Among these will be the chance to vote on each firms’ plans for climate action, confirming the steps they aim to take in supporting environmental, social and governance change.
As a pensions and investments provider, Aegon works with a variety of third-party fund managers, each of whom has a right to vote on the issues raised at the AGMs of companies they are invested in. And, as part of our own efforts to drive positive change through the investments we offer, we directly engage with these fund managers to ensure that our responsible investing requirements are being met, and to share our voting preferences ahead of important ESG-related votes. We call this our ‘Expression of Wish’.
With the Shell and Glencore AGMs taking place in the next few weeks, and having reviewed their climate action plans, we are urging fund managers to vote against:
• Shell’s energy transition strategy and/or re-election of directors
• Glencore’s climate action transition plan and/or re-election of directors
Hilkka Komulainen, Head of Responsible Investing at Aegon, explains why we are urging fund managers to vote against Shell’s energy transition strategy: We have material questions about the board’s ability to ensure its business model is sustainable over the longer term.
“We’d like to see Shell provide more accountability and comprehensive disclosures in line with its stated support for the Paris Agreement goals.
“There’s a lack of a credible plan for reducing absolute scope 3 emissions across the organisation. This can be seen by Shell’s weakened climate ambition, a new remuneration policy that rewards liquefied natural gas sales instead of low carbon product sales or building renewables, and the use of higher oil and gas price assumptions and lower investment hurdle rates than peers.”
Hilkka also outlines why we are against Glencore’s climate action plan: “We’re disappointed by Glencore’s reduced transparency on coal capex, despite investors’ calls for improved disclosure.
“There are concerns that Glencore’s lobbying activities – including the use of investor-state dispute settlement against states – have hindered climate policy developments.
“We’d like the company to consider going further – including disclosure on forward coal production guidance; clarity on its climate strategy for the Elk Valley Resources’ assets; and regard to industry best practice, such as the Greenhouse Gas protocol and the International Energy Agency’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 pathway.”
|
