Our project to examine the extent to which fossil fuel companies are aligned with the Paris Agreement has made further progress. Following a review of the indicators we are using, we have analysed more companies. We have also extended our work from oil and gas to mining companies. We remain on track to make judgments on oil and gas, and coal, companies in the first half of next year. We are assessing these companies in the round and over time because a snapshot of current information does not reveal which companies appear committed to change in practice. It is clear considerable further change is required in this sector.
We analysed Fortis, a Canadian utility company according to our electricity generation policy. We decided to exclude it because it had a high exposure to power generation from coal.
We supported a shareholder resolution at the BHP Billiton AGMs, calling for membership of lobbying groups to more clearly reflect the need to support transition to a low carbon economy. This followed the news that the company remained a member of the Minerals Council of Australia which has spent significant sums on pro-coal lobbying and advertising.
Our work on low carbon transition across portfolios continues, including in collaboration with other investors. We have joined the IIGCC Paris Aligned Investment Initiative, focusing on listed equity and corporate bond assets.
Over the summer months we have been engaging with some of our investors around the issue of investments in fossil fuels. It is clear that some of our investors would like to proceed more quickly and disinvest from oil and gas producers now. Following those discussions we held a successful client conference, Beyond fossil fuels, to discuss how a new fund avoiding oil and gas producers would look.
This discussed the investment focus of a new fund, the investment implications of disinvesting from oil & gas and whether investors were comfortable remaining invested in heavily polluting industries such as airlines or cement. Following the conference we have consulted further and we are now engaging in detailed fund design.
We are committed to managing portfolios with carbon footprints that are relatively low and measurably declining. We commission Trucost to analyse our portfolios annually. The emissions allocated to each company include Scope I & II emissions (direct and energy) and the supply chain elements of Scope III, though not the customer use elements of Scope III. In particular, the emissions released by burning fossil fuels are not allocated to the fossil fuel companies.
The data for 28 February shows the carbon footprint of the UK equity portfolios rose over the year and is above the market. One reason for this is that our ethical approach excludes the relatively lower carbon intense tobacco sector and is therefore more likely to have a higher weighting in utility companies. In addition, much of the difference between the portfolios and the market can be explained by the fact that the portfolios hold Cranswick and Hilton Food Group. These are food production companies involved in the meat industry. Trucost attributes to their footprint the carbon emissions from the animals in their supply chains.
This result raises some interesting issues. Animals do release greenhouse gasses yet we have not taken the view that meat consumption is unethical. It highlights that there are trade offs for society. We are reviewing the result nevertheless. It should also be noted that there is no consensus about how a portfolio carbon footprint should be calculated and other methodologies produce different results.
Alongside other investors, we are engaging with the Marine Stewardship Council to encourage it to reference ‘ghost gear’ in its sustainable fisheries standard. ‘Ghost gear’ is old fishing gear that can be lost or abandoned in the ocean, significantly contributing to the level of plastic pollution.
We supported an investor response to a UK government consultation, entitled Transparency in the supply chain. The response called for mandatory reporting to be expanded from the private to the public sector, noting that Modern Slavery is a risk in all organisations. It recommended improved reporting on the outcomes of actions companies take. Separately, we engaged with Watkins Jones and The Renewables Infrastructure Group about their policies and approach towards combatting Modern Slavery.
We are participating in the Access to Medicines engagement programme, which will be engaging with 19 listed pharmaceutical companies on both access to medicine and the third Sustainable Development Goal, which focuses on healthy lives and promoting wellbeing for all ages. The purpose is to encourage companies to continue their efforts to improve access to medicines in low and middle income countries.
Healthy and adequate nutrition has long been an ethical investment concern of ours. Our policies on children’s issues and on the food industry highlight it as an area for engagement, noting both the challenges of childhood obesity and malnutrition. We have joined with an initiative run by ShareAction which aims to engage with companies about childhood obesity. ShareAction is working with Access to Nutrition, an initiative with which we are already involved. We are likely to sign a supportive investor statement later in the autumn.
The quarter marks the end of the main voting season. We voted at 14 UK AGMs, opposing 67% of remuneration votes, including those for Berkeley Group, BT Group, Burberry, Cranswick, Experian, SSE and Vodafone. Insufficient boardroom gender diversity prompted votes against Nomination Committee chairs at BT Group, DS Smith, National Grid and SSE. The Epworth Global Equity Fund for Charities voted at 10 AGMs, opposing all three remuneration votes.
Full voting reports are available on request and a summary is published on our website.
Climate change continues to be one of the main areas of our ethical work. We co-filed a shareholder resolution at BP’s AGM, calling on the company to explain how it will align with the Paris Agreement. The resolution secured the BP board’s backing and was passed with 99.47% of votes. We also supported a resolution organised by the activist group ‘Follow This’ calling on BP to go further, including publishing Scope 3 emissions targets; unfortunately, this only secured the backing of 8.35% of investors.
We attended the Anglo American AGM, where we made a statement on behalf of the Climate 100+ investor coalition; we co-lead on engagement with Anglo American. This is part of an ongoing dialogue being lead by the CFB and Hermes in regard to Anglo American’s transition to a low carbon economy. This involves biannual meetings with the company to raise issues related to climate change, including climate linked remuneration, scope 3 emissions, and the reduction of coal mining. We look forward to the next meeting with Anglo American.
We continue to work on our project to evaluate the consistency fossil fuel companies’ business models with the Paris Agreement. We remain on track to draw final conclusions in 2020. With the launch of the new Global Equity Fund for Charities, we had to undertake an interim judgement on a number of global oil companies and decided that some would be highly unlikely to meet the criteria and so excluded Chevron, ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil from investment.
We have already excluded several other fossil fuel producers under our existing policies and it is likely we will exclude further companies in future. However, we are aware that some clients want to move faster so we are consulting on the potential for launching a fund which excludes all companies with significant involvement in fossil fuel extraction.
The approach banks have been taking with their lending policies and climate change has been another area of focus. We have engaged directly with the Canadian banks to which we have exposure with respect to their lending to companies involved in tar sands projects, and found their responses to be disappointing. We are reflecting on the next steps. We have also joined other investors in writing letters to Barclays and Unicredit regarding their lending to fossil fuel projects.
The tailings dam disaster near Brumadinho in Brazil earlier this year remains very much in the minds of investors. We are part of an investor coalition organised by the Church of England which engages with mining companies on their tailing dams. This initiative has seen letters sent to 651 listed mining companies, in order to create a global register of tailings storage facilities. This is designed to raise awareness of the tailings facilities that the company owns or operates in order to see which company has responsibility for the facilities, and the scale of the risks that it faces. As of 5 July 2019, 31% of companies contacted have responded, and we were pleased to see that included 34 of the top 50 mining companies. We continue to be active in this coalition.
The Mining and Faith Reflections Initiative (MFRI), of which we are part, organised a conference in the Vatican on Mining and the Common Good. Delegates included church, NGO, and local community representatives along with mining CEOs and other executives.
We have been engaging with tea producers for some time, recognising the abuses that can take place within the sector. We wrote to Unilever to ask for greater transparency on the estates from which it sources tea and requesting this to be disclosed publically. We were pleased to receive a response from Unilever, which confirmed that the company will now publish the tea estates it sources its UK and Ireland tea from on its webpage.
We continue to monitor investment issues with respect to Israel Palestine, applying our dedicated policy. We had engaged for some time with Heidelberg Cement; however for unconnected reasons our funds no longer hold shares in this company.
As part of our work with ShareAction, we engaged with Reckitt Benckiser and Intercontinental Hotels Group in June to encourage both companies to become Living Wage accredited. We look forward to hearing their responses in due course.
We have continued to engage with companies on the issue of plastic pollution. We contacted Ted Baker about the use of plastic micro fibres used in the clothing industry. These can end up in oceans. In its response, Ted Baker highlighted its commitment to using sustainable fibres where possible and it noted that natural fibres can also have negative impacts from the use of natural resources such as water. We co-signed a letter to 50 global consumer goods companies organised by As You Sow, an American NGO, encouraging them to complete a survey on plastic packaging, to allow an assessment of their approaches.
The PRI annually undertakes an assessment of its members’ approaches and activities with respect to responsible investment. We achieved A+ ratings for our overall ESG strategy and governance, A+ for our approach with indirect holdings, A+ for our incorporation of ethics into our management of our equity holdings, and As for active equity and corporate bond ownership.
Q2 was a busy quarter for voting with many companies holding their AGMs. Our voting policies resulted in voting against three quarters of remuneration reports in the UK, in many cases because of excess levels of remuneration. We oppose the election of directors where policies or outcomes on remuneration, board diversity, tax transparency, climate change or corporate governance are particularly poor. This resulted in opposing 14% of directors in the quarter. Our voting policies are applied to all of our holdings in the new Global Equity Fund as well as our UK Funds.