I missed most of the morning due to a regional committee meeting and came in during the end of the Stewardship Panel Q&A.
I then went to a workshop on “Shareholder Resolutions” led by Tom Powdrill from PIRC, the notoriously shy and retiring UNISON National Capital Stewardship officer, Colin Meech and Unite National officer, Jack Clarke (see above left to right).
Tom explained that in December 2010 fund managers must explain why not or publish their voting record at the AGM’s of the companies whose shares they “hold” on behalf of investors.
To be able to table a motion at a British AGM you need 5% of total voters or 100 x £100 nominal value (Nominal £10k). You must table this motion within strict time limits to prevent the company charging you the full costs of circulating details of your motion.
There have been 8 Environmental Social and Governance (ESG) motions in the last 5 years. Mostly led by trade unions. Warning that many companies see such motions as a confrontational tactic. So you should try and make it appear constructive? Not "anti-company". Instead of appearing to give instructions make suggestions. However, direct motions may well be the only realistic option if companies are being unreasonable. To get the vote out you must contact all major shareholders, investor representative bodies and meet them - preferably face to face.
But you must demonstrate you have tried to engage with the company first. Note fund managers generally vote against ESG motions. Even those who claim to be supportive of ESG principles.
The LAPFF "Marks and Spencer" motion against a combined company chief executive also being the company chair was a landmark occurrence. There had been significant engagement beforehand about best practice. Stuart Rose now says that it was his worse mistake (not to separate the roles of Chair and CEO). Marks and Spencer have now a separate Chair and CEO and comply with best practice. The panel were "disappointed" that L&G tracker fund managers voted against this (why on earth did L&G do this?) and that they had 4.5% share of the company. Remember that there is only usually 50% turnout of shareowners at AGM's. So you can have a greater affect even if you only have control of a smaller number of shares. The ESG motion on anti-trade union activities of First Group in the USA did result in significant change in company behaviour.
Colin talked about the Fair Pensions BP/Shell Tar Sands motions and the UNISON staff pension fund which helped bring it about. UNISON staff pension scheme has a broad screening programme such as not to invest PFI contractors.They cleared the proposed motion with the Canadian PSI trade unions beforehand. The motion fitted UNISON policy on climate change. It was crucial to get the support of the large American public sector funds. 45% global pension funds are in the USA. He reminded us all of the Freshfields legal opinion's that such “responsible” investment is a fiduary duty of Trustees. Colin recommended the book Hawley and Williams “The Rise of Fiduciary Capitalism”.
Jack Clarke pointed out that Unite spend 10% of their budget on organising. He talked about the Meat workers campaign. They gained 10,000 new members and 250 new stewards. A key issue was agency working. Agencies undercut permanent workers and exploited staff. The Union wanted equal treatment. They worked on a supply chain strategy. 85% of the meat market goes to retail shops. They pushed Tesco and other large UK retailers in a pincer movement, above (by share motions) and below (from workers). Tesco is a key market driver. They tabled a solution at the AGM with West Yorkshire Pension Fund on this issue. 11% shareholders voted in favour and 7% abstained. There was widespread press coverage. ASDA signed a deal with Unite for equal treatment in the UK and Ireland. 50,000 workers affected in the UK and gained parity of pay and were now usually made permanent after 13 weeks agency work. Lessons: Resource intensive; you need to have economic as well as morale case. Needs to be more active engagement with trade union trustees. It is vital to deliver bottom up pressure on fund managers.
