main
Regulatory -- banner Regulatory banner image Contact Us

Regulatory

The Matheson Group Pension Plan
Implementation Statement - 30 June 2025

Why have we produced this Statement?

The Trustees of The Matheson Group Pension Plan have prepared this statement to comply with the requirements of the Occupational Pension Plans (Investment and Disclosure) (Amendment) Regulations 2019.

This statement sets out how the Trustees have complied with the voting and engagement policies detailed in the Plan's Statement of Investment Principles (SIP).

A copy of the SIP can be found on the following website: www.matheson.co.uk/regulatory?tab=pension-plan-statement-of-investment-principles.

What is the Statement of Investment Principles (SIP)?

The SIP sets out key investment policies including the Trustees' investment objectives and investment strategy.

It also explains how and why the Trustees delegate certain responsibilities to third parties and the risks the Plan faces and the mitigated responses.

The Trustees last reviewed the SIP in June 2024.

What is the purpose of this Statement?

  1. To explain how the Trustees' engagement policy has been applied over the year. 

  2. To describe the voting rights attached the Plan's assets have been exercised over the year.

What changes have we made to the SIP?

There were no changes made to the SIP over the year.

Why does the Trustees believe voting and engagement is important? 

The Trustees' view is that Environmental, Social and Governance ("ESG") factors can have a potential impact on investment returns, particularly over the long-term and therefore contribute to the security of members' benefits. The Trustees further believe that voting and engagement are important tools to influence these issues.

The Trustees have appointed a Fiduciary Manager who shares this view and considers and integrates ESG factors, voting and engagement in its processes. 

The Trustees incorporate an assessment of the Fiduciary Manager's performance in this area as part of its overall assessment of the Fiduciary Manager's performance. 

What are the Trustees' voting and engagement policy?

When considering its policy in relation to stewardship including engagement and voting, the Trustees expect investment managers to address broad ESG considerations, but has identified climate change, and human and labour rights as areas of focus.

The day-to-day integration of ESG considerations, voting and engagement are delegated to the investment managers. The Trustees expect investment managers to sign up to local Stewardship Codes and to act as responsible stewards of capital. 

Where ESG factors are considered to be particularly influential to outcomes, the Trustees expect the Fiduciary Manager to engage with investment managers to improve their processes. 

What are the Fiduciary Manager's policies?
Climate change and net zero goal Public policy and corporate engagement Industry initiatives

The Trustees believe Climate Change is a current priority when engaging with public policy, investment managers and corporates.

The Fiduciary Manager has a goal to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions across 'In Scope Solutions' by 2050. They believe the trajectory is important, so are also aiming to approximately halve emissions per amount invested by 2030.

The Fiduciary Manager employs an external stewardship service provider, whose services include public policy engagement, and corporate voting and engagement on behalf of its clients (including the Trustees).

Some highlights from 2024 include:

  • 994 companies engaged across regions on 4,267 issues and objectives
  • 62 companies in their core programme featured engagements with the CEO or chair
  • Making voting recommendations on 143,075 resolutions at 14,701 meetings, including recommended votes against 25,070 resolutions
  • Participation in a range of global stewardship initiatives.

The Fiduciary Manager participated in a range of industry initiatives over the year to seek to exercise good stewardship practices. Please refer to their latest UK Stewardship Code for more information: https://www.wtwco.com/en-gb/solutions/services/sustainable-Investment.

How does the Fiduciary Manager assess the investment managers? 

Investment manager appointment - The Fiduciary Manager considers the investment managers' policies and activities in relation to ESG factors and stewardship (which includes voting and engagement) at the appointment of a new manager. In 2024 the Fiduciary Manager conducted engagements with over 70 managers across asset classes. They also engaged over 100 products on sustainability and stewardship. In addition, over 150 sustainability-theme strategies were researched.

Investment manager monitoring - The Fiduciary Manager produces detailed reports on the investment managers' ESG integration and stewardship capabilities on an annual basis. 

Investment manager termination - The Fiduciary Manager engages with investment managers to improve their practices and increases the bar by which they are assessed as best practice evolves. The Fiduciary Manager may terminate an investment manager's appointment if they fail to demonstrate an acceptable level of practice in these areas. However, no investment managers were terminated on these grounds during the year. 

Example of engagement carried out over the year
Infrastructure manager
Climate Change - Climate reporting issue
Emerging market equity manager
Climate change - Water security issue
Secure Income manager
General ESG issue

Issue: This investment manager is a leading investor, developer, and long-term manager of core infrastructure assets. This engagement formed part of the Fiduciary Manager's annual Sustainable Investment (SI) review of the manager, in alignment with its broader investment approach. SI engagement emphasises transparency, climate risk management and alignment, for example with global sustainability goals like SDG 13: Climate Action. The engagement was prompted by gaps identified in ESG reporting, including the absence of data on climate solutions and limited carbon emissions or footprint data; limited disclosure of carbon reduction targets; and further detail sought for the work the firm was undertaking in the area of climate-related risks.

 

Outcome: The manager acknowledged that, while not all their funds had completed the EU Taxonomy alignment process, eligible climate solutions were present in portfolios and would be better reflected in future disclosures. The firm published TCFD-aligned reports in 2024 using PCAF data and is working to improve asset-level data collection for future reporting. It also committed to set portfolio-level carbon reduction targets, following the firm-wide ambition set in 2024. On climate risk, the manager has partnered with industry specialists to be at the vanguard of understanding this area. It is developing a more advanced approach to assess materiality and financral impact on the assets in which the firm has invested.

Looking ahead, the manager agreed that the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) is going to be a component of reporting in 2025 as a number of assets fall into scope. It has also commissioned a portfolio decarbonisation study focused on social infrastructure concessions, a more challenging area of the infrastructure opportunity set. A key priority going forward is improving the quality and consistency of carbon emissions and footprint data across their portfolios, an effort which remains ongoing.

Issue: Water security is important for businesses and society, and hence a financial risk for investors. In South Africa, water risk is a thematic area of focus for this particular asset manager. As part of its engagement, the manager requested information from companies, including disclosure of water consumption or withdrawal data, and details on processes and controls for assessing water-related risks and responding to water loss events. Additionally, the manager wanted to understand how companies are managing water risks, and companies' water risk management policies and water reduction targets.

In 2023, the manager assessed water risks across the Johannesburg Stock Exchange Top 100, analysing disclosures, reduction targets, and penalties, while engaging with 58 companies. By 2024, the manager refined the analysis to 31 high-risk companies based on water usage, sector risks, and regional stress. They then analysed their public disclosures to identify gaps in oversight, mitigation strategies, targets, risk assessment, and supplier engagement. Using these insights, they assessed overall water risk management and developed tailored engagement questions for 19 companies with remaining concerns.

Outcome: One investee company confirmed exposure to water stress in three sites and outlined mitigation efforts including efficiency improvements, expanded water reuse, and a targeted reduction by 2030. The company acknowledged the regional initiative to lower water consumption and plans to participate in a project to enhance water security.

Overall, these discussions strengthened the manager's understanding of municipal water management efforts and informed ongoing engagements with companies on water-related risks, which may be financially material.

Issue: As part of the annual ESG review, the manager focused on addressing key deficiencies identified during the previous engagement. These deficiencies included the lack of a dedicated Inclusion and Diversity (l&D) resource, the absence of climate scenario and Climate Value-at-Risk (CTVaR) analysis for underlying assets, and the lack of disclosure for carbon emissions at both the firm and fund levels.

Outcome: The manager has made significant strides in addressing key areas of improvement. The lack of a dedicated l&D resource has been mitigated by establishing a management committee specifically responsible for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEi). Additionally, a separate workstream has been initiated to develop a comprehensive DEi strategy, which includes a thorough review of current policies.

The absence of CTVaR and climate scenario analysis for underlying assets is being tackled on a firmwide leveL For the Solar II project, a provider has been engaged during the due diligence phase of potential investments. The team is currently in the process of evaluating various providers and aims to finalize their selection by the end of the year.

While there has been no disclosure of firm or fund-level carbon emissions previously, the manager has now reported firm-level emissions. Although Scope 3 emissions are still pending, efforts are actively underway to address this gap.

What are the voting statistics we provide? 

The Plan is invested across a diverse range of asset classes which carry different ownership rights, for example bonds do not have voting rights attached. Therefore, voting information was only requested from the Plan's equity investment managers. 

Responses received are provided in the following pages. The Trustees used the following criteria to determine the most significant votes: 

  • The manager deems the vote to be notable for the scheme significant
  • The vote is in one of the stewardship priority areas identified (climate change, and human and labour rights).
  • The size of the company holding related to the vote
  • It was a vote against company management
  • The vote provides representation of the stewardship activity across different types of investment manager and mandates
  • The total number of votes identified and reported by the Trustee is at a proportionate level

The Plan is invested in both active (trying to outperform the market) and passive (aiming to perform in line with the market) equity funds.

How have our Investment Managers voted over the last 12 months?

Towers Watson Partners Fund
Pooled multi-asset growth fund

How many votes has this manager cast?

Number of meetings at which the manager was eligible to vote: 1,895
Number of resolutions on which manager was eligible to vote: 26,327
Percentage of eligible votes cast: 99.0%
Of the votes cast, percentage of votes
with management: 89.0%
against management: 10.0%
abstained from: 1.0%
% of meetings, where the manager voted and there was at least one vote against management: 52.8%
% of resolutions, where the manager voted and the vote was contrary to the recommendation of the proxy adviser? (if applicable} 3.7%

What is this manager's voting policy?

As the manager manages Fund of Funds, the voting rights for the holdings are the responsibility of the underlying managers. The manager expects all their underlying managers who hold equities over a reasonable timeframe to vote all shares they hold. The manager has appointed EOS at Federated Hermes (EOS) to provide voting recommendations to enhance engagement and achieve responsible ownership. EOS also carries out public policy engagement and advocacy on behalf of all their clients. In addition, EOS is expanding the remit of engagement activity they perform on the manager's behalf beyond public equity markets, which will enhance stewardship practices over time.

Underlying managers are required to provide a detailed explanation and rationale whenever their voting decisions diverge from the EOS recommendations. They also utilise Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) for voting facilitation and research purposes. Additionally, their China equity manager employs the Glass Lewis service, utilising a bespoke policy. Their emerging markets equity managers use ISS, Glass Lewis, SES and Broadridge Proxy Edge platforms for information and to facilitate voting. Meanwhile, their long-short equity managers use ISS to provide corporate research and to facilitate the voting process.

Which of these votes do we think were significant?

Company:
Resolution:
Microsoft Corporation
Report on risks of operating in countries with significant human rights concerns
Allocation in manager portfolio: 1.7%
Date of vote: 10 December 2024
How voted: For the shareholder proposal, against management recommendation
Prior notice to management (if voting against management): No
Manager rationale for vote: Additional transparency through an independent assessment would benefit the shareholders and stakeholders
Trustee rationale for significance: Vote topic is one of the stewardship priorities (human rights) and size of position. The manager also voted against the management recommendation.
Outcome of the vote:
Implications of the outcome:
Resolution failed
The manager will continue to vote proxies in the interest of maximising investment value for clients.
Company:
Resolution:
Meta Platforms
Disclose a climate transition plan resulting in new renewable energy capacity
Allocation in manager portfolio: 1.1%
Date of vote: 14 May 2025
How voted: For the shareholder proposal, against management recommendation
Prior notice to management (if voting against management): No
Manager rationale for vote: Promote transparency around environmental issues. The manager considers environmental factors to be an important consideration in assessing the long-term predictability and sustainability of a company's revenue and earnings growth.
Trustee rationale for significance: Vote topic is one of the stewardship priorities (climate change) and size of position. The manager also voted against the management recommendation.
Outcome of the vote:
Implications of the outcome:
Resolution failed
The manager will continue to consider proposals whether from management or shareholders which enhance transparency around environmental issues.
Company:
Resolution:
Amazon
Shareholder proposal regarding disclosure of material Scope 3 emissions
Allocation in manager portfolio: 0.9%
Date of vote: 21 May 2025
How voted: Against shareholder proposal, with management recommendation
Prior notice to management (if voting against management): Not applicable
Manager rationale for vote: The company has various initiatives in place and does not appear to have neglected issues related to its value chain emissions. The company notes that its supply chain standards set forth its expectation that suppliers track, document, and, upon request, report greenhouse gas emissions to the company. Additionally, the highest-emitting suppliers that contribute over 50% of Scope 3 emissions are expected to provide a plan for decarbonizing operations. It has also introduced a sustainability solutions hub to help sellers reduce emissions.
Trustee rationale for significance: Vote topic is one of the stewardship priorities (climate change) and size of position.
Outcome of the vote: Resolution failed
Implications of the outcome: The manager will continue to monitor the company's approach to its climate disclosures and may change their recommendation on future proposals should it become clear that it is not making sufficient progress toward its commitments.
Company:
Resolution:
NVIDIA Corp.
Shareholder proposal regarding workforce data
Allocation in manager portfolio: 0.7%
Date of vote: 25 June 2025
How voted: For shareholder proposal, against management recommendation
Prior notice to management (if voting against management): No
Manager rationale for vote: This proposal asks the company to enhance its existing public reporting to include a chart identifying employees according to gender and race in each of the nine EEOC-defined job categories. The company previously provided this information from 2018 to 2022 but no longer publishes this disclosure. As of April 2024, over 80% of the S&P 500 and nearly 50% of the Russell 1000 Index companies disclose EEO-1 data. While the company's disclosures around workforce demographics are fairly comprehensive, EEO-1 reporting provides shareholders with data that is comparable across industry peers. Moreover, this reporting is already required and therefore should not be a significant burden to make available to shareholders. While the company's stance is that the data does not accurately depict its practices given its organizational structure, it would be a helpful supplement to existing reporting and increase shareholders' understanding of how the company is addressing human capital-related risk exposures.
Trustee rationale for significance: Vote topic is one of the stewardship priorities (human rights). The manager also voted against the management recommendation.
Outcome of the vote:
Implications of the outcome:
Resolution failed
Although the proposal did not pass, given the relatively high level of shareholder support, the manager may follow up with the company in the short or long term for an additional engagement.
Company:
Resolution:
Netflix Inc.
Shareholder proposal regarding climate transition plan
Allocation in manager portfolio: 0.9%
Date of vote: 5 June 2025
How voted: Against shareholder proposal, with management recommendation
Prior notice to management (if voting against management): Not applicable
Manager rationale for vote: The proposal requests the company to issue a climate transition plan "above and beyond existing disclosure," describing how it intends to align its operations and full value chain emissions with existing science-based targets. However, the company has already adopted emissions targets that are aligned with the Paris Agreement and reports on progress toward these goals annually, in line with TCFD standards. The company has also published a long-term plan to achieve these targets, on par with industry peers. Given the current level of climate reporting by the company, the manager finds this proposal to be unnecessary and overly prescriptive and recommended voting against.
Trustee rationale for significance: Vote topic is one of the stewardship priorities (climate change)
Outcome of the vote:
Implications of the outcome:
Resolution failed
The proposal did not pass, which is in line with the manager's decision to vote against.
Company:
Resolution:
HCA Healthcare Inc.
Amend patient safety and quality of care committee charter
Allocation in manager portfolio: 0.5%
Date of vote: 24 April 2025
How voted: For shareholder proposal, against management recommendation
Prior notice to management (if voting against management): No
Manager rationale for vote: The core of the proposal is to mandate that the committee review staffing levels and their direct influence on patient safety, the quality of care provided, and overall patient satisfaction. The manager felt that the shareholder proposal promotes appropriate accountability or incentivisation.
Trustee rationale for significance: Vote topic is one of the stewardship priorities (human rights). The manager also voted against the management recommendation.
Outcome of the vote:
Implications of the outcome:
Resolution failed
The manager will share these best practices with other portfolio companies

In conclusion... 

The Trustees are satisfied that over the year, all SIP policies and principles were adhered and in particular, those relating to voting and engagement.