sco

re12

Ran

ge o

f inv

estm

ent a

ppro

ache

s ap

plie

d in

vest

men

ts in

OE

CD

list

ed s

ecur

ities

:3

13C

lear

pro

cess

of d

esig

ning

, rev

iew

ing,

upd

atin

g an

d ap

prov

ing

the

RI p

olic

y5.

514

Effe

ctiv

e st

rate

gy fo

r miti

gatin

g st

rand

ed c

arbo

n as

sets

risk

s 1

15A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f int

egra

tion

of e

nviro

nmen

tal c

onsi

dera

tions

in

to s

tock

sel

ectio

n1

16A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f int

egra

tion

of s

ocia

l con

side

ratio

ns in

to

stoc

k se

lect

ion

1TO

TAL

11.5

/17

Inve

stm

ent H

ori

zon

Sco

re17

Qua

lity

of re

porti

ng to

clie

nts

118

Qua

lity

of m

etric

s us

ed to

mea

sure

long

-term

risk

s in

the

portf

olio

119

Ada

ptat

ion

of in

vest

men

t app

roac

h an

d re

porti

ng to

clie

nts’

diff

eren

t in

vest

men

t hor

izon

s4

TOTA

L 6/

8

Rem

uner

atio

nS

core

20Va

riabl

e co

mpe

nsat

ion

com

pone

nt o

f por

tfolio

man

ager

s (P

M)

221

Cha

nges

to c

ompe

nsat

ion

stru

ctur

e of

PM

in th

e la

st fi

ve y

ears

1

22Fa

ctor

s ta

ken

into

acc

ount

in c

alcu

latio

n of

var

iabl

e co

mpo

nent

of P

M’s

com

pens

atio

n5

23Pe

rcen

tage

of P

M’s

bon

us d

efer

red

and

defe

rral

per

iod

224

App

rova

l of t

he fi

rm’s

com

pens

atio

n po

licy

for P

M2

25A

ppro

val o

f the

firm

’s a

ctua

l ann

ual v

aria

ble

com

pens

atio

n pa

y-ou

ts2

26D

iscl

osur

e by

the

firm

of q

uant

um a

nd d

esig

n pf

PM

’s c

ompe

nsat

ion

0TO

TAL

14/2

0

Fixe

d In

com

eS

core

27Pe

rcen

tage

of t

he fi

rm’s

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG c

onsi

dera

tions

3

28C

hang

e of

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG

con

side

ratio

ns in

la

st th

ree

year

s3

29Ad

optio

n o

f neg

ativ

e sc

reen

ing

or b

est-i

n-cl

ass

appr

oach

es in

fixe

d in

com

e po

rtfol

ios

330

Pro

cedu

re fo

r ide

ntify

ing

ES

G-c

ompl

iant

pro

spec

tive

inve

stm

ents

3TO

TAL

12/1

2S

UR

VE

Y R

ES

PO

NS

E T

OTA

L70

.5/9

0O

VE

RA

LL S

UR

VE

Y T

OTA

L11

0.5/

143

Pub

lic r

eco

mm

end

atio

ns to

Her

mes

Inve

stm

ent M

anag

emen

t:

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

polic

y on

con

side

ratio

n of

env

ironm

enta

l fac

tors

in th

e in

vest

men

t pro

cess

•

Dis

clos

e a

mor

e de

taile

d po

licy

and

guid

elin

es o

n w

hen

and

how

to e

scal

ate

Stew

ards

hip

activ

ities

•

Dis

clos

e a

mor

e de

taile

d co

llect

ive

actio

n po

licy

Ad

ditio

nal re

com

mend

ations a

re m

ad

e p

rivate

ly b

ased

on s

urv

ey r

esp

onses.

HS

BC

Glo

bal

Ass

et M

anag

emen

t

37

Pub

lic In

form

atio

nS

tew

ard

ship

Que

stio

nsS

core

Prin

cipl

e 1

Inst

itutio

nal I

nves

tors

sho

uld

publ

icly

dis

clos

e th

eir p

olic

y on

how

they

w

ill d

isch

arge

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ob

ligat

ions

6P

rinci

ple

2 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d ha

ve a

robu

st p

olic

y on

man

agin

g co

nflic

ts

of in

tere

st in

rela

tion

to s

tew

ards

hip

whi

ch s

houl

d be

pub

licly

dis

clos

ed3

Prin

cipl

e 3

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

mon

itor t

heir

inve

stee

com

pani

es5

Prin

cipl

e 4

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

esta

blis

h cl

ear g

uide

lines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w th

ey w

ill e

scal

ate

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ac

tiviti

es4

Prin

cipl

e 5

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

be w

illin

g to

act

col

lect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

in

vest

ors

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te3

Prin

cipl

e 6

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

have

a c

lear

pol

icy

on v

otin

g an

d di

sclo

sure

of v

otin

g ac

tivity

7P

rinci

ple

7 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d re

port

perio

dica

lly o

n th

eir s

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g ac

tiviti

es4

TOTA

L 32

/53

Sur

vey

Res

po

nse

Ste

war

dsh

ip C

od

eS

core

1C

lear

pro

cess

for r

esea

rch

and

mon

itorin

g of

inve

stee

com

pani

es4

2C

omm

itmen

t to

and

mot

ivat

ion

for c

ondu

ctin

g st

ewar

dshi

p1

3R

ange

of m

etho

ds o

f eng

agem

ent a

dopt

ed a

nd o

n w

hich

topi

cs in

the

past

yea

r4

4W

illin

gnes

s to

be

tem

pora

rily

desi

gnat

ed a

n in

side

r and

whe

ther

this

has

oc

curr

ed in

the

last

3 y

ears

15

Abl

e to

pro

vide

robu

st e

xam

ples

of e

ngag

emen

t with

inve

stee

com

pani

es

durin

g th

e la

st y

ear

26

Ste

war

dshi

p an

d en

gage

men

t dis

clos

ure

to c

lient

s in

add

ition

to w

hat i

s pu

blic

17

App

roac

h to

mak

ing

clie

nt re

porti

ng o

n S

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g su

ccin

ct

and

enga

ging

18

Rev

iew

and

upd

ate

of th

e st

ewar

dshi

p ap

proa

ch s

ince

ince

ptio

n1

9B

udge

t allo

cate

d to

Ste

war

dshi

p, a

nd if

this

has

incr

ease

d or

dec

reas

ed4

TOTA

L 19

/30

Co

nflic

ts o

f In

tere

stS

core

10A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

e of

how

a re

cent

con

flict

of i

nter

ests

has

be

en m

anag

ed

011

Stro

ng c

onfli

ct o

f int

eres

ts re

solu

tion

polic

y 2

TOTA

L 2/

3

ES

G

Sco

re12

Ran

ge o

f inv

estm

ent a

ppro

ache

s ap

plie

d in

vest

men

ts in

OE

CD

list

ed s

ecur

ities

:2

13C

lear

pro

cess

of d

esig

ning

, rev

iew

ing,

upd

atin

g an

d ap

prov

ing

the

RI p

olic

y3.

514

Effe

ctiv

e st

rate

gy fo

r miti

gatin

g st

rand

ed c

arbo

n as

sets

risk

s 0

15A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f int

egra

tion

of e

nviro

nmen

tal c

onsi

dera

tions

in

to s

tock

sel

ectio

n0

16A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f int

egra

tion

of s

ocia

l con

side

ratio

ns in

to

stoc

k se

lect

ion

1TO

TAL

6.5/

17

Inve

stm

ent H

ori

zon

Sco

re17

Qua

lity

of re

porti

ng to

clie

nts

218

Qua

lity

of m

etric

s us

ed to

mea

sure

long

-term

risk

s in

the

portf

olio

119

Ada

ptat

ion

of in

vest

men

t app

roac

h an

d re

porti

ng to

clie

nts’

diff

eren

t in

vest

men

t hor

izon

s1

TOTA

L 4/

8

Rem

uner

atio

nS

core

20Va

riabl

e co

mpe

nsat

ion

com

pone

nt o

f por

tfolio

man

ager

s (P

M)

221

Cha

nges

to c

ompe

nsat

ion

stru

ctur

e of

PM

in th

e la

st fi

ve y

ears

0

22Fa

ctor

s ta

ken

into

acc

ount

in c

alcu

latio

n of

var

iabl

e co

mpo

nent

of P

M’s

com

pens

atio

n7

23Pe

rcen

tage

of P

M’s

bon

us d

efer

red

and

defe

rral

per

iod

224

App

rova

l of t

he fi

rm’s

com

pens

atio

n po

licy

for P

M2

25A

ppro

val o

f the

firm

’s a

ctua

l ann

ual v

aria

ble

com

pens

atio

n pa

y-ou

ts2

26D

iscl

osur

e by

the

firm

of q

uant

um a

nd d

esig

n pf

PM

’s c

ompe

nsat

ion

0TO

TAL

15/2

0

Fixe

d In

com

eS

core

27Pe

rcen

tage

of t

he fi

rm’s

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG c

onsi

dera

tions

3

28C

hang

e of

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG

con

side

ratio

ns in

la

st th

ree

year

s3

29Ad

optio

n o

f neg

ativ

e sc

reen

ing

or b

est-i

n-cl

ass

appr

oach

es in

fixe

d in

com

e po

rtfol

ios

030

Pro

cedu

re fo

r ide

ntify

ing

ES

G-c

ompl

iant

pro

spec

tive

inve

stm

ents

0TO

TAL

6/12

SU

RV

EY

RE

SP

ON

SE

TO

TAL

52.5

/90

OV

ER

ALL

SU

RV

EY

TO

TAL

84.5

/143

Pub

lic r

eco

mm

end

atio

ns to

HS

BC

Glo

bal

Ass

et M

anag

emen

t:

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

polic

y on

con

side

ratio

n of

env

ironm

enta

l fac

tors

in th

e in

vest

men

t pro

cess

•

Dis

clos

e a

mor

e de

taile

d po

licy

and

guid

elin

es o

n w

hen

and

how

to e

scal

ate

Stew

ards

hip

activ

ities

•

Dis

clos

e ra

tiona

le fo

r con

trove

rsia

l vot

ing

deci

sion

s •

Dis

clos

e a

mor

e de

taile

d co

nflic

ts o

f int

eres

t pol

icy

Ad

ditio

nal re

com

mend

ations a

re m

ad

e p

rivate

ly b

ased

on s

urv

ey r

esp

onses.

Inve

sco

Per

pet

ual

38

Pub

lic In

form

atio

nS

tew

ard

ship

Que

stio

nsS

core

Prin

cipl

e 1

Inst

itutio

nal I

nves

tors

sho

uld

publ

icly

dis

clos

e th

eir p

olic

y on

how

they

w

ill d

isch

arge

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ob

ligat

ions

5P

rinci

ple

2 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d ha

ve a

robu

st p

olic

y on

man

agin

g co

nflic

ts

of in

tere

st in

rela

tion

to s

tew

ards

hip

whi

ch s

houl

d be

pub

licly

dis

clos

ed1

Prin

cipl

e 3

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

mon

itor t

heir

inve

stee

com

pani

es4

Prin

cipl

e 4

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

esta

blis

h cl

ear g

uide

lines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w th

ey w

ill e

scal

ate

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ac

tiviti

es4

Prin

cipl

e 5

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

be w

illin

g to

act

col

lect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

in

vest

ors

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te3

Prin

cipl

e 6

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

have

a c

lear

pol

icy

on v

otin

g an

d di

sclo

sure

of v

otin

g ac

tivity

6P

rinci

ple

7 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d re

port

perio

dica

lly o

n th

eir s

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g ac

tiviti

es2

TOTA

L 25

/53

Sur

vey

Res

po

nse

Ste

war

dsh

ip C

od

eS

core

1C

lear

pro

cess

for r

esea

rch

and

mon

itorin

g of

inve

stee

com

pani

es2

2C

omm

itmen

t to

and

mot

ivat

ion

for c

ondu

ctin

g st

ewar

dshi

p2

3R

ange

of m

etho

ds o

f eng

agem

ent a

dopt

ed a

nd o

n w

hich

topi

cs in

the

past

yea

r1

4W

illin

gnes

s to

be

tem

pora

rily

desi

gnat

ed a

n in

side

r and

whe

ther

this

has

oc

curr

ed in

the

last

3 y

ears

25

Abl

e to

pro

vide

robu

st e

xam

ples

of e

ngag

emen

t with

inve

stee

com

pani

es

durin

g th

e la

st y

ear

26

Ste

war

dshi

p an

d en

gage

men

t dis

clos

ure

to c

lient

s in

add

ition

to w

hat i

s pu

blic

17

App

roac

h to

mak

ing

clie

nt re

porti

ng o

n S

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g su

ccin

ct

and

enga

ging

18

Rev

iew

and

upd

ate

of th

e st

ewar

dshi

p ap

proa

ch s

ince

ince

ptio

n0

9B

udge

t allo

cate

d to

Ste

war

dshi

p, a

nd if

this

has

incr

ease

d or

dec

reas

ed0

TOTA

L 11

/30

Co

nflic

ts o

f In

tere

stS

core

10A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

e of

how

a re

cent

con

flict

of i

nter

ests

has

be

en m

anag

ed

011

Stro

ng c

onfli

ct o

f int

eres

ts re

solu

tion

polic

y 2

TOTA

L 2/

3

ES

G

Sco

re12

Ran

ge o

f inv

estm

ent a

ppro

ache

s ap

plie

d in

vest

men

ts in

OE

CD

list

ed s

ecur

ities

:2.

513

Cle

ar p

roce

ss o

f des

igni

ng, r

evie

win

g, u

pdat

ing

and

appr

ovin

g th

e R

I pol

icy

514

Effe

ctiv

e st

rate

gy fo

r miti

gatin

g st

rand

ed c

arbo

n as

sets

risk

s 1

15A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f int

egra

tion

of e

nviro

nmen

tal c

onsi

dera

tions

in

to s

tock

sel

ectio

n0

16A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f int

egra

tion

of s

ocia

l con

side

ratio

ns in

to

stoc

k se

lect

ion

0TO

TAL

8.5/

17

Inve

stm

ent H

ori

zon

Sco

re17

Qua

lity

of re

porti

ng to

clie

nts

218

Qua

lity

of m

etric

s us

ed to

mea

sure

long

-term

risk

s in

the

portf

olio

119

Ada

ptat

ion

of in

vest

men

t app

roac

h an

d re

porti

ng to

clie

nts’

diff

eren

t in

vest

men

t hor

izon

s0

TOTA

L 3/

8

Rem

uner

atio

nS

core

20Va

riabl

e co

mpe

nsat

ion

com

pone

nt o

f por

tfolio

man

ager

s (P

M)

021

Cha

nges

to c

ompe

nsat

ion

stru

ctur

e of

PM

in th

e la

st fi

ve y

ears

0

22Fa

ctor

s ta

ken

into

acc

ount

in c

alcu

latio

n of

var

iabl

e co

mpo

nent

of P

M’s

com

pens

atio

n6

23Pe

rcen

tage

of P

M’s

bon

us d

efer

red

and

defe

rral

per

iod

224

App

rova

l of t

he fi

rm’s

com

pens

atio

n po

licy

for P

M2

25A

ppro

val o

f the

firm

’s a

ctua

l ann

ual v

aria

ble

com

pens

atio

n pa

y-ou

ts2

26D

iscl

osur

e by

the

firm

of q

uant

um a

nd d

esig

n pf

PM

’s c

ompe

nsat

ion

1TO

TAL

13/2

0

Fixe

d In

com

eS

core

27Pe

rcen

tage

of t

he fi

rm’s

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG c

onsi

dera

tions

0

28C

hang

e of

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG

con

side

ratio

ns in

la

st th

ree

year

s0

29Ad

optio

n o

f neg

ativ

e sc

reen

ing

or b

est-i

n-cl

ass

appr

oach

es in

fixe

d in

com

e po

rtfol

ios

130

Pro

cedu

re fo

r ide

ntify

ing

ES

G-c

ompl

iant

pro

spec

tive

inve

stm

ents

0TO

TAL

1/12

SU

RV

EY

RE

SP

ON

SE

TO

TAL

38.5

/90

OV

ER

ALL

SU

RV

EY

TO

TAL

63.5

/143

Pub

lic r

eco

mm

end

atio

ns to

Inve

sco

Per

pet

ual:

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

polic

y an

d gu

idel

ines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w to

esc

alat

e St

ewar

dshi

p ac

tiviti

es

•D

iscl

ose

mor

e de

taile

d re

cord

s of

vot

ing

deci

sion

s an

d su

ppor

ting

ratio

nale

•

Dis

clos

e a

mor

e de

taile

d co

llect

ive

actio

n po

licy

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

conf

licts

of i

nter

est p

olic

y •

See

k to

obt

ain

an in

depe

nden

t opi

nion

on

enga

gem

ent a

nd v

otin

g pr

oces

ses

Ad

ditio

nal re

com

mend

ations a

re m

ad

e p

rivate

ly b

ased

on s

urv

ey r

esp

onses.

Inve

stec

Ass

et M

anag

emen

t

39

Pub

lic In

form

atio

nS

tew

ard

ship

Que

stio

nsS

core

Prin

cipl

e 1

Inst

itutio

nal I

nves

tors

sho

uld

publ

icly

dis

clos

e th

eir p

olic

y on

how

they

w

ill d

isch

arge

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ob

ligat

ions

6P

rinci

ple

2 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d ha

ve a

robu

st p

olic

y on

man

agin

g co

nflic

ts

of in

tere

st in

rela

tion

to s

tew

ards

hip

whi

ch s

houl

d be

pub

licly

dis

clos

ed1

Prin

cipl

e 3

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

mon

itor t

heir

inve

stee

com

pani

es4

Prin

cipl

e 4

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

esta

blis

h cl

ear g

uide

lines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w th

ey w

ill e

scal

ate

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ac

tiviti

es7

Prin

cipl

e 5

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

be w

illin

g to

act

col

lect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

in

vest

ors

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te3

Prin

cipl

e 6

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

have

a c

lear

pol

icy

on v

otin

g an

d di

sclo

sure

of v

otin

g ac

tivity

7P

rinci

ple

7 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d re

port

perio

dica

lly o

n th

eir s

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g ac

tiviti

es9

TOTA

L 37

/53

Sur

vey

Res

po

nse

Ste

war

dsh

ip C

od

eS

core

1C

lear

pro

cess

for r

esea

rch

and

mon

itorin

g of

inve

stee

com

pani

es3

2C

omm

itmen

t to

and

mot

ivat

ion

for c

ondu

ctin

g st

ewar

dshi

p2

3R

ange

of m

etho

ds o

f eng

agem

ent a

dopt

ed a

nd o

n w

hich

topi

cs in

the

past

yea

r7.

54

Will

ingn

ess

to b

e te

mpo

raril

y de

sign

ated

an

insi

der a

nd w

heth

er th

is h

as

occu

rred

in th

e la

st 3

yea

rs2

5A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f eng

agem

ent w

ith in

vest

ee c

ompa

nies

du

ring

the

last

yea

r2

6S

tew

ards

hip

and

enga

gem

ent d

iscl

osur

e to

clie

nts

in a

dditi

on to

wha

t is

publ

ic1

7A

ppro

ach

to m

akin

g cl

ient

repo

rting

on

Ste

war

dshi

p an

d vo

ting

succ

inct

an

d en

gagi

ng1

8R

evie

w a

nd u

pdat

e of

the

stew

ards

hip

appr

oach

sin

ce in

cept

ion

19

Bud

get a

lloca

ted

to S

tew

ards

hip,

and

if th

is h

as in

crea

sed

or d

ecre

ased

2TO

TAL

21.5

/30

Co

nflic

ts o

f In

tere

stS

core

10A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

e of

how

a re

cent

con

flict

of i

nter

ests

has

be

en m

anag

ed

111

Stro

ng c

onfli

ct o

f int

eres

ts re

solu

tion

polic

y 2

TOTA

L 3/

3

ES

G

Sco

re12

Ran

ge o

f inv

estm

ent a

ppro

ache

s ap

plie

d in

vest

men

ts in

OE

CD

list

ed s

ecur

ities

:2.

513

Cle

ar p

roce

ss o

f des

igni

ng, r

evie

win

g, u

pdat

ing

and

appr

ovin

g th

e R

I pol

icy

514

Effe

ctiv

e st

rate

gy fo

r miti

gatin

g st

rand

ed c

arbo

n as

sets

risk

s 0

15A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f int

egra

tion

of e

nviro

nmen

tal c

onsi

dera

tions

in

to s

tock

sel

ectio

n1

16A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f int

egra

tion

of s

ocia

l con

side

ratio

ns in

to

stoc

k se

lect

ion

1TO

TAL

9.5/

17

Inve

stm

ent H

ori

zon

Sco

re17

Qua

lity

of re

porti

ng to

clie

nts

218

Qua

lity

of m

etric

s us

ed to

mea

sure

long

-term

risk

s in

the

portf

olio

119

Ada

ptat

ion

of in

vest

men

t app

roac

h an

d re

porti

ng to

clie

nts’

diff

eren

t in

vest

men

t hor

izon

s0

TOTA

L 3/

8

Rem

uner

atio

nS

core

20Va

riabl

e co

mpe

nsat

ion

com

pone

nt o

f por

tfolio

man

ager

s (P

M)

121

Cha

nges

to c

ompe

nsat

ion

stru

ctur

e of

PM

in th

e la

st fi

ve y

ears

0

22Fa

ctor

s ta

ken

into

acc

ount

in c

alcu

latio

n of

var

iabl

e co

mpo

nent

of P

M’s

com

pens

atio

n3

23Pe

rcen

tage

of P

M’s

bon

us d

efer

red

and

defe

rral

per

iod

224

App

rova

l of t

he fi

rm’s

com

pens

atio

n po

licy

for P

M1

25A

ppro

val o

f the

firm

’s a

ctua

l ann

ual v

aria

ble

com

pens

atio

n pa

y-ou

ts1

26D

iscl

osur

e by

the

firm

of q

uant

um a

nd d

esig

n pf

PM

’s c

ompe

nsat

ion

0.5

TOTA

L 8.

5/20

Fixe

d In

com

eS

core

27Pe

rcen

tage

of t

he fi

rm’s

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG c

onsi

dera

tions

1

28C

hang

e of

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG

con

side

ratio

ns in

la

st th

ree

year

s3

29Ad

optio

n o

f neg

ativ

e sc

reen

ing

or b

est-i

n-cl

ass

appr

oach

es in

fixe

d in

com

e po

rtfol

ios

130

Pro

cedu

re fo

r ide

ntify

ing

ES

G-c

ompl

iant

pro

spec

tive

inve

stm

ents

0TO

TAL

5/12

SU

RV

EY

RE

SP

ON

SE

TO

TAL

50.5

/90

OV

ER

ALL

SU

RV

EY

TO

TAL

87.5

/143

Pub

lic r

eco

mm

end

atio

ns to

Inve

stec

Ass

et M

anag

emen

t:

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

polic

y on

con

side

ratio

n of

env

ironm

enta

l fac

tors

in th

e in

vest

men

t pro

cess

•

Dis

clos

e a

mor

e de

taile

d po

licy

and

guid

elin

es o

n w

hen

and

how

to e

scal

ate

Stew

ards

hip

activ

ities

•

Dis

clos

e vo

ting

reco

rds

and

ratio

nale

for c

ontro

vers

ial v

otin

g de

cisi

ons

•D

iscl

ose

mor

e cl

early

pos

ition

on

will

ingn

ess

to b

ecom

e an

insi

der

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

colle

ctiv

e ac

tion

polic

y •

Dis

clos

e a

mor

e de

taile

d co

nflic

ts o

f int

eres

t pol

icy

Ad

ditio

nal re

com

mend

ations a

re m

ad

e p

rivate

ly b

ased

on s

urv

ey r

esp

onses.

JO H

amb

ro C

apita

l Man

agem

ent

40

Pub

lic In

form

atio

nS

tew

ard

ship

Que

stio

nsS

core

Prin

cipl

e 1

Inst

itutio

nal I

nves

tors

sho

uld

publ

icly

dis

clos

e th

eir p

olic

y on

how

they

w

ill d

isch

arge

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ob

ligat

ions

3P

rinci

ple

2 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d ha

ve a

robu

st p

olic

y on

man

agin

g co

nflic

ts

of in

tere

st in

rela

tion

to s

tew

ards

hip

whi

ch s

houl

d be

pub

licly

dis

clos

ed0

Prin

cipl

e 3

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

mon

itor t

heir

inve

stee

com

pani

es3

Prin

cipl

e 4

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

esta

blis

h cl

ear g

uide

lines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w th

ey w

ill e

scal

ate

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ac

tiviti

es3

Prin

cipl

e 5

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

be w

illin

g to

act

col

lect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

in

vest

ors

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te1

Prin

cipl

e 6

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

have

a c

lear

pol

icy

on v

otin

g an

d di

sclo

sure

of v

otin

g ac

tivity

3P

rinci

ple

7 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d re

port

perio

dica

lly o

n th

eir s

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g ac

tiviti

es2

TOTA

L 15

/53

Pub

lic r

eco

mm

end

atio

ns to

JO

Ham

bro

Cap

ital M

anag

emen

t:

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

polic

y on

con

side

ratio

n of

env

ironm

enta

l fac

tors

in th

e in

vest

men

t pro

cess

•

Dis

clos

e a

mor

e de

taile

d po

licy

and

guid

elin

es o

n w

hen

and

how

to e

scal

ate

Stew

ards

hip

activ

ities

•

Dis

clos

e vo

ting

reco

rds

and

ratio

nale

for c

ontro

vers

ial v

otin

g de

cisi

ons

•D

iscl

ose

mor

e cl

early

pos

ition

on

will

ingn

ess

to b

ecom

e an

insi

der

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

colle

ctiv

e ac

tion

polic

y •

Dis

clos

e a

mor

e de

taile

d co

nflic

ts o

f int

eres

t pol

icy

Ad

ditio

nal re

com

mend

ations a

re m

ad

e p

rivate

ly b

ased

on s

urv

ey r

esp

onses.

JP M

org

an A

sset

Man

agem

ent

41

Pub

lic In

form

atio

nS

tew

ard

ship

Que

stio

nsS

core

Prin

cipl

e 1

Inst

itutio

nal I

nves

tors

sho

uld

publ

icly

dis

clos

e th

eir p

olic

y on

how

they

w

ill d

isch

arge

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ob

ligat

ions

6P

rinci

ple

2 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d ha

ve a

robu

st p

olic

y on

man

agin

g co

nflic

ts

of in

tere

st in

rela

tion

to s

tew

ards

hip

whi

ch s

houl

d be

pub

licly

dis

clos

ed6

Prin

cipl

e 3

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

mon

itor t

heir

inve

stee

com

pani

es7

Prin

cipl

e 4

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

esta

blis

h cl

ear g

uide

lines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w th

ey w

ill e

scal

ate

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ac

tiviti

es7

Prin

cipl

e 5

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

be w

illin

g to

act

col

lect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

in

vest

ors

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te4

Prin

cipl

e 6

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

have

a c

lear

pol

icy

on v

otin

g an

d di

sclo

sure

of v

otin

g ac

tivity

7P

rinci

ple

7 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d re

port

perio

dica

lly o

n th

eir s

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g ac

tiviti

es7

TOTA

L 44

/53

Sur

vey

Res

po

nse

Ste

war

dsh

ip C

od

eS

core

1C

lear

pro

cess

for r

esea

rch

and

mon

itorin

g of

inve

stee

com

pani

es2

2C

omm

itmen

t to

and

mot

ivat

ion

for c

ondu

ctin

g st

ewar

dshi

p1

3R

ange

of m

etho

ds o

f eng

agem

ent a

dopt

ed a

nd o

n w

hich

topi

cs in

the

past

yea

r4.

54

Will

ingn

ess

to b

e te

mpo

raril

y de

sign

ated

an

insi

der a

nd w

heth

er th

is h

as

occu

rred

in th

e la

st 3

yea

rs2

5A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f eng

agem

ent w

ith in

vest

ee c

ompa

nies

du

ring

the

last

yea

r0

6S

tew

ards

hip

and

enga

gem

ent d

iscl

osur

e to

clie

nts

in a

dditi

on to

wha

t is

publ

ic1

7A

ppro

ach

to m

akin

g cl

ient

repo

rting

on

Ste

war

dshi

p an

d vo

ting

succ

inct

an

d en

gagi

ng2

8R

evie

w a

nd u

pdat

e of

the

stew

ards

hip

appr

oach

sin

ce in

cept

ion

19

Bud

get a

lloca

ted

to S

tew

ards

hip,

and

if th

is h

as in

crea

sed

or d

ecre

ased

2TO

TAL

15.5

/30

Co

nflic

ts o

f In

tere

stS

core

10A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

e of

how

a re

cent

con

flict

of i

nter

ests

has

be

en m

anag

ed

111

Stro

ng c

onfli

ct o

f int

eres

ts re

solu

tion

polic

y 1

TOTA

L 2/

3

ES

G

Sco

re12

Ran

ge o

f inv

estm

ent a

ppro

ache

s ap

plie

d in

vest

men

ts in

OE

CD

list

ed s

ecur

ities

:2

13C

lear

pro

cess

of d

esig

ning

, rev

iew

ing,

upd

atin

g an

d ap

prov

ing

the

RI p

olic

y2.

514

Effe

ctiv

e st

rate

gy fo

r miti

gatin

g st

rand

ed c

arbo

n as

sets

risk

s 0

15A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f int

egra

tion

of e

nviro

nmen

tal c

onsi

dera

tions

in

to s

tock

sel

ectio

n0

16A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f int

egra

tion

of s

ocia

l con

side

ratio

ns in

to

stoc

k se

lect

ion

0TO

TAL

4.5/

17

Inve

stm

ent H

ori

zon

Sco

re17

Qua

lity

of re

porti

ng to

clie

nts

218

Qua

lity

of m

etric

s us

ed to

mea

sure

long

-term

risk

s in

the

portf

olio

019

Ada

ptat

ion

of in

vest

men

t app

roac

h an

d re

porti

ng to

clie

nts’

diff

eren

t in

vest

men

t hor

izon

s1

TOTA

L 3/

8

Rem

uner

atio

nS

core

20Va

riabl

e co

mpe

nsat

ion

com

pone

nt o

f por

tfolio

man

ager

s (P

M)

121

Cha

nges

to c

ompe

nsat

ion

stru

ctur

e of

PM

in th

e la

st fi

ve y

ears

0

22Fa

ctor

s ta

ken

into

acc

ount

in c

alcu

latio

n of

var

iabl

e co

mpo

nent

of P

M’s

com

pens

atio

n2

23Pe

rcen

tage

of P

M’s

bon

us d

efer

red

and

defe

rral

per

iod

024

App

rova

l of t

he fi

rm’s

com

pens

atio

n po

licy

for P

M0

25A

ppro

val o

f the

firm

’s a

ctua

l ann

ual v

aria

ble

com

pens

atio

n pa

y-ou

ts0

26D

iscl

osur

e by

the

firm

of q

uant

um a

nd d

esig

n pf

PM

’s c

ompe

nsat

ion

0TO

TAL

3/20

Fixe

d In

com

eS

core

27Pe

rcen

tage

of t

he fi

rm’s

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG c

onsi

dera

tions

1

28C

hang

e of

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG

con

side

ratio

ns in

la

st th

ree

year

s0

29Ad

optio

n o

f neg

ativ

e sc

reen

ing

or b

est-i

n-cl

ass

appr

oach

es in

fixe

d in

com

e po

rtfol

ios

030

Pro

cedu

re fo

r ide

ntify

ing

ES

G-c

ompl

iant

pro

spec

tive

inve

stm

ents

0TO

TAL

1/12

SU

RV

EY

RE

SP

ON

SE

TO

TAL

29/9

0O

VE

RA

LL S

UR

VE

Y T

OTA

L73

/143

Pub

lic r

eco

mm

end

atio

ns to

JP

Mo

rgan

Ass

et M

anag

emen

t:

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

polic

y on

con

side

ratio

n of

env

ironm

enta

l fac

tors

in th

e in

vest

men

t pro

cess

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

polic

y an

d gu

idel

ines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w to

esc

alat

e St

ewar

dshi

p ac

tiviti

es

•D

iscl

ose

ratio

nale

for c

ontro

vers

ial v

otin

g de

cisi

ons

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

colle

ctiv

e ac

tion

polic

y A

dd

itio

nal re

com

mend

ations a

re m

ad

e p

rivate

ly b

ased

on s

urv

ey r

esp

onses.

Jup

iter

Ass

et M

anag

emen

t

42

Pub

lic In

form

atio

nS

tew

ard

ship

Que

stio

nsS

core

Prin

cipl

e 1

Inst

itutio

nal I

nves

tors

sho

uld

publ

icly

dis

clos

e th

eir p

olic

y on

how

they

w

ill d

isch

arge

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ob

ligat

ions

7P

rinci

ple

2 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d ha

ve a

robu

st p

olic

y on

man

agin

g co

nflic

ts

of in

tere

st in

rela

tion

to s

tew

ards

hip

whi

ch s

houl

d be

pub

licly

dis

clos

ed6

Prin

cipl

e 3

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

mon

itor t

heir

inve

stee

com

pani

es7

Prin

cipl

e 4

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

esta

blis

h cl

ear g

uide

lines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w th

ey w

ill e

scal

ate

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ac

tiviti

es8

Prin

cipl

e 5

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

be w

illin

g to

act

col

lect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

in

vest

ors

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te3

Prin

cipl

e 6

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

have

a c

lear

pol

icy

on v

otin

g an

d di

sclo

sure

of v

otin

g ac

tivity

8P

rinci

ple

7 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d re

port

perio

dica

lly o

n th

eir s

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g ac

tiviti

es9

TOTA

L 48

/53

Sur

vey

Res

po

nse

Ste

war

dsh

ip C

od

eS

core

1C

lear

pro

cess

for r

esea

rch

and

mon

itorin

g of

inve

stee

com

pani

es4

2C

omm

itmen

t to

and

mot

ivat

ion

for c

ondu

ctin

g st

ewar

dshi

p2

3R

ange

of m

etho

ds o

f eng

agem

ent a

dopt

ed a

nd o

n w

hich

topi

cs in

the

past

yea

r8.

54

Will

ingn

ess

to b

e te

mpo

raril

y de

sign

ated

an

insi

der a

nd w

heth

er th

is h

as

occu

rred

in th

e la

st 3

yea

rs2

5A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f eng

agem

ent w

ith in

vest

ee c

ompa

nies

du

ring

the

last

yea

r3

6S

tew

ards

hip

and

enga

gem

ent d

iscl

osur

e to

clie

nts

in a

dditi

on to

wha

t is

publ

ic1

7A

ppro

ach

to m

akin

g cl

ient

repo

rting

on

Ste

war

dshi

p an

d vo

ting

succ

inct

an

d en

gagi

ng1

8R

evie

w a

nd u

pdat

e of

the

stew

ards

hip

appr

oach

sin

ce in

cept

ion

19

Bud

get a

lloca

ted

to S

tew

ards

hip,

and

if th

is h

as in

crea

sed

or d

ecre

ased

5TO

TAL

27.5

/30

Co

nflic

ts o

f In

tere

stS

core

10A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

e of

how

a re

cent

con

flict

of i

nter

ests

has

be

en m

anag

ed

111

Stro

ng c

onfli

ct o

f int

eres

ts re

solu

tion

polic

y 2

TOTA

L 3/

3

ES

G

Sco

re12

Ran

ge o

f inv

estm

ent a

ppro

ache

s ap

plie

d in

vest

men

ts in

OE

CD

list

ed s

ecur

ities

:2.

513

Cle

ar p

roce

ss o

f des

igni

ng, r

evie

win

g, u

pdat

ing

and

appr

ovin

g th

e R

I pol

icy

5.5

14E

ffect

ive

stra

tegy

for m

itiga

ting

stra

nded

car

bon

asse

ts ri

sks

115

Abl

e to

pro

vide

robu

st e

xam

ples

of i

nteg

ratio

n of

env

ironm

enta

l con

side

ratio

ns

into

sto

ck s

elec

tion

116

Abl

e to

pro

vide

robu

st e

xam

ples

of i

nteg

ratio

n of

soc

ial c

onsi

dera

tions

into

st

ock

sele

ctio

n1

TOTA

L 11

/17

Inve

stm

ent H

ori

zon

Sco

re17

Qua

lity

of re

porti

ng to

clie

nts

218

Qua

lity

of m

etric

s us

ed to

mea

sure

long

-term

risk

s in

the

portf

olio

219

Ada

ptat

ion

of in

vest

men

t app

roac

h an

d re

porti

ng to

clie

nts’

diff

eren

t in

vest

men

t hor

izon

s4

TOTA

L 8/

8

Rem

uner

atio

nS

core

20Va

riabl

e co

mpe

nsat

ion

com

pone

nt o

f por

tfolio

man

ager

s (P

M)

121

Cha

nges

to c

ompe

nsat

ion

stru

ctur

e of

PM

in th

e la

st fi

ve y

ears

2

22Fa

ctor

s ta

ken

into

acc

ount

in c

alcu

latio

n of

var

iabl

e co

mpo

nent

of P

M’s

com

pens

atio

n5

23Pe

rcen

tage

of P

M’s

bon

us d

efer

red

and

defe

rral

per

iod

324

App

rova

l of t

he fi

rm’s

com

pens

atio

n po

licy

for P

M1

25A

ppro

val o

f the

firm

’s a

ctua

l ann

ual v

aria

ble

com

pens

atio

n pa

y-ou

ts1

26D

iscl

osur

e by

the

firm

of q

uant

um a

nd d

esig

n pf

PM

’s c

ompe

nsat

ion

0.5

TOTA

L 13

.5/2

0

Fixe

d In

com

eS

core

27Pe

rcen

tage

of t

he fi

rm’s

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG c

onsi

dera

tions

3

28C

hang

e of

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG

con

side

ratio

ns in

la

st th

ree

year

s3

29Ad

optio

n o

f neg

ativ

e sc

reen

ing

or b

est-i

n-cl

ass

appr

oach

es in

fixe

d in

com

e po

rtfol

ios

030

Pro

cedu

re fo

r ide

ntify

ing

ES

G-c

ompl

iant

pro

spec

tive

inve

stm

ents

3TO

TAL

9/12

SU

RV

EY

RE

SP

ON

SE

TO

TAL

72/9

0O

VE

RA

LL S

UR

VE

Y T

OTA

L12

0/14

3

Pub

lic r

eco

mm

end

atio

ns to

Jup

iter

Ass

et M

anag

emen

t:

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

polic

y on

con

side

ratio

n of

env

ironm

enta

l fac

tors

in th

e in

vest

men

t pro

cess

•

Dis

clos

e ra

tiona

le fo

r con

trove

rsia

l vot

ing

deci

sion

s A

dd

itio

nal re

com

mend

ations a

re m

ad

e p

rivate

ly b

ased

on s

urv

ey r

esp

onses.

Kam

es C

apita

l

43

Pub

lic In

form

atio

nS

tew

ard

ship

Que

stio

nsS

core

Prin

cipl

e 1

Inst

itutio

nal I

nves

tors

sho

uld

publ

icly

dis

clos

e th

eir p

olic

y on

how

they

w

ill d

isch

arge

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ob

ligat

ions

8P

rinci

ple

2 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d ha

ve a

robu

st p

olic

y on

man

agin

g co

nflic

ts

of in

tere

st in

rela

tion

to s

tew

ards

hip

whi

ch s

houl

d be

pub

licly

dis

clos

ed1

Prin

cipl

e 3

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

mon

itor t

heir

inve

stee

com

pani

es6

Prin

cipl

e 4

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

esta

blis

h cl

ear g

uide

lines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w th

ey w

ill e

scal

ate

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ac

tiviti

es7

Prin

cipl

e 5

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

be w

illin

g to

act

col

lect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

in

vest

ors

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te3

Prin

cipl

e 6

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

have

a c

lear

pol

icy

on v

otin

g an

d di

sclo

sure

of v

otin

g ac

tivity

6P

rinci

ple

7 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d re

port

perio

dica

lly o

n th

eir s

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g ac

tiviti

es9

TOTA

L 40

/53

Sur

vey

Res

po

nse

Ste

war

dsh

ip C

od

eS

core

1C

lear

pro

cess

for r

esea

rch

and

mon

itorin

g of

inve

stee

com

pani

es4

2C

omm

itmen

t to

and

mot

ivat

ion

for c

ondu

ctin

g st

ewar

dshi

p3

3R

ange

of m

etho

ds o

f eng

agem

ent a

dopt

ed a

nd o

n w

hich

topi

cs in

the

past

yea

r5

4W

illin

gnes

s to

be

tem

pora

rily

desi

gnat

ed a

n in

side

r and

whe

ther

this

has

oc

curr

ed in

the

last

3 y

ears

25

Abl

e to

pro

vide

robu

st e

xam

ples

of e

ngag

emen

t with

inve

stee

com

pani

es

durin

g th

e la

st y

ear

36

Ste

war

dshi

p an

d en

gage

men

t dis

clos

ure

to c

lient

s in

add

ition

to w

hat i

s pu

blic

07

App

roac

h to

mak

ing

clie

nt re

porti

ng o

n S

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g su

ccin

ct

and

enga

ging

28

Rev

iew

and

upd

ate

of th

e st

ewar

dshi

p ap

proa

ch s

ince

ince

ptio

n1

9B

udge

t allo

cate

d to

Ste

war

dshi

p, a

nd if

this

has

incr

ease

d or

dec

reas

ed3

TOTA

L 23

/30

Co

nflic

ts o

f In

tere

stS

core

10A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

e of

how

a re

cent

con

flict

of i

nter

ests

has

be

en m

anag

ed

111

Stro

ng c

onfli

ct o

f int

eres

ts re

solu

tion

polic

y 2

TOTA

L 3/

3

ES

G

Sco

re12

Ran

ge o

f inv

estm

ent a

ppro

ache

s ap

plie

d in

vest

men

ts in

OE

CD

list

ed s

ecur

ities

:2

13C

lear

pro

cess

of d

esig

ning

, rev

iew

ing,

upd

atin

g an

d ap

prov

ing

the

RI p

olic

y5

14E

ffect

ive

stra

tegy

for m

itiga

ting

stra

nded

car

bon

asse

ts ri

sks

115

Abl

e to

pro

vide

robu

st e

xam

ples

of i

nteg

ratio

n of

env

ironm

enta

l con

side

ratio

ns

into

sto

ck s

elec

tion

116

Abl

e to

pro

vide

robu

st e

xam

ples

of i

nteg

ratio

n of

soc

ial c

onsi

dera

tions

into

st

ock

sele

ctio

n1

TOTA

L 10

/17

Inve

stm

ent H

ori

zon

Sco

re17

Qua

lity

of re

porti

ng to

clie

nts

118

Qua

lity

of m

etric

s us

ed to

mea

sure

long

-term

risk

s in

the

portf

olio

119

Ada

ptat

ion

of in

vest

men

t app

roac

h an

d re

porti

ng to

clie

nts’

diff

eren

t in

vest

men

t hor

izon

s3

TOTA

L 5/

8

Rem

uner

atio

nS

core

20Va

riabl

e co

mpe

nsat

ion

com

pone

nt o

f por

tfolio

man

ager

s (P

M)

121

Cha

nges

to c

ompe

nsat

ion

stru

ctur

e of

PM

in th

e la

st fi

ve y

ears

1

22Fa

ctor

s ta

ken

into

acc

ount

in c

alcu

latio

n of

var

iabl

e co

mpo

nent

of P

M’s

com

pens

atio

n6

23Pe

rcen

tage

of P

M’s

bon

us d

efer

red

and

defe

rral

per

iod

0.5

24A

ppro

val o

f the

firm

’s c

ompe

nsat

ion

polic

y fo

r PM

225

App

rova

l of t

he fi

rm’s

act

ual a

nnua

l var

iabl

e co

mpe

nsat

ion

pay-

outs

226

Dis

clos

ure

by th

e fir

m o

f qua

ntum

and

des

ign

pf P

M’s

com

pens

atio

n0.

5TO

TAL

13/2

0

Fixe

d In

com

eS

core

27Pe

rcen

tage

of t

he fi

rm’s

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG c

onsi

dera

tions

1

28C

hang

e of

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG

con

side

ratio

ns in

la

st th

ree

year

s1

29Ad

optio

n o

f neg

ativ

e sc

reen

ing

or b

est-i

n-cl

ass

appr

oach

es in

fixe

d in

com

e po

rtfol

ios

130

Pro

cedu

re fo

r ide

ntify

ing

ES

G-c

ompl

iant

pro

spec

tive

inve

stm

ents

3TO

TAL

6/12

SU

RV

EY

RE

SP

ON

SE

TO

TAL

60/9

0O

VE

RA

LL S

UR

VE

Y T

OTA

L10

0/14

3

Pub

lic r

eco

mm

end

atio

ns to

Kam

es C

apita

l: •

Dis

clos

e a

mor

e de

taile

d co

llect

ive

actio

n po

licy

Ad

ditio

nal re

com

mend

ations a

re m

ad

e p

rivate

ly b

ased

on s

urv

ey r

esp

onses.

Leg

al &

Gen

eral

Inve

stm

ent M

anag

emen

t

44

Pub

lic In

form

atio

nS

tew

ard

ship

Que

stio

nsS

core

Prin

cipl

e 1

Inst

itutio

nal I

nves

tors

sho

uld

publ

icly

dis

clos

e th

eir p

olic

y on

how

they

w

ill d

isch

arge

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ob

ligat

ions

5P

rinci

ple

2 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d ha

ve a

robu

st p

olic

y on

man

agin

g co

nflic

ts

of in

tere

st in

rela

tion

to s

tew

ards

hip

whi

ch s

houl

d be

pub

licly

dis

clos

ed6

Prin

cipl

e 3

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

mon

itor t

heir

inve

stee

com

pani

es6

Prin

cipl

e 4

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

esta

blis

h cl

ear g

uide

lines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w th

ey w

ill e

scal

ate

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ac

tiviti

es6

Prin

cipl

e 5

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

be w

illin

g to

act

col

lect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

in

vest

ors

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te3

Prin

cipl

e 6

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

have

a c

lear

pol

icy

on v

otin

g an

d di

sclo

sure

of v

otin

g ac

tivity

8P

rinci

ple

7 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d re

port

perio

dica

lly o

n th

eir s

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g ac

tiviti

es8

TOTA

L 42

/53

Sur

vey

Res

po

nse

Ste

war

dsh

ip C

od

eS

core

1C

lear

pro

cess

for r

esea

rch

and

mon

itorin

g of

inve

stee

com

pani

es2

2C

omm

itmen

t to

and

mot

ivat

ion

for c

ondu

ctin

g st

ewar

dshi

p3

3R

ange

of m

etho

ds o

f eng

agem

ent a

dopt

ed a

nd o

n w

hich

topi

cs in

the

past

yea

r4.

54

Will

ingn

ess

to b

e te

mpo

raril

y de

sign

ated

an

insi

der a

nd w

heth

er th

is h

as

occu

rred

in th

e la

st 3

yea

rs2

5A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f eng

agem

ent w

ith in

vest

ee c

ompa

nies

du

ring

the

last

yea

r3

6S

tew

ards

hip

and

enga

gem

ent d

iscl

osur

e to

clie

nts

in a

dditi

on to

wha

t is

publ

ic1

7A

ppro

ach

to m

akin

g cl

ient

repo

rting

on

Ste

war

dshi

p an

d vo

ting

succ

inct

an

d en

gagi

ng2

8R

evie

w a

nd u

pdat

e of

the

stew

ards

hip

appr

oach

sin

ce in

cept

ion

19

Bud

get a

lloca

ted

to S

tew

ards

hip,

and

if th

is h

as in

crea

sed

or d

ecre

ased

2TO

TAL

20.5

/30

Co

nflic

ts o

f In

tere

stS

core

10A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

e of

how

a re

cent

con

flict

of i

nter

ests

has

be

en m

anag

ed

011

Stro

ng c

onfli

ct o

f int

eres

ts re

solu

tion

polic

y 2

TOTA

L 2/

3

ES

G

Sco

re12

Ran

ge o

f inv

estm

ent a

ppro

ache

s ap

plie

d in

vest

men

ts in

OE

CD

list

ed s

ecur

ities

:3.

513

Cle

ar p

roce

ss o

f des

igni

ng, r

evie

win

g, u

pdat

ing

and

appr

ovin

g th

e R

I pol

icy

514

Effe

ctiv

e st

rate

gy fo

r miti

gatin

g st

rand

ed c

arbo

n as

sets

risk

s 1

15A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f int

egra

tion

of e

nviro

nmen

tal c

onsi

dera

tions

in

to s

tock

sel

ectio

n1

16A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f int

egra

tion

of s

ocia

l con

side

ratio

ns in

to

stoc

k se

lect

ion

1TO

TAL

11.5

/17

Inve

stm

ent H

ori

zon

Sco

re17

Qua

lity

of re

porti

ng to

clie

nts

218

Qua

lity

of m

etric

s us

ed to

mea

sure

long

-term

risk

s in

the

portf

olio

219

Ada

ptat

ion

of in

vest

men

t app

roac

h an

d re

porti

ng to

clie

nts’

diff

eren

t in

vest

men

t hor

izon

s4

TOTA

L 8/

8

Rem

uner

atio

nS

core

20Va

riabl

e co

mpe

nsat

ion

com

pone

nt o

f por

tfolio

man

ager

s (P

M)

221

Cha

nges

to c

ompe

nsat

ion

stru

ctur

e of

PM

in th

e la

st fi

ve y

ears

1

22Fa

ctor

s ta

ken

into

acc

ount

in c

alcu

latio

n of

var

iabl

e co

mpo

nent

of P

M’s

com

pens

atio

n5

23Pe

rcen

tage

of P

M’s

bon

us d

efer

red

and

defe

rral

per

iod

324

App

rova

l of t

he fi

rm’s

com

pens

atio

n po

licy

for P

M1

25A

ppro

val o

f the

firm

’s a

ctua

l ann

ual v

aria

ble

com

pens

atio

n pa

y-ou

ts1

26D

iscl

osur

e by

the

firm

of q

uant

um a

nd d

esig

n pf

PM

’s c

ompe

nsat

ion

0.5

TOTA

L 13

.5/2

0

Fixe

d In

com

eS

core

27Pe

rcen

tage

of t

he fi

rm’s

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG c

onsi

dera

tions

2

28C

hang

e of

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG

con

side

ratio

ns in

la

st th

ree

year

s3

29Ad

optio

n o

f neg

ativ

e sc

reen

ing

or b

est-i

n-cl

ass

appr

oach

es in

fixe

d in

com

e po

rtfol

ios

330

Pro

cedu

re fo

r ide

ntify

ing

ES

G-c

ompl

iant

pro

spec

tive

inve

stm

ents

3TO

TAL

11/1

2S

UR

VE

Y R

ES

PO

NS

E T

OTA

L66

.5/9

0O

VE

RA

LL S

UR

VE

Y T

OTA

L10

8.5/

143

Pub

lic r

eco

mm

end

atio

ns to

Leg

al &

Gen

eral

Inve

stm

ent M

anag

emen

t:

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

polic

y on

con

side

ratio

n of

env

ironm

enta

l fac

tors

in th

e in

vest

men

t pro

cess

•

Dis

clos

e ra

tiona

le fo

r con

trove

rsia

l vot

ing

deci

sion

s •

Dis

clos

e a

mor

e de

taile

d co

llect

ive

actio

n po

licy

Ad

ditio

nal re

com

mend

ations a

re m

ad

e p

rivate

ly b

ased

on s

urv

ey r

esp

onses.

M&

G In

vest

men

t Man

agem

ent

45

Pub

lic In

form

atio

nS

tew

ard

ship

Que

stio

nsS

core

Prin

cipl

e 1

Inst

itutio

nal I

nves

tors

sho

uld

publ

icly

dis

clos

e th

eir p

olic

y on

how

they

w

ill d

isch

arge

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ob

ligat

ions

5P

rinci

ple

2 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d ha

ve a

robu

st p

olic

y on

man

agin

g co

nflic

ts

of in

tere

st in

rela

tion

to s

tew

ards

hip

whi

ch s

houl

d be

pub

licly

dis

clos

ed1

Prin

cipl

e 3

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

mon

itor t

heir

inve

stee

com

pani

es1

Prin

cipl

e 4

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

esta

blis

h cl

ear g

uide

lines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w th

ey w

ill e

scal

ate

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ac

tiviti

es7

Prin

cipl

e 5

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

be w

illin

g to

act

col

lect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

in

vest

ors

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te2

Prin

cipl

e 6

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

have

a c

lear

pol

icy

on v

otin

g an

d di

sclo

sure

of v

otin

g ac

tivity

6P

rinci

ple

7 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d re

port

perio

dica

lly o

n th

eir s

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g ac

tiviti

es4

TOTA

L 26

/53

Pub

lic r

eco

mm

end

atio

ns to

M&

G In

vest

men

t Man

agem

ent:

•

Dis

clos

e m

ore

clea

rly th

e po

sitio

n on

will

ingn

ess

to b

ecom

e an

insi

der

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

conf

licts

of i

nter

est p

olic

y •

Dis

clos

e a

mor

e de

taile

d co

llect

ive

actio

n po

licy

•D

iscl

ose

ratio

nale

for c

ontro

vers

ial v

otin

g de

cisi

ons

Ad

ditio

nal re

com

mend

ations a

re m

ad

e p

rivate

ly b

ased

on s

urv

ey r

esp

onses.

Mo

rgan

Sta

nley

Inve

stm

ent M

anag

emen

t

46

Pub

lic In

form

atio

nS

tew

ard

ship

Que

stio

nsS

core

Prin

cipl

e 1

Inst

itutio

nal I

nves

tors

sho

uld

publ

icly

dis

clos

e th

eir p

olic

y on

how

they

w

ill d

isch

arge

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ob

ligat

ions

7P

rinci

ple

2 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d ha

ve a

robu

st p

olic

y on

man

agin

g co

nflic

ts

of in

tere

st in

rela

tion

to s

tew

ards

hip

whi

ch s

houl

d be

pub

licly

dis

clos

ed4

Prin

cipl

e 3

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

mon

itor t

heir

inve

stee

com

pani

es6

Prin

cipl

e 4

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

esta

blis

h cl

ear g

uide

lines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w th

ey w

ill e

scal

ate

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ac

tiviti

es0

Prin

cipl

e 5

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

be w

illin

g to

act

col

lect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

in

vest

ors

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te2

Prin

cipl

e 6

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

have

a c

lear

pol

icy

on v

otin

g an

d di

sclo

sure

of v

otin

g ac

tivity

7P

rinci

ple

7 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d re

port

perio

dica

lly o

n th

eir s

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g ac

tiviti

es4

TOTA

L 30

/53

Pub

lic r

eco

mm

end

atio

ns to

Mo

rgan

Sta

nley

Inve

stm

ent M

anag

emen

t:

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

polic

y on

con

side

ratio

n of

env

ironm

enta

l fac

tors

in th

e in

vest

men

t pro

cess

•

Dis

clos

e a

mor

e de

taile

d po

licy

and

guid

elin

es o

n w

hen

and

how

to e

scal

ate

Stew

ards

hip

activ

ities

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

colle

ctiv

e ac

tion

polic

y •

Dis

clos

e a

mor

e de

taile

d co

nflic

ts o

f int

eres

t pol

icy

•D

iscl

ose

ratio

nale

for c

ontro

vers

ial v

otin

g de

cisi

ons

Ad

ditio

nal re

com

mend

ations a

re m

ad

e p

rivate

ly b

ased

on s

urv

ey r

esp

onses.

New

ton

Inve

stm

ent M

anag

emen

t

47

Pub

lic In

form

atio

nS

tew

ard

ship

Que

stio

nsS

core

Prin

cipl

e 1

Inst

itutio

nal I

nves

tors

sho

uld

publ

icly

dis

clos

e th

eir p

olic

y on

how

they

w

ill d

isch

arge

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ob

ligat

ions

6P

rinci

ple

2 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d ha

ve a

robu

st p

olic

y on

man

agin

g co

nflic

ts

of in

tere

st in

rela

tion

to s

tew

ards

hip

whi

ch s

houl

d be

pub

licly

dis

clos

ed3

Prin

cipl

e 3

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

mon

itor t

heir

inve

stee

com

pani

es4

Prin

cipl

e 4

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

esta

blis

h cl

ear g

uide

lines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w th

ey w

ill e

scal

ate

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ac

tiviti

es4

Prin

cipl

e 5

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

be w

illin

g to

act

col

lect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

in

vest

ors

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te1

Prin

cipl

e 6

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

have

a c

lear

pol

icy

on v

otin

g an

d di

sclo

sure

of v

otin

g ac

tivity

8P

rinci

ple

7 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d re

port

perio

dica

lly o

n th

eir s

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g ac

tiviti

es8

TOTA

L 34

/53

Sur

vey

Res

po

nse

Ste

war

dsh

ip C

od

eS

core

1C

lear

pro

cess

for r

esea

rch

and

mon

itorin

g of

inve

stee

com

pani

es4

2C

omm

itmen

t to

and

mot

ivat

ion

for c

ondu

ctin

g st

ewar

dshi

p2

3R

ange

of m

etho

ds o

f eng

agem

ent a

dopt

ed a

nd o

n w

hich

topi

cs in

the

past

yea

r3.

54

Will

ingn

ess

to b

e te

mpo

raril

y de

sign

ated

an

insi

der a

nd w

heth

er th

is h

as

occu

rred

in th

e la

st 3

yea

rs2

5A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f eng

agem

ent w

ith in

vest

ee c

ompa

nies

du

ring

the

last

yea

r3

6S

tew

ards

hip

and

enga

gem

ent d

iscl

osur

e to

clie

nts

in a

dditi

on to

wha

t is

publ

ic0

7A

ppro

ach

to m

akin

g cl

ient

repo

rting

on

Ste

war

dshi

p an

d vo

ting

succ

inct

an

d en

gagi

ng1

8R

evie

w a

nd u

pdat

e of

the

stew

ards

hip

appr

oach

sin

ce in

cept

ion

19

Bud

get a

lloca

ted

to S

tew

ards

hip,

and

if th

is h

as in

crea

sed

or d

ecre

ased

2TO

TAL

18.5

/30

Co

nflic

ts o

f In

tere

stS

core

10A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

e of

how

a re

cent

con

flict

of i

nter

ests

has

be

en m

anag

ed

011

Stro

ng c

onfli

ct o

f int

eres

ts re

solu

tion

polic

y 2

TOTA

L 2/

3

ES

G

Sco

re12

Ran

ge o

f inv

estm

ent a

ppro

ache

s ap

plie

d in

vest

men

ts in

OE

CD

list

ed s

ecur

ities

:2.

513

Cle

ar p

roce

ss o

f des

igni

ng, r

evie

win

g, u

pdat

ing

and

appr

ovin

g th

e R

I pol

icy

3.5

14E

ffect

ive

stra

tegy

for m

itiga

ting

stra

nded

car

bon

asse

ts ri

sks

115

Abl

e to

pro

vide

robu

st e

xam

ples

of i

nteg

ratio

n of

env

ironm

enta

l con

side

ratio

ns

into

sto

ck s

elec

tion

116

Abl

e to

pro

vide

robu

st e

xam

ples

of i

nteg

ratio

n of

soc

ial c

onsi

dera

tions

into

st

ock

sele

ctio

n1

TOTA

L 9/

17

Inve

stm

ent H

ori

zon

Sco

re17

Qua

lity

of re

porti

ng to

clie

nts

218

Qua

lity

of m

etric

s us

ed to

mea

sure

long

-term

risk

s in

the

portf

olio

019

Ada

ptat

ion

of in

vest

men

t app

roac

h an

d re

porti

ng to

clie

nts’

diff

eren

t in

vest

men

t hor

izon

s1

TOTA

L 3/

8

Rem

uner

atio

nS

core

20Va

riabl

e co

mpe

nsat

ion

com

pone

nt o

f por

tfolio

man

ager

s (P

M)

121

Cha

nges

to c

ompe

nsat

ion

stru

ctur

e of

PM

in th

e la

st fi

ve y

ears

1

22Fa

ctor

s ta

ken

into

acc

ount

in c

alcu

latio

n of

var

iabl

e co

mpo

nent

of P

M’s

com

pens

atio

n6

23Pe

rcen

tage

of P

M’s

bon

us d

efer

red

and

defe

rral

per

iod

224

App

rova

l of t

he fi

rm’s

com

pens

atio

n po

licy

for P

M2

25A

ppro

val o

f the

firm

’s a

ctua

l ann

ual v

aria

ble

com

pens

atio

n pa

y-ou

ts2

26D

iscl

osur

e by

the

firm

of q

uant

um a

nd d

esig

n pf

PM

’s c

ompe

nsat

ion

0.5

TOTA

L 14

.5/2

0

Fixe

d In

com

eS

core

27Pe

rcen

tage

of t

he fi

rm’s

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG c

onsi

dera

tions

3

28C

hang

e of

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG

con

side

ratio

ns in

la

st th

ree

year

s3

29Ad

optio

n o

f neg

ativ

e sc

reen

ing

or b

est-i

n-cl

ass

appr

oach

es in

fixe

d in

com

e po

rtfol

ios

130

Pro

cedu

re fo

r ide

ntify

ing

ES

G-c

ompl

iant

pro

spec

tive

inve

stm

ents

3TO

TAL

10/1

2S

UR

VE

Y R

ES

PO

NS

E T

OTA

L57

/90

OV

ER

ALL

SU

RV

EY

TO

TAL

91/1

43

Pub

lic r

eco

mm

end

atio

ns to

New

ton

Inve

stm

ent M

anag

emen

t:

•D

iscl

ose

mor

e cl

early

pos

ition

on

will

ingn

ess

to b

ecom

e an

insi

der

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

colle

ctiv

e ac

tion

polic

y •

Dis

clos

e a

mor

e de

taile

d co

nflic

ts o

f int

eres

t pol

icy

Ad

ditio

nal re

com

mend

ations a

re m

ad

e p

rivate

ly b

ased

on s

urv

ey r

esp

onses.

Ro

yal L

ond

on

Ass

et M

anag

emen

t

48

Pub

lic In

form

atio

nS

tew

ard

ship

Que

stio

nsS

core

Prin

cipl

e 1

Inst

itutio

nal I

nves

tors

sho

uld

publ

icly

dis

clos

e th

eir p

olic

y on

how

they

w

ill d

isch

arge

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ob

ligat

ions

7P

rinci

ple

2 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d ha

ve a

robu

st p

olic

y on

man

agin

g co

nflic

ts

of in

tere

st in

rela

tion

to s

tew

ards

hip

whi

ch s

houl

d be

pub

licly

dis

clos

ed1

Prin

cipl

e 3

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

mon

itor t

heir

inve

stee

com

pani

es4

Prin

cipl

e 4

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

esta

blis

h cl

ear g

uide

lines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w th

ey w

ill e

scal

ate

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ac

tiviti

es7

Prin

cipl

e 5

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

be w

illin

g to

act

col

lect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

in

vest

ors

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te4

Prin

cipl

e 6

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

have

a c

lear

pol

icy

on v

otin

g an

d di

sclo

sure

of v

otin

g ac

tivity

7P

rinci

ple

7 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d re

port

perio

dica

lly o

n th

eir s

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g ac

tiviti

es6

TOTA

L 36

/53

Sur

vey

Res

po

nse

Ste

war

dsh

ip C

od

eS

core

1C

lear

pro

cess

for r

esea

rch

and

mon

itorin

g of

inve

stee

com

pani

es4

2C

omm

itmen

t to

and

mot

ivat

ion

for c

ondu

ctin

g st

ewar

dshi

p2

3R

ange

of m

etho

ds o

f eng

agem

ent a

dopt

ed a

nd o

n w

hich

topi

cs in

the

past

yea

r5

4W

illin

gnes

s to

be

tem

pora

rily

desi

gnat

ed a

n in

side

r and

whe

ther

this

has

oc

curr

ed in

the

last

3 y

ears

25

Abl

e to

pro

vide

robu

st e

xam

ples

of e

ngag

emen

t with

inve

stee

com

pani

es

durin

g th

e la

st y

ear

36

Ste

war

dshi

p an

d en

gage

men

t dis

clos

ure

to c

lient

s in

add

ition

to w

hat i

s pu

blic

17

App

roac

h to

mak

ing

clie

nt re

porti

ng o

n S

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g su

ccin

ct

and

enga

ging

18

Rev

iew

and

upd

ate

of th

e st

ewar

dshi

p ap

proa

ch s

ince

ince

ptio

n1

9B

udge

t allo

cate

d to

Ste

war

dshi

p, a

nd if

this

has

incr

ease

d or

dec

reas

ed2

TOTA

L 21

/30

Co

nflic

ts o

f In

tere

stS

core

10A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

e of

how

a re

cent

con

flict

of i

nter

ests

has

be

en m

anag

ed

111

Stro

ng c

onfli

ct o

f int

eres

ts re

solu

tion

polic

y 2

TOTA

L 3/

3

ES

G

Sco

re12

Ran

ge o

f inv

estm

ent a

ppro

ache

s ap

plie

d in

vest

men

ts in

OE

CD

list

ed s

ecur

ities

:3

13C

lear

pro

cess

of d

esig

ning

, rev

iew

ing,

upd

atin

g an

d ap

prov

ing

the

RI p

olic

y3.

514

Effe

ctiv

e st

rate

gy fo

r miti

gatin

g st

rand

ed c

arbo

n as

sets

risk

s 1

15A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f int

egra

tion

of e

nviro

nmen

tal c

onsi

dera

tions

in

to s

tock

sel

ectio

n1

16A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f int

egra

tion

of s

ocia

l con

side

ratio

ns in

to

stoc

k se

lect

ion

1TO

TAL

9.5/

17

Inve

stm

ent H

ori

zon

Sco

re17

Qua

lity

of re

porti

ng to

clie

nts

218

Qua

lity

of m

etric

s us

ed to

mea

sure

long

-term

risk

s in

the

portf

olio

019

Ada

ptat

ion

of in

vest

men

t app

roac

h an

d re

porti

ng to

clie

nts’

diff

eren

t in

vest

men

t hor

izon

s1

TOTA

L 3/

8

Rem

uner

atio

nS

core

20Va

riabl

e co

mpe

nsat

ion

com

pone

nt o

f por

tfolio

man

ager

s (P

M)

221

Cha

nges

to c

ompe

nsat

ion

stru

ctur

e of

PM

in th

e la

st fi

ve y

ears

1

22Fa

ctor

s ta

ken

into

acc

ount

in c

alcu

latio

n of

var

iabl

e co

mpo

nent

of P

M’s

com

pens

atio

n6

23Pe

rcen

tage

of P

M’s

bon

us d

efer

red

and

defe

rral

per

iod

224

App

rova

l of t

he fi

rm’s

com

pens

atio

n po

licy

for P

M1

25A

ppro

val o

f the

firm

’s a

ctua

l ann

ual v

aria

ble

com

pens

atio

n pa

y-ou

ts1

26D

iscl

osur

e by

the

firm

of q

uant

um a

nd d

esig

n pf

PM

’s c

ompe

nsat

ion

0.5

TOTA

L 13

.5/2

0

Fixe

d In

com

eS

core

27Pe

rcen

tage

of t

he fi

rm’s

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG c

onsi

dera

tions

2

28C

hang

e of

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG

con

side

ratio

ns in

la

st th

ree

year

s1

29Ad

optio

n o

f neg

ativ

e sc

reen

ing

or b

est-i

n-cl

ass

appr

oach

es in

fixe

d in

com

e po

rtfol

ios

330

Pro

cedu

re fo

r ide

ntify

ing

ES

G-c

ompl

iant

pro

spec

tive

inve

stm

ents

3TO

TAL

9/12

SU

RV

EY

RE

SP

ON

SE

TO

TAL

59/9

0O

VE

RA

LL S

UR

VE

Y T

OTA

L95

/143

Pub

lic r

eco

mm

end

atio

ns to

Ro

yal L

ond

on

Ass

et M

anag

emen

t:

•D

iscl

ose

ratio

nale

for c

ontro

vers

ial v

otin

g de

cisi

ons

•D

iscl

ose

mor

e cl

early

pos

ition

on

will

ingn

ess

to b

ecom

e an

insi

der

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

conf

licts

of i

nter

est p

olic

y

Ad

ditio

nal re

com

mend

ations a

re m

ad

e p

rivate

ly b

ased

on s

urv

ey r

esp

onses.

.N

B: R

oyal

Lon

don

Ass

et M

anag

emen

t is

in th

e pr

oces

s of

com

plet

ing

the

inte

grat

ion

of th

eR

espo

nsib

le In

vest

men

t fun

ctio

n fo

llow

ing

the

acqu

isiti

on o

f The

Coo

pera

tive

Ass

et M

anag

emen

t

San

tand

er A

sset

Man

agem

ent

49

Pub

lic In

form

atio

nS

tew

ard

ship

Que

stio

nsS

core

Prin

cipl

e 1

Inst

itutio

nal I

nves

tors

sho

uld

publ

icly

dis

clos

e th

eir p

olic

y on

how

they

w

ill d

isch

arge

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ob

ligat

ions

5P

rinci

ple

2 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d ha

ve a

robu

st p

olic

y on

man

agin

g co

nflic

ts

of in

tere

st in

rela

tion

to s

tew

ards

hip

whi

ch s

houl

d be

pub

licly

dis

clos

ed1

Prin

cipl

e 3

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

mon

itor t

heir

inve

stee

com

pani

es5

Prin

cipl

e 4

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

esta

blis

h cl

ear g

uide

lines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w th

ey w

ill e

scal

ate

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ac

tiviti

es2

Prin

cipl

e 5

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

be w

illin

g to

act

col

lect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

in

vest

ors

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te1

Prin

cipl

e 6

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

have

a c

lear

pol

icy

on v

otin

g an

d di

sclo

sure

of v

otin

g ac

tivity

2P

rinci

ple

7 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d re

port

perio

dica

lly o

n th

eir s

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g ac

tiviti

es2

TOTA

L 18

/53

Pub

lic r

eco

mm

end

atio

ns to

San

tand

er A

sset

Man

agem

ent:

•

Dis

clos

e a

mor

e de

taile

d po

licy

on c

onsi

dera

tion

of e

nviro

nmen

tal f

acto

rs in

the

inve

stm

ent p

roce

ss

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

polic

y an

d gu

idel

ines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w to

esc

alat

e St

ewar

dshi

p ac

tiviti

es

•D

iscl

ose

whe

ther

an

inde

pend

ent o

pini

on o

n en

gage

men

t and

vot

ing

proc

esse

s w

as o

btai

ned

•D

iscl

ose

votin

g re

cord

s an

d ra

tiona

le fo

r con

trove

rsia

l vot

ing

deci

sion

s •

Dis

clos

e m

ore

clea

rly p

ositi

on o

n w

illin

gnes

s to

bec

ome

an in

side

r •

Dis

clos

e a

mor

e de

taile

d co

llect

ive

actio

n po

licy

•D

iscl

ose

a de

taile

d co

nflic

ts o

f int

eres

t pol

icy

Ad

ditio

nal re

com

mend

ations a

re m

ad

e p

rivate

ly b

ased

on s

urv

ey r

esp

onses.

Sch

rod

ers

Inve

stm

ent M

anag

emen

t

50

Pub

lic In

form

atio

nS

tew

ard

ship

Que

stio

nsS

core

Prin

cipl

e 1

Inst

itutio

nal I

nves

tors

sho

uld

publ

icly

dis

clos

e th

eir p

olic

y on

how

they

w

ill d

isch

arge

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ob

ligat

ions

6P

rinci

ple

2 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d ha

ve a

robu

st p

olic

y on

man

agin

g co

nflic

ts

of in

tere

st in

rela

tion

to s

tew

ards

hip

whi

ch s

houl

d be

pub

licly

dis

clos

ed4

Prin

cipl

e 3

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

mon

itor t

heir

inve

stee

com

pani

es3

Prin

cipl

e 4

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

esta

blis

h cl

ear g

uide

lines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w th

ey w

ill e

scal

ate

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ac

tiviti

es5

Prin

cipl

e 5

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

be w

illin

g to

act

col

lect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

in

vest

ors

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te2

Prin

cipl

e 6

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

have

a c

lear

pol

icy

on v

otin

g an

d di

sclo

sure

of v

otin

g ac

tivity

8P

rinci

ple

7 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d re

port

perio

dica

lly o

n th

eir s

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g ac

tiviti

es8

TOTA

L 36

/53

Sur

vey

Res

po

nse

Ste

war

dsh

ip C

od

eS

core

1C

lear

pro

cess

for r

esea

rch

and

mon

itorin

g of

inve

stee

com

pani

es4

2C

omm

itmen

t to

and

mot

ivat

ion

for c

ondu

ctin

g st

ewar

dshi

p2

3R

ange

of m

etho

ds o

f eng

agem

ent a

dopt

ed a

nd o

n w

hich

topi

cs in

the

past

yea

r9

4W

illin

gnes

s to

be

tem

pora

rily

desi

gnat

ed a

n in

side

r and

whe

ther

this

has

oc

curr

ed in

the

last

3 y

ears

25

Abl

e to

pro

vide

robu

st e

xam

ples

of e

ngag

emen

t with

inve

stee

com

pani

es

durin

g th

e la

st y

ear

36

Ste

war

dshi

p an

d en

gage

men

t dis

clos

ure

to c

lient

s in

add

ition

to w

hat i

s pu

blic

07

App

roac

h to

mak

ing

clie

nt re

porti

ng o

n S

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g su

ccin

ct

and

enga

ging

18

Rev

iew

and

upd

ate

of th

e st

ewar

dshi

p ap

proa

ch s

ince

ince

ptio

n1

9B

udge

t allo

cate

d to

Ste

war

dshi

p, a

nd if

this

has

incr

ease

d or

dec

reas

ed2

TOTA

L 24

/30

Co

nflic

ts o

f In

tere

stS

core

10A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

e of

how

a re

cent

con

flict

of i

nter

ests

has

be

en m

anag

ed

111

Stro

ng c

onfli

ct o

f int

eres

ts re

solu

tion

polic

y 1

TOTA

L 2/

3

ES

G

Sco

re12

Ran

ge o

f inv

estm

ent a

ppro

ache

s ap

plie

d in

vest

men

ts in

OE

CD

list

ed s

ecur

ities

:3.

513

Cle

ar p

roce

ss o

f des

igni

ng, r

evie

win

g, u

pdat

ing

and

appr

ovin

g th

e R

I pol

icy

414

Effe

ctiv

e st

rate

gy fo

r miti

gatin

g st

rand

ed c

arbo

n as

sets

risk

s 1

15A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f int

egra

tion

of e

nviro

nmen

tal c

onsi

dera

tions

in

to s

tock

sel

ectio

n1

16A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f int

egra

tion

of s

ocia

l con

side

ratio

ns in

to

stoc

k se

lect

ion

1TO

TAL

10.5

/17

Inve

stm

ent H

ori

zon

Sco

re17

Qua

lity

of re

porti

ng to

clie

nts

218

Qua

lity

of m

etric

s us

ed to

mea

sure

long

-term

risk

s in

the

portf

olio

019

Ada

ptat

ion

of in

vest

men

t app

roac

h an

d re

porti

ng to

clie

nts’

diff

eren

t in

vest

men

t hor

izon

s0

TOTA

L 2/

8

Rem

uner

atio

nS

core

20Va

riabl

e co

mpe

nsat

ion

com

pone

nt o

f por

tfolio

man

ager

s (P

M)

121

Cha

nges

to c

ompe

nsat

ion

stru

ctur

e of

PM

in th

e la

st fi

ve y

ears

2

22Fa

ctor

s ta

ken

into

acc

ount

in c

alcu

latio

n of

var

iabl

e co

mpo

nent

of P

M’s

com

pens

atio

n6

23Pe

rcen

tage

of P

M’s

bon

us d

efer

red

and

defe

rral

per

iod

224

App

rova

l of t

he fi

rm’s

com

pens

atio

n po

licy

for P

M1

25A

ppro

val o

f the

firm

’s a

ctua

l ann

ual v

aria

ble

com

pens

atio

n pa

y-ou

ts2

26D

iscl

osur

e by

the

firm

of q

uant

um a

nd d

esig

n pf

PM

’s c

ompe

nsat

ion

0TO

TAL

14/2

0

Fixe

d In

com

eS

core

27Pe

rcen

tage

of t

he fi

rm’s

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG c

onsi

dera

tions

3

28C

hang

e of

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG

con

side

ratio

ns in

la

st th

ree

year

s3

29Ad

optio

n o

f neg

ativ

e sc

reen

ing

or b

est-i

n-cl

ass

appr

oach

es in

fixe

d in

com

e po

rtfol

ios

130

Pro

cedu

re fo

r ide

ntify

ing

ES

G-c

ompl

iant

pro

spec

tive

inve

stm

ents

0TO

TAL

7/12

SU

RV

EY

RE

SP

ON

SE

TO

TAL

59.5

/90

OV

ER

ALL

SU

RV

EY

TO

TAL

95.5

/143

Pub

lic r

eco

mm

end

atio

ns to

Sch

rod

ers

Inve

stm

ent M

anag

emen

t:

•D

iscl

ose

ratio

nale

for c

ontro

vers

ial v

otin

g de

cisi

ons

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

colle

ctiv

e ac

tion

polic

y •

Dis

clos

e a

mor

e de

taile

d co

nflic

ts o

f int

eres

t pol

icy

Ad

ditio

nal re

com

mend

ations a

re m

ad

e p

rivate

ly b

ased

on s

urv

ey r

esp

onses.

Sta

ndar

d L

ife In

vest

men

ts

51

Pub

lic In

form

atio

nS

tew

ard

ship

Que

stio

nsS

core

Prin

cipl

e 1

Inst

itutio

nal I

nves

tors

sho

uld

publ

icly

dis

clos

e th

eir p

olic

y on

how

they

w

ill d

isch

arge

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ob

ligat

ions

7P

rinci

ple

2 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d ha

ve a

robu

st p

olic

y on

man

agin

g co

nflic

ts

of in

tere

st in

rela

tion

to s

tew

ards

hip

whi

ch s

houl

d be

pub

licly

dis

clos

ed4

Prin

cipl

e 3

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

mon

itor t

heir

inve

stee

com

pani

es6

Prin

cipl

e 4

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

esta

blis

h cl

ear g

uide

lines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w th

ey w

ill e

scal

ate

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ac

tiviti

es7

Prin

cipl

e 5

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

be w

illin

g to

act

col

lect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

in

vest

ors

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te5

Prin

cipl

e 6

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

have

a c

lear

pol

icy

on v

otin

g an

d di

sclo

sure

of v

otin

g ac

tivity

7P

rinci

ple

7 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d re

port

perio

dica

lly o

n th

eir s

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g ac

tiviti

es9

TOTA

L 45

/53

Sur

vey

Res

po

nse

Ste

war

dsh

ip C

od

eS

core

1C

lear

pro

cess

for r

esea

rch

and

mon

itorin

g of

inve

stee

com

pani

es3

2C

omm

itmen

t to

and

mot

ivat

ion

for c

ondu

ctin

g st

ewar

dshi

p2

3R

ange

of m

etho

ds o

f eng

agem

ent a

dopt

ed a

nd o

n w

hich

topi

cs in

the

past

yea

r8.

54

Will

ingn

ess

to b

e te

mpo

raril

y de

sign

ated

an

insi

der a

nd w

heth

er th

is h

as

occu

rred

in th

e la

st 3

yea

rs2

5A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f eng

agem

ent w

ith in

vest

ee c

ompa

nies

du

ring

the

last

yea

r3

6S

tew

ards

hip

and

enga

gem

ent d

iscl

osur

e to

clie

nts

in a

dditi

on to

wha

t is

publ

ic1

7A

ppro

ach

to m

akin

g cl

ient

repo

rting

on

Ste

war

dshi

p an

d vo

ting

succ

inct

an

d en

gagi

ng1

8R

evie

w a

nd u

pdat

e of

the

stew

ards

hip

appr

oach

sin

ce in

cept

ion

19

Bud

get a

lloca

ted

to S

tew

ards

hip,

and

if th

is h

as in

crea

sed

or d

ecre

ased

2TO

TAL

23.5

/30

Co

nflic

ts o

f In

tere

stS

core

10A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

e of

how

a re

cent

con

flict

of i

nter

ests

has

be

en m

anag

ed

111

Stro

ng c

onfli

ct o

f int

eres

ts re

solu

tion

polic

y 2

TOTA

L 3/

3

ES

G

Sco

re12

Ran

ge o

f inv

estm

ent a

ppro

ache

s ap

plie

d in

vest

men

ts in

OE

CD

list

ed s

ecur

ities

:2

13C

lear

pro

cess

of d

esig

ning

, rev

iew

ing,

upd

atin

g an

d ap

prov

ing

the

RI p

olic

y4

14E

ffect

ive

stra

tegy

for m

itiga

ting

stra

nded

car

bon

asse

ts ri

sks

115

Abl

e to

pro

vide

robu

st e

xam

ples

of i

nteg

ratio

n of

env

ironm

enta

l con

side

ratio

ns

into

sto

ck s

elec

tion

116

Abl

e to

pro

vide

robu

st e

xam

ples

of i

nteg

ratio

n of

soc

ial c

onsi

dera

tions

into

st

ock

sele

ctio

n1

TOTA

L 9/

17

Inve

stm

ent H

ori

zon

Sco

re17

Qua

lity

of re

porti

ng to

clie

nts

218

Qua

lity

of m

etric

s us

ed to

mea

sure

long

-term

risk

s in

the

portf

olio

119

Ada

ptat

ion

of in

vest

men

t app

roac

h an

d re

porti

ng to

clie

nts’

diff

eren

t in

vest

men

t hor

izon

s2

TOTA

L 5/

8

Rem

uner

atio

nS

core

20Va

riabl

e co

mpe

nsat

ion

com

pone

nt o

f por

tfolio

man

ager

s (P

M)

221

Cha

nges

to c

ompe

nsat

ion

stru

ctur

e of

PM

in th

e la

st fi

ve y

ears

1

22Fa

ctor

s ta

ken

into

acc

ount

in c

alcu

latio

n of

var

iabl

e co

mpo

nent

of P

M’s

com

pens

atio

n7

23Pe

rcen

tage

of P

M’s

bon

us d

efer

red

and

defe

rral

per

iod

224

App

rova

l of t

he fi

rm’s

com

pens

atio

n po

licy

for P

M2

25A

ppro

val o

f the

firm

’s a

ctua

l ann

ual v

aria

ble

com

pens

atio

n pa

y-ou

ts1

26D

iscl

osur

e by

the

firm

of q

uant

um a

nd d

esig

n pf

PM

’s c

ompe

nsat

ion

0.5

TOTA

L 15

.5/2

0

Fixe

d In

com

eS

core

27Pe

rcen

tage

of t

he fi

rm’s

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG c

onsi

dera

tions

0

28C

hang

e of

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG

con

side

ratio

ns in

la

st th

ree

year

s0

29Ad

optio

n o

f neg

ativ

e sc

reen

ing

or b

est-i

n-cl

ass

appr

oach

es in

fixe

d in

com

e po

rtfol

ios

130

Pro

cedu

re fo

r ide

ntify

ing

ES

G-c

ompl

iant

pro

spec

tive

inve

stm

ents

1TO

TAL

2/12

SU

RV

EY

RE

SP

ON

SE

TO

TAL

58/9

0O

VE

RA

LL S

UR

VE

Y T

OTA

L10

3/14

3

Pub

lic r

eco

mm

end

atio

ns to

Sta

ndar

d L

ife In

vest

men

ts:

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

polic

y on

con

side

ratio

n of

env

ironm

enta

l fac

tors

in th

e in

vest

men

t pro

cess

A

dd

itio

nal re

com

mend

ations a

re m

ad

e p

rivate

ly b

ased

on s

urv

ey r

esp

onses.

Sta

te S

tree

t Glo

bal

Ad

viso

rs

52

Pub

lic In

form

atio

nS

tew

ard

ship

Que

stio

nsS

core

Prin

cipl

e 1

Inst

itutio

nal I

nves

tors

sho

uld

publ

icly

dis

clos

e th

eir p

olic

y on

how

they

w

ill d

isch

arge

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ob

ligat

ions

7P

rinci

ple

2 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d ha

ve a

robu

st p

olic

y on

man

agin

g co

nflic

ts

of in

tere

st in

rela

tion

to s

tew

ards

hip

whi

ch s

houl

d be

pub

licly

dis

clos

ed4

Prin

cipl

e 3

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

mon

itor t

heir

inve

stee

com

pani

es4

Prin

cipl

e 4

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

esta

blis

h cl

ear g

uide

lines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w th

ey w

ill e

scal

ate

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ac

tiviti

es7

Prin

cipl

e 5

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

be w

illin

g to

act

col

lect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

in

vest

ors

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te3

Prin

cipl

e 6

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

have

a c

lear

pol

icy

on v

otin

g an

d di

sclo

sure

of v

otin

g ac

tivity

6P

rinci

ple

7 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d re

port

perio

dica

lly o

n th

eir s

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g ac

tiviti

es7

TOTA

L 38

/53

Sur

vey

Res

po

nse

Ste

war

dsh

ip C

od

eS

core

1C

lear

pro

cess

for r

esea

rch

and

mon

itorin

g of

inve

stee

com

pani

es3

2C

omm

itmen

t to

and

mot

ivat

ion

for c

ondu

ctin

g st

ewar

dshi

p2

3R

ange

of m

etho

ds o

f eng

agem

ent a

dopt

ed a

nd o

n w

hich

topi

cs in

the

past

yea

r4.

54

Will

ingn

ess

to b

e te

mpo

raril

y de

sign

ated

an

insi

der a

nd w

heth

er th

is h

as

occu

rred

in th

e la

st 3

yea

rs1

5A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f eng

agem

ent w

ith in

vest

ee c

ompa

nies

du

ring

the

last

yea

r3

6S

tew

ards

hip

and

enga

gem

ent d

iscl

osur

e to

clie

nts

in a

dditi

on to

wha

t is

publ

ic1

7A

ppro

ach

to m

akin

g cl

ient

repo

rting

on

Ste

war

dshi

p an

d vo

ting

succ

inct

an

d en

gagi

ng1

8R

evie

w a

nd u

pdat

e of

the

stew

ards

hip

appr

oach

sin

ce in

cept

ion

19

Bud

get a

lloca

ted

to S

tew

ards

hip,

and

if th

is h

as in

crea

sed

or d

ecre

ased

2TO

TAL

18.5

/30

Co

nflic

ts o

f In

tere

stS

core

10A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

e of

how

a re

cent

con

flict

of i

nter

ests

has

be

en m

anag

ed

111

Stro

ng c

onfli

ct o

f int

eres

ts re

solu

tion

polic

y 2

TOTA

L 3/

3

ES

G

Sco

re12

Ran

ge o

f inv

estm

ent a

ppro

ache

s ap

plie

d in

vest

men

ts in

OE

CD

list

ed s

ecur

ities

:2

13C

lear

pro

cess

of d

esig

ning

, rev

iew

ing,

upd

atin

g an

d ap

prov

ing

the

RI p

olic

y5.

514

Effe

ctiv

e st

rate

gy fo

r miti

gatin

g st

rand

ed c

arbo

n as

sets

risk

s 1

15A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f int

egra

tion

of e

nviro

nmen

tal c

onsi

dera

tions

in

to s

tock

sel

ectio

n0

16A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f int

egra

tion

of s

ocia

l con

side

ratio

ns in

to

stoc

k se

lect

ion

0TO

TAL

8.5/

17

Inve

stm

ent H

ori

zon

Sco

re17

Qua

lity

of re

porti

ng to

clie

nts

218

Qua

lity

of m

etric

s us

ed to

mea

sure

long

-term

risk

s in

the

portf

olio

219

Ada

ptat

ion

of in

vest

men

t app

roac

h an

d re

porti

ng to

clie

nts’

diff

eren

t in

vest

men

t hor

izon

s2

TOTA

L 6/

8

Rem

uner

atio

nS

core

20Va

riabl

e co

mpe

nsat

ion

com

pone

nt o

f por

tfolio

man

ager

s (P

M)

121

Cha

nges

to c

ompe

nsat

ion

stru

ctur

e of

PM

in th

e la

st fi

ve y

ears

2

22Fa

ctor

s ta

ken

into

acc

ount

in c

alcu

latio

n of

var

iabl

e co

mpo

nent

of P

M’s

com

pens

atio

n4

23Pe

rcen

tage

of P

M’s

bon

us d

efer

red

and

defe

rral

per

iod

224

App

rova

l of t

he fi

rm’s

com

pens

atio

n po

licy

for P

M2

25A

ppro

val o

f the

firm

’s a

ctua

l ann

ual v

aria

ble

com

pens

atio

n pa

y-ou

ts2

26D

iscl

osur

e by

the

firm

of q

uant

um a

nd d

esig

n pf

PM

’s c

ompe

nsat

ion

0.5

TOTA

L 13

.5/2

0

Fixe

d In

com

eS

core

27Pe

rcen

tage

of t

he fi

rm’s

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG c

onsi

dera

tions

2

28C

hang

e of

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG

con

side

ratio

ns in

la

st th

ree

year

s3

29Ad

optio

n o

f neg

ativ

e sc

reen

ing

or b

est-i

n-cl

ass

appr

oach

es in

fixe

d in

com

e po

rtfol

ios

130

Pro

cedu

re fo

r ide

ntify

ing

ES

G-c

ompl

iant

pro

spec

tive

inve

stm

ents

0TO

TAL

6/12

SU

RV

EY

RE

SP

ON

SE

TO

TAL

55.5

/90

OV

ER

ALL

SU

RV

EY

TO

TAL

93.5

/143

Pub

lic r

eco

mm

end

atio

ns to

Sta

te S

tree

t Glo

bal

Ad

viso

rs:

•S

eek

to o

btai

n an

inde

pend

ent o

pini

on o

n en

gage

men

t and

vot

ing

proc

esse

s•

Dis

clos

e vo

ting

reco

rds

and

ratio

nale

for c

ontro

vers

ial v

otin

g de

cisi

ons

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

conf

licts

of i

nter

est p

olic

y A

dd

itio

nal re

com

mend

ations a

re m

ad

e p

rivate

ly b

ased

on s

urv

ey r

esp

onses.

Thre

adne

edle

Ass

et M

anag

emen

t

53

Pub

lic In

form

atio

nS

tew

ard

ship

Que

stio

nsS

core

Prin

cipl

e 1

Inst

itutio

nal I

nves

tors

sho

uld

publ

icly

dis

clos

e th

eir p

olic

y on

how

they

w

ill d

isch

arge

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ob

ligat

ions

8P

rinci

ple

2 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d ha

ve a

robu

st p

olic

y on

man

agin

g co

nflic

ts

of in

tere

st in

rela

tion

to s

tew

ards

hip

whi

ch s

houl

d be

pub

licly

dis

clos

ed5

Prin

cipl

e 3

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

mon

itor t

heir

inve

stee

com

pani

es6

Prin

cipl

e 4

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

esta

blis

h cl

ear g

uide

lines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w th

ey w

ill e

scal

ate

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ac

tiviti

es8

Prin

cipl

e 5

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

be w

illin

g to

act

col

lect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

in

vest

ors

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te5

Prin

cipl

e 6

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

have

a c

lear

pol

icy

on v

otin

g an

d di

sclo

sure

of v

otin

g ac

tivity

7P

rinci

ple

7 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d re

port

perio

dica

lly o

n th

eir s

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g ac

tiviti

es9

TOTA

L 48

/53

Sur

vey

Res

po

nse

Ste

war

dsh

ip C

od

eS

core

1C

lear

pro

cess

for r

esea

rch

and

mon

itorin

g of

inve

stee

com

pani

es4

2C

omm

itmen

t to

and

mot

ivat

ion

for c

ondu

ctin

g st

ewar

dshi

p3

3R

ange

of m

etho

ds o

f eng

agem

ent a

dopt

ed a

nd o

n w

hich

topi

cs in

the

past

yea

r7.

54

Will

ingn

ess

to b

e te

mpo

raril

y de

sign

ated

an

insi

der a

nd w

heth

er th

is h

as

occu

rred

in th

e la

st 3

yea

rs2

5A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

es o

f eng

agem

ent w

ith in

vest

ee c

ompa

nies

du

ring

the

last

yea

r3

6S

tew

ards

hip

and

enga

gem

ent d

iscl

osur

e to

clie

nts

in a

dditi

on to

wha

t is

publ

ic1

7A

ppro

ach

to m

akin

g cl

ient

repo

rting

on

Ste

war

dshi

p an

d vo

ting

succ

inct

an

d en

gagi

ng2

8R

evie

w a

nd u

pdat

e of

the

stew

ards

hip

appr

oach

sin

ce in

cept

ion

19

Bud

get a

lloca

ted

to S

tew

ards

hip,

and

if th

is h

as in

crea

sed

or d

ecre

ased

4TO

TAL

27.5

/30

Co

nflic

ts o

f In

tere

stS

core

10A

ble

to p

rovi

de ro

bust

exa

mpl

e of

how

a re

cent

con

flict

of i

nter

ests

has

be

en m

anag

ed

111

Stro

ng c

onfli

ct o

f int

eres

ts re

solu

tion

polic

y 2

TOTA

L 3/

3

ES

G

Sco

re12

Ran

ge o

f inv

estm

ent a

ppro

ache

s ap

plie

d in

vest

men

ts in

OE

CD

list

ed s

ecur

ities

:2.

513

Cle

ar p

roce

ss o

f des

igni

ng, r

evie

win

g, u

pdat

ing

and

appr

ovin

g th

e R

I pol

icy

5.5

14E

ffect

ive

stra

tegy

for m

itiga

ting

stra

nded

car

bon

asse

ts ri

sks

115

Abl

e to

pro

vide

robu

st e

xam

ples

of i

nteg

ratio

n of

env

ironm

enta

l con

side

ratio

ns

into

sto

ck s

elec

tion

116

Abl

e to

pro

vide

robu

st e

xam

ples

of i

nteg

ratio

n of

soc

ial c

onsi

dera

tions

into

st

ock

sele

ctio

n1

TOTA

L 11

/17

Inve

stm

ent H

ori

zon

Sco

re17

Qua

lity

of re

porti

ng to

clie

nts

218

Qua

lity

of m

etric

s us

ed to

mea

sure

long

-term

risk

s in

the

portf

olio

219

Ada

ptat

ion

of in

vest

men

t app

roac

h an

d re

porti

ng to

clie

nts’

diff

eren

t in

vest

men

t hor

izon

s4

TOTA

L 8/

8

Rem

uner

atio

nS

core

20Va

riabl

e co

mpe

nsat

ion

com

pone

nt o

f por

tfolio

man

ager

s (P

M)

121

Cha

nges

to c

ompe

nsat

ion

stru

ctur

e of

PM

in th

e la

st fi

ve y

ears

2

22Fa

ctor

s ta

ken

into

acc

ount

in c

alcu

latio

n of

var

iabl

e co

mpo

nent

of P

M’s

com

pens

atio

n7

23Pe

rcen

tage

of P

M’s

bon

us d

efer

red

and

defe

rral

per

iod

324

App

rova

l of t

he fi

rm’s

com

pens

atio

n po

licy

for P

M2

25A

ppro

val o

f the

firm

’s a

ctua

l ann

ual v

aria

ble

com

pens

atio

n pa

y-ou

ts2

26D

iscl

osur

e by

the

firm

of q

uant

um a

nd d

esig

n pf

PM

’s c

ompe

nsat

ion

0.5

TOTA

L 17

.5/2

0

Fixe

d In

com

eS

core

27Pe

rcen

tage

of t

he fi

rm’s

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG c

onsi

dera

tions

3

28C

hang

e of

fixe

d in

com

e as

sets

man

aged

sub

ject

to E

SG

con

side

ratio

ns in

la

st th

ree

year

s3

29Ad

optio

n o

f neg

ativ

e sc

reen

ing

or b

est-i

n-cl

ass

appr

oach

es in

fixe

d in

com

e po

rtfol

ios

130

Pro

cedu

re fo

r ide

ntify

ing

ES

G-c

ompl

iant

pro

spec

tive

inve

stm

ents

3TO

TAL

10/1

2S

UR

VE

Y R

ES

PO

NS

E T

OTA

L77

/90

OV

ER

ALL

SU

RV

EY

TO

TAL

125/

143

Pub

lic r

eco

mm

end

atio

ns to

Th

read

need

le A

sset

Man

agem

ent:

•

Dis

clos

e ra

tiona

le fo

r con

trove

rsia

l vot

ing

deci

sion

sA

dd

itio

nal re

com

mend

ations a

re m

ad

e p

rivate

ly b

ased

on s

urv

ey r

esp

onses.

UB

S G

lob

al A

sset

man

agem

ent

54

•

Pub

lic In

form

atio

nS

tew

ard

ship

Que

stio

nsS

core

Prin

cipl

e 1

Inst

itutio

nal I

nves

tors

sho

uld

publ

icly

dis

clos

e th

eir p

olic

y on

how

they

w

ill d

isch

arge

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ob

ligat

ions

5P

rinci

ple

2 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d ha

ve a

robu

st p

olic

y on

man

agin

g co

nflic

ts

of in

tere

st in

rela

tion

to s

tew

ards

hip

whi

ch s

houl

d be

pub

licly

dis

clos

ed4

Prin

cipl

e 3

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

mon

itor t

heir

inve

stee

com

pani

es4

Prin

cipl

e 4

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

esta

blis

h cl

ear g

uide

lines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w th

ey w

ill e

scal

ate

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ac

tiviti

es5

Prin

cipl

e 5

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

be w

illin

g to

act

col

lect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

in

vest

ors

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te2

Prin

cipl

e 6

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

have

a c

lear

pol

icy

on v

otin

g an

d di

sclo

sure

of v

otin

g ac

tivity

7P

rinci

ple

7 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d re

port

perio

dica

lly o

n th

eir s

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g ac

tiviti

es2

TOTA

L 29

/53

Pub

lic r

eco

mm

end

atio

ns to

UB

S G

lob

al A

sset

Man

agem

ent:

•

See

k to

obt

ain

an in

depe

nden

t opi

nion

on

enga

gem

ent a

nd v

otin

g pr

oces

ses

•D

iscl

ose

a m

ore

deta

iled

conf

licts

of i

nter

est p

olic

y A

dd

itio

nal re

com

mend

ations a

re m

ad

e p

rivate

ly b

ased

on s

urv

ey r

esp

onses.

Wel

ling

ton

Man

agem

ent

55

Pub

lic In

form

atio

nS

tew

ard

ship

Que

stio

nsS

core

Prin

cipl

e 1

Inst

itutio

nal I

nves

tors

sho

uld

publ

icly

dis

clos

e th

eir p

olic

y on

how

they

w

ill d

isch

arge

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ob

ligat

ions

1P

rinci

ple

2 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d ha

ve a

robu

st p

olic

y on

man

agin

g co

nflic

ts

of in

tere

st in

rela

tion

to s

tew

ards

hip

whi

ch s

houl

d be

pub

licly

dis

clos

ed1

Prin

cipl

e 3

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

mon

itor t

heir

inve

stee

com

pani

es4

Prin

cipl

e 4

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

esta

blis

h cl

ear g

uide

lines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w th

ey w

ill e

scal

ate

thei

r ste

war

dshi

p ac

tiviti

es1

Prin

cipl

e 5

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

be w

illin

g to

act

col

lect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

in

vest

ors

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te0

Prin

cipl

e 6

Inst

itutio

nal i

nves

tors

sho

uld

have

a c

lear

pol

icy

on v

otin

g an

d di

sclo

sure

of v

otin

g ac

tivity

3P

rinci

ple

7 In

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs s

houl

d re

port

perio

dica

lly o

n th

eir s

tew

ards

hip

and

votin

g ac

tiviti

es2

TOTA

L 12

/53

Pub

lic r

eco

mm

end

atio

ns to

Wel

ling

ton

Man

agem

ent:

•

Dis

clos

e in

gre

ater

det

ail t

he p

olic

y an

d gu

idel

ines

on

whe

n an

d ho

w to

esc

alat

e S

tew

ards

hip

activ

ities

•

Dis

clos

e w

heth

er a

n in

depe

nden

t opi

nion

on

enga

gem

ent a

nd v

otin

g pr

oces

ses

was

obt

aine

d •

Dis

clos

e vo

ting

reco

rds

and

ratio

nale

for c

ontro

vers

ial v

otin

g de

cisi

ons

•D

iscl

ose

mor

e cl

early

pos

ition

on

will

ingn

ess

to b

ecom

e an

insi

der

•D

iscl

ose

a de

taile

d co

llect

ive

actio

n po

licy

•D

iscl

ose

a de

taile

d co

nflic

ts o

f int

eres

t pol

icy

Ad

ditio

nal re

com

mend

ations a

re m

ad

e p

rivate

ly b

ased

on s

urv

ey r

esp

onses.

56

Review of Publicly Available Information

Stewardship Code Max ScorePrinciple 1 Institutional Investors should publicly disclose their policy on how they will

discharge their stewardship obligations 8Principle 2 Institutional investors should have a robust policy on managing conflicts of interest in relation to

stewardship which should be publicly disclosed 6Principle 3 Institutional investors should monitor their investee companies 8Principle 4 Institutional investors should establish clear guidelines on when and how they will escalate

their stewardship activities 8Principle 5 Institutional investors should be willing to act collectively with other investors where appropriate 6Principle 6 Institutional investors should have a clear policy on voting and disclosure of voting activity 8Principle 7 Institutional investors should report periodically on their stewardship and voting activities 9

TOTAL 53Stewardship Code Max Score

Survey Response

Stewardship Code Max Score1. Clear process for research and monitoring of investee companies 42. Commitment to and motivation for conducting stewardship 33. Range of methods of engagement adopted and on which topics in the past year 94. Willingness to be temporarily designated an insider and whether this has occurred in the last 3 years 25. Able to provide robust examples of engagement with investee companies during the last year 36. Stewardship and engagement disclosure to clients in addition to what is public 17. Approach to making client reporting on Stewardship and voting succinct and engaging 28. If the stewardship approach has been reviewed and updated since inception 19. Budget allocated to Stewardship, and if this has increased or decreased 5

TOTAL 30

Conflicts of Interest Max Score10. Able to provide robust examples of how a recent conflict of interests has been managed 111. Strong conflicts of interest resolution policy 2

TOTAL 3

ESG Max Score12. Range of investment approaches applied to investments in OECD listed securities 413. Clear process of designing, reviewing, updating and approving the RI policy 914. Effective strategy for mitigating stranded carbon assets risks 215. Able to provide robust examples of integration of environmental considerations into stock selection 116. Able to provide robust examples of integration of social considerations into stock selection 1

TOTAL 17

Investment Horizon Max Score17. Quality of reporting to clients 218. Quality of metrics used to measure long-term risks in the portfolio 219. Adaptation of investment approach and reporting to clients’ different investment horizon 4

TOTAL 8

Appendix 3 – Scoring Criteria

57

Remuneration Max Score20. Variable compensation component of portfolio managers (PM) 221. Changes to compensation structure of PM in the last five years 222. Factors taken into account in calculation of variable component of PM’s compensation 723. Percentage of PM’s bonus deferred and deferral period 424. Approval of the firm’s compensation policy for PM 225. Approval of the firm’s actual annual variable compensation pay-outs 226. Disclosure by the firm to clients of quantum and design of PM’s compensation 1

TOTAL 20

Fixed Income Max Score27. Percentage of the firm’s fixed income assets managed subject to ESG considerations 328. Change of fixed income assets managed subject to ESG considerations in last three years 329. Adoption of negative screening or best-in-class approaches in fixed income portfolios 330. Procedure for identifying ESG-compliant prospective investments 3

TOTAL 12

SURVEY RESPONSE TOTAL 90

OVERALL TOTAL 143SURVEY RESPONSE TOTAL 90

SURVEY RESPONSE TOTAL 90

APPENDIX 3 – SCORING CRITERIA

58

Review of Publicly Available Information

Stewardship Code Max Score

Principle 1 Institutional Investors should publicly disclose their policy on how they will discharge their stewardship obligations 8Question 1: Is the policy easy to find on company website? 3Question 2: Are the details of the individual to contact displayed? 2Question 3: Are other engagement and voting activity reports easy to find? 2Question 4: Was the policy updated within the last year? 1

Principle 2 Institutional investors should have a robust policy on managing conflicts of interest in relation to stewardship which should be publicly disclosed 6Question 1: Does the asset manager (AM) have a conflicts of interest (COI) policy? 1Question 2: Does the AM disclose the COI policy? 1Question 3: Does the AM disclose the procedure on how it manages COI? 4

Principle 3 Institutional investors should monitor their investee companies 8Question 1: What information sources are used by the AM? 3Question 2: Who carries cut the monitoring activities? 2Question 3: What is the frequency of the monitoring activities? 2Question 4: Does the asset manager make reference to insider positions? 1

Principle 4 Institutional investors should establish clear guidelines on when and how they will escalate their stewardship activities 8Question 1: Does the AM have clear guidelines on when it will escalate stewardship activities? 2Question 2: Does the AM have clear guidelines on how it will escalate stewardship activities? 2Question 3: What is the disclosure frequency of stewardship activities? 4

Principle 5 Institutional investors should be willing to act collectively with other investors where appropriate 6Question 1: Does the asset manager have a Collective Engagement Policy/Principles (CEP)? 1Question 2: Is the CEP disclosed or referred to? 1Question 3: How clear is the CEP on type of proposed collective engagements? 2Question 4: Does the CEP indicate specific or generic circumstances? 2

Principle 6 Institutional investors should have a clear policy on voting and disclosure of voting activity 8Question 1: Does a voting policy exist and is it disclosed or referred to? 2Question 2: Is the voting policy clear and robust on non-automaticity of support of the Board? 2Question 3: Are the voting records disclosed? 1Question 4: Is the use of proxy voting and other services disclosed? 2Question 5: Are the principles for stock lending and recalling disclosed? 1

Principle 7 Institutional investors should report periodically on their stewardship and voting activities 9Question 1: Does the AM report on stewardship and voting activities (SVA)? 1Question 2: What is the SVA reporting frequency? 2Question 3: Does the SVA report contain qualitative information? 2Question 4: Does the SVA report contain quantitative information? 2Question 5: Does an independent opinion exist and is it disclosed/referenced? 2TOTAL 53

APPENDIX 3 – SCORING CRITERIA

59

Survey Response

Stewardship Code Max Score

1. Clear process for research and monitoring of investee companies 4• Direct contact with investee company 1• Range of external data sources used 1• Description of how SRI specialists (or equivalent) work with internal stakeholders to ensure integration 1

of ESG factors into investment/engagement decisions• Indication of a methodology, or detail provided of criteria or procedures used to judge companies 1

2. Commitment to and motivation for conducting stewardship 3• No explanation 0• Because of demand by or duty to clients 1• Because it affects returns 1• Because stewardship can have a positive impact on the environment, society or the economy as a whole 1

3. Range of methods of engagement adopted and on which topics in the past year 9• Each listed method of engagements for each of the three categories 0.5• Each other method of engagement for each of the three categories 1

4. a. Willingness to be temporarily designated an insider 2• No statement of willingness 0• Statement of willingness 1

b. Insider status occurred in the last three years• Not occurred 0• Occurred 1

5. a. Example of what is considered a successful engagement during the last year 3• No or very poor example provided 0• Sensible example provided 1

b. Example of escalation in the last year when engagement had stalled or failed• No or very poor example provided 0• Sensible example provided 1

c. Example of proactive rather than reactive engagement in the last year• No or very poor example provided 0• Sensible example provided 1

6. Stewardship and engagement disclosure to clients in addition to what is public 1• No additional disclosure to clients 0• Additional disclosure to clients 1

7. Approach to making client reporting on Stewardship and voting succinct and engaging 2• No explanation of approach, or full voting record is published on the website without further explanation 0• Provide explanations for key decisions 1• Explain policies and/or trends 1

8. Description on how Stewardship approach was reviewed and updated since inception 1• No description provided 0• Meaningful description of the update provided 1

9. a. Disclosure of percentage of budget allocated to Stewardship 5• No disclosure 0• Less than 2% 1• Between 2% and 7% 2• Above 7% 3

b. Disclosure on whether percentage of Stewardship budget has increased or decreased • Decreased or not disclosed 0• Unchanged 1• Increased 2

TOTAL 30

APPENDIX 3 – SCORING CRITERIA

60

Conflicts of Interest Max Score10. Able to provide robust examples of how a recent conflict of interests has been managed 1

• No or very poor example provided 0• Sensible example provided 1

11. Strong conflicts of interest resolution policy 1• Responsibility rests with individual analyst or portfolio manager 0• Responsibility rests within the division managing the position 1• Responsibility rests outside the division managing the position 2TOTAL 3

ESG Max Score12. Range of investment approaches applied to investments in OECD listed securities 4.0

• Analysis and proactive consideration of environmental factors – Yes/No 0.5• Analysis and proactive consideration of social factors – No/Yes 0.5• Analysis and proactive consideration of governance factors – No/Yes 0.5• Negative screening – No/Yes 0.5• Positive best in class screening – No/Yes 0.5• Direct engagement with investee companies on ESG issues – No/Yes 0.5• Thematic investment- No/Yes 0.5• Other - No/Yes 0.5• None 0

13. a. Clear process of designing and reviewing the RI policy 5• In-house RI specialists – No/Yes 0.5• Portfolio managers – No/Yes 0.5• CIO, CEO or other C-level executives – No/Yes 0.5• Dedicated internal committee- No/Yes 0.5• Legal advisors – No/Yes 0.5• Other internal staff – No/Yes 0.5• Clients – No/Yes 0.5• Third-party specialists – No/Yes 0.5• Other – No/Yes 1

b. Clear process of updating and approving the RI policy 4.0• In-house RI specialists – No/Yes 0.5• Portfolio managers – No/Yes 0.5• CIO, CEO or other C-level executives – No/Yes 0.5• Dedicated internal committee- No/Yes 0.5• Legal advisors – No/Yes 0.5• Other internal staff – No/Yes 0.5• Third-party specialists – No/Yes 0.5• Other – No/Yes 0.5

14. Effective strategy for mitigating stranded carbon assets risks 2• No strategy exists, not explained 0• Some consideration given to the topic 1• Robust strategy exists and is described 2

15. Able to provide robust examples of integration of environmental considerations into stock selection 1• No or very poor example provided 0• Sensible example provided 1

16. Able to provide robust examples of integration of social considerations into stock selection 1• No or very poor example provided 0• Sensible example provided 1TOTAL 17

APPENDIX 3 – SCORING CRITERIA

61

Investment Horizon Max Score17. Quality of reporting to clients on: 2

a. Portfolio turnover – Yes/No 1b. Costs incurred through portfolio turnover – Yes/No 1

18. Quality of metrics used to measure long-term risks in the portfolio 2• No or poor description of metrics used 0• Adequate description of metrics used and/or reference to long-term risks 1• Good description of metrics used including reference to long-term risks 2

19. a. Adaptation of investment approach to clients’ different investment horizons 2• No adaptation 0• Yes but poor description provided 1• Yes and sensible description provided 2

b. Adaptation of reporting to clients depending on their investment horizon 2• No adaptation 0• Yes but poor description provided 1• Yes and sensible description provided 2

TOTAL 8

Remuneration Max Score20. Variable compensation component of portfolio managers (PM) 2

• No disclosure 0• Generic disclosure and/or poor description on how it is determined 1• Specific disclosure and/or good description on how it is determined 2

21. Changes to compensation structure of PM in the last five years 2• No disclosure or change 0• Generic disclosure and/or poor description on how it is determined 1• Specific disclosure and/or good description on how it is determined 2

22. Factors taken into account in calculation of variable component of PM’s compensation 7• Fund performance – No/Yes 1• Value of assets – No/Yes 1• Qualitative indicators – No/Yes 1• Incorporation of ESG criteria – No/yes 1• Level of client service provided – Yes/No 1• Third party reviews of AM’s compensation trends – Yes/No 1• Other – Yes/No 1

23. Percentage of PM’s bonus deferred and deferral period 4• Less than 20% or undisclosed 0.5• Between 20% and 50% 1.5• More than 50% 2.0• Under 2 years or undisclosed 0.5• Between 2 and 5 years 1.5• Over 5 years 2.0

24. Approval of the firm’s compensation policy for PM 2• Head of business unit 0• Compensation or remuneration committee 1• Senior Management or Board of Directors 2

25. Approval of the firm’s actual annual variable compensation pay-outs 2• Head of business unit 0• Compensation or remuneration committee 1• Senior Management or Board of Directors 2

26. Disclosure by the firm to clients of quantum and design of PM’s compensation 1• No it will not disclose 0• Yes it will disclose design only 0.5• Yes it will disclose design and quantum 1TOTAL 20

APPENDIX 3 – SCORING CRITERIA

62

•

Fixed Income Max Score27. Percentage of the firm’s fixed income assets managed subject to ESG considerations 3

• Not disclosed 0• Under 5% 1• Between 5% and 50% 2• Over 50% 3

28. Change of fixed income assets managed subject to ESG considerations in last three years 3• No change 0• Increase by under 5% or increase undisclosed 1• Increase between 5% and 10% 2• Increase by over 10% or already at 100% 3

29. Adoption of negative screening or best-in-class approaches in fixed income portfolios 3• No screening approach used 0• Negative screening or best-in-class screening approach used 1• Generic description of screening criteria used 2• Comprehensive description of screening criteria used 3

30. Procedure for identifying ESG-compliant prospective investments 3• No description of procedure 0• Generic description of non-standard procedure 1• Comprehensive description of non-standard procedure 2• Description of standard procedure 3TOTAL 12

SURVEY RESPONSE TOTAL 90

OVERALL TOTAL 143

APPENDIX 3 – SCORING CRITERIA

63

64

ShareActionGround Floor +44 (0)20 7403 780016 Crucifix Lane info@shareaction.org.ukLondon SE1 3JW www.shareaction.org.uk £7.00