2013 Annual RI report

Schroders

Responsible Investment Report

2013 Annual Report

Contents Page Schroders overview ··········································································································· 1

Active owners ··················································································································· 3 Engagement ···································································································3 Proxy voting and shareholder resolutions ······························································8

Integration ······················································································································ 11 Responsible investment special topics ································································ 14 Themed funds ······························································································· 16 Ethical assets under management ····································································· 19

Collaboration, industry involvement, seminars and training ······················································ 22 Collaborative initiatives ···················································································· 22 Industry bodies promoting ESG practices ···························································· 22 Seminars providing training and learning ····························································· 22

Responsible property investment ························································································ 23

Responsible fixed income investment ·················································································· 24

Compliance with UN principles for responsible investment ····················································· 25 Important Information

This document is intended to be for information purposes only and it is not intended as promotional material in any respect. The material is not intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument. The material is not intended to provide, and should not be relied on for, accounting, legal or tax advice, or investment recommendations. Information herein is believed to be reliable but Schroder Investment Management Ltd (Schroders) does not warrant its completeness or accuracy. No responsibility can be accepted for errors of fact or opinion. This does not exclude or restrict any duty or liability that Schroders has to its customers under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (as amended from time to time) or any other regulatory system. Schroders has expressed its own views and opinions in this document and these may change. Reliance should not be placed on the views and information in the document when taking individual investment and/or strategic decisions. Issued by Schroder Investment Management Limited, 31 Gresham Street, London EC2V 7QA, which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.

Schroders Responsible Investment Report 2013 Annual Report

1

Schroders overview Schroders is a global asset management company which has developed under stable ownership for over 210 years. Asset management is our business and our goals are completely aligned with those of our clients – the creation of long-term value. We are a diverse asset management company, managing £262.9 billion (as at year-end 2013) on behalf of institutional investors, financial institutions and high net worth clients around the world, invested in a broad range of asset classes across equities, fixed income and alternatives.

Figure 1: Assets under management (AUM) by product and region (December 31, 2013)

We employ more than 3,500 talented people worldwide, operating from 37 offices in 27 different countries (as at year-end 2013) across Europe, the Americas, Asia and the Middle East. As responsible investors we consider the long-term risks and opportunities that will affect the resilience of the assets in which we invest. This approach is supported by the Global Equities Responsible Investment Policy, the Investment & Corporate Governance: Schroders Policy, the Global Fixed Income Policy and the Responsible Property Investment Policy.

45%

17%

20%

7%

11%

Equities

Fixed Income

Multi-asset

EMD, Commodities & Property

Wealth Management

41%

17%

3%

24%

13%

2%

UK

Continental Europe

Middle East

Asia Pacific

North America

South America


2

Responsible investment at Schroders Schroders has had a responsible investment (RI) approach for over 15 years. Whilst the moniker for this investment process has varied over the years, its aims and methods have not. These are to be active owners of the companies in which we invest and to reflect environmental, social and governance (ESG) value drivers within our investment process. It includes the long-term aim of developing an investment process which meets the needs of the current generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Below we list the areas of responsible investment in which we are involved and which will be covered in greater detail within this report. Active owners This refers to our role as active stewards of the companies in which we invest and covers our voting and engagement activities with management on ESG issues in order to enhance shareholder value and to improve our understanding of these companies. Integration Integration is one of the most recent phrases to come under the responsible investment umbrella of terms. It refers to how ESG factors are integrated into the investment process. This can mean many things to many people, and the level of sophistication behind integration will vary. Within the integration section of this report we include the following sections:

- Negative exclusion: this excludes stocks on the basis of the products or services they provide. Whilst this has tended to reflect moral views, the issues covered tend to have had a financial impact to a business whether this is through customer boycotts (e.g. anti-Apartheid) or through regulatory costs (e.g. evolving tobacco and alcohol regulation)

- Thematic investment: for example, the Schroders Global Climate Change fund. This has a high degree of integration with the philosophy of the product reflecting the belief that thematic factors (such as climate change or water resources) will be a driver for future value within an identified investable universe.

- Integrated analysis: when a company’s management of its ESG risks and opportunities is used to inform stock valuation and selection decisions, as well as to inform stewardship activities with company management.

Our approach to ESG has historically focused on the equity side of the business. This partly reflects the fact that equity holders have more access to company management and hence the ability to engage companies on ESG issues, but also reflects historical demand trends for ESG approaches. However, in addition to our ESG focus on global equities, we also have ESG policies covering our property and fixed income products and the integration of ESG into these product classes is an evolving area. There is a team of six ESG specialists involved in the implementation of our responsible investment and corporate governance policies, three of whom focus on corporate governance and three on the environmental and social elements of ESG. This year saw the team being managed under one team manager who also brings considerable investment expertise to the role which will help in the continued efforts to develop tools for integrating ESG research into our investment process. The ESG team is supported by specialist ESG research providers as well as by allocating a proportion of our broker commission to those brokers providing value through their ESG research services. Industry involvement In addition to our work with the internal investment teams we also participate in and support industry initiatives in ESG. In the majority of cases we have been long-term supporters of these initiatives, helping to bring our learnings to a wider audience as well as learning from other practitioners in this field. Support for industry bodies such as the UK Sustainable Investment and Finance forum, European Sustainable Investment Forum and the Principles of Responsible Investment helps to promote the need to place more emphasis on how ESG factors are reflected in today’s investment processes and the relevance of these to beneficiaries’ long-term well-being.


3

Active owners On behalf of our clients, Schroders has share ownership rights; exercising these rights, through company engagement and proxy voting is an integral part of our role in managing, protecting and enhancing the value of our clients’ investments. In exercising these responsibilities we combine the perspectives of our portfolio managers, company and ESG analysts to form a rounded view of each company and the issues it faces. It follows that we will concentrate on each company’s ability to create sustainable value and may question or challenge companies about ESG issues that we perceive may affect their future value. The following section details our activities with regards to corporate engagement on ESG-specific issues and our voting activities.

Engagement

Why do we engage? Engagement with companies is part of our fundamental approach to the investment process as an active investor. We believe that additional value is created by engaging with companies and their management, but we also recognise that stock selection and asset allocation may have a greater impact on the financial returns of a client’s portfolio. Having said this, we believe that engagement serves to enhance communication and understanding between companies and investors. When engaging with companies on ESG issues it is generally for one or more of the following three reasons: 1. Seeking change in ESG performance and processes that will protect and enhance the value of the

investments for which we are responsible.

2. Monitoring the on-going development of ESG practices, business strategy and financial performance within a company.

3. Filling in gaps in our analysis.

How do we engage? There are numerous permutations for how engagement with company management can be undertaken, from the engagement to collaboration with other stakeholders. Typically the mechanism of engagement with representatives of a company can involve any of the following methods:

- Meeting with company representatives (e.g. members of the Board, senior executives, managers of specialist areas)

- Written correspondence - Phone calls - Discussions with company advisers and stakeholders - Voting.

Collaboration with other stakeholders can range from no collaboration to working with a large number of organisations co-ordinated by a dedicated initiative. Most of Schroders’ engagement activity is a solitary endeavour, though we will also engage with other investors in group meetings (either arranged by us or in which we participate) or through participation in a dedicated initiative (e.g. the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP)). We do not record the number of companies engaged with through multi-stakeholder initiatives such as the CDP within our engagement figures. The CDP will contact more than 5,000 companies to encourage disclosure on climate change-related topics on behalf of its investor signatories. However, our involvement in this is limited to providing input to the development of the questionnaires and to using the data as collated by the CDP. On a quarterly basis we assess the ESG ratings of our desk portfolios alongside the materiality of our exposure to a stock (either by size of clients’ assets invested in a stock or by the percentage of shares held) in order to identify those stocks where ESG performance presents a risk to our investment in the company. This therefore provides a tool for prioritising which stocks to engage with. However, this is not the sole method for determining engagement activities as there will also be instances where a company is on an ESG roadshow and it will benefit us to engage with the company in order to understand what it is doing within ESG.


4

Alternatively we may be researching a specific topic and will therefore need to engage with companies with exposure to the topic. A further example could be as a form of re-active engagement as a result of a negative incident with the company in order to understand why it may have occurred and actions the company is taking as a result.

What is the purpose of engagement? As we have said earlier, engagement is not always with the sole purpose of encouraging change in company ESG performance. It could also be to improve our understanding of a company’s ESG management programme (“fact finding”) in order to improve our knowledge and analysis. Where we do seek change (“change facilitation”), this can be on various topics, from a simple request to encourage improved disclosure on an ESG indicator (in order to enable better analysis), to encouraging the adoption of a specific performance target which would demonstrate effective management of ESG risk exposure. Figure 2 demonstrates that, on average, almost 40% of our company engagement activities have been to request change.

Figure 2: Aims of engagement over last five years

Once a request for change has been made we will review the company’s progress in meeting that request on an annual basis (Table 1). Our assessment of the progress a company has made in meeting the request for change is subjective (and therefore susceptible to human influences) and ranges from “no change” to “achieved”. Table 1 shows the outcomes of the requests for change that we have made. We recognise that every company has a multitude of stakeholders, from employees, customers, the environment, regulators, management and investors, all of whom will be impacted by and impact on the strategy and performance of the company. We therefore recognise that in responding to any request for change, management will have to take into account the range of opinions of these stakeholders and therefore it is unlikely that any one stakeholder group will be solely responsible for any changes made. We also acknowledge that any changes will take time to be implemented into a company’s business process, and therefore only review requests for change a year after they have been made. Table 1: Effectiveness of requests for change

14 yr Average 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Achieved 50% 45% 33% 19% 25% 3%

Almost 33% 48% 40% 51% 5% 0%

Some change 9% 6% 20% 14% 33% 3%

No change 8% 0% 7% 16% 38% 0%

On-going 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 95%

Success rate 83% 94% 73% 70% 30% 3%

The data in Table 1 clearly shows the influence of time on the success of any requests for change. We put this down to a number of possible reasons:

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

14-yraverage

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Change Facilitation

Fact Finding


5

– Companies might take longer than one year to implement a response to change (note the difference between the success rate for 2012 requests for change versus 2011).

– As companies continue to improve their ESG performance, any requests for change may be focusing on more specialist areas making the likelihood of achieving change smaller.

– We re-visit older requests, aiming to ensure that over time the request is at least “almost” achieved or a good reason provided for this not to be the case, meaning that older requests for change are more likely to be successfully addressed over time. This process of review has seen the long-term average success rate improve from 76% in 2012 to 83% by 2013.

The large number of on-going assessments for 2013 demonstrates the annual review process at work, as the majority of these requests will not have been assessed at the time of writing this review.

On what do we engage? Over the course of the year our engagement activity covers numerous companies and sectors whose value chain will be exposed to a large variety of differing ESG issues. This means that we do not have an overarching format for dictating on what issue we should be engaging with a company but rather that the topics for engagement are dictated by each company’s individual circumstances. Given the number and diversity of companies with which we engaged on ESG issues during 2013 (as demonstrated in Table 4) there is a great variety of industries and geographies that these companies belong to and hence a great variety of ESG issues to which they are exposed. In addition to this, the level of ESG disclosure by companies varies significantly both by sector and geography. This means that we will find ourselves engaging on a variety of topics (see Table 2) depending on the company we are meeting with. Table 2: Indicative list of ESG topics engaged on over the course of 2013

Environmental Social Governance

Arctic drilling Biodiversity Climate change Ecosystem services Equator principles Genetically Modified Organisms Product life cycle assessment Resource scarcity Sustainable palm oil

Access to medicines Bribery and corruption Employee engagement Employee health and safety Food safety Human capital management Human rights Labour standards Local community Money laundering Nutrition and obesity Operational health and safety Security Supply chain management

Acquisitions and mergers Board structure Business strategy Dividend policy Governance frameworks Key performance indicators Remuneration Succession planning Targets and objectives Transparency

A look at our work with mining company BHP Billiton offers an example of our engagement activities. We have been meeting with the company since 2002 to discuss its ESG performance. At our first meeting we discussed board diversity (there were no women on the board), coal exposure (it made up 50% of revenues), health and safety, and bribery and corruption. These have been regular topics of engagement throughout our fourteen ESG meetings since 2002. Of the fourteen meetings four have been at the behest of Schroders, and at three of the meetings we have made specific requests for change.

Table 3: Engagement topics with BHP Billiton 2002-2013

Year Topics of engagement

2002 Board diversity, coal exposure, health and safety, bribery and corruption

2003 Climate change, health and safety, AIDS, biodiversity

2004 Health and safety, reflecting health and safety performance in executive remuneration, contractor management, water management

2005 Social licence-to-operate


6

2006 Political risk, health and safety, environmental and social risk assessments of projects, performance targets

2007 Energy and greenhouse gas conservation programmes, coal exposure and clean development mechanisms

2008 Health and safety performance and remuneration

2010 Health and safety performance and remuneration, updating the existing corporate responsibility systems

2011 Carbon trading and exposure to high carbon fuels

2012 Setting absolute reduction targets, water risk exposure, UK Bribery Act, political and corruption risks in project decision making, carbon tax and fossil fuel exposure

2013 Impacts on and impacts by climate change, unburnable carbon, carbon price in project decision making

Where do we engage? As active investors we are engaging with companies on a regular basis. In 2013 our equities teams had 13,396 meetings with companies, whilst the fixed income team had 3,231 meetings. While these meetings may have focused primarily on financial performance they will also have been used to address questions on ESG issues where necessary, though as yet there is no formal process for recording this. However, we do have a formal process for recording instances of specific ESG engagement by the ESG team: the team’s activity in this area is demonstrated in Figure 3. As we have mentioned previously, we do not include the figures for collaborative engagement initiatives such as the Carbon Disclosure Project or the Sustainable Solar Initiative in these figures.

Figure 3: Geographical spread of E&S engagement over the last 5 years

Figure 3 shows the geographic spread of the ESG team’s engagement. Whilst it is encouraging that we have managed to increase the global scope of our activities there is still work to be done in making this distribution more reflective of geographic distribution of our investments. In addition, from a sustainability point of view, there is a strong argument for increasing ESG engagement in regions where current levels of corporate ESG practice and performance could improve considerably. Achieving this objective will have its challenges in the form of language and cultural differences, differing ESG governance systems, the size of our holdings and, not least, the location of the ESG team. During 2013 we participated in a field trip to China, with the explicit purpose of meeting Chinese companies to discuss ESG issues with them and to demonstrate foreign interest in this aspect of their business.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

5-yraverage

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Africa

Asia

South America

North America

Australasia

Continental Europe

UK


7

Table 4: Companies specifically engaged with on ESG topics during 2013

Sector Sub-sector UK Continental Europe Rest of world

Consumer discretionary

Automobiles BMW

Volkswagen

Hotels, restaurants & leisure Carnival Intercontinental Hotels

Multiline retail Kingfisher Marks & Spencer

Metro

Textiles, apparel & luxury goods Burberry LVMH

Consumer staples

Beverages Britvic Pepsico

Food & staples retailing

Sainsburys Tesco Wm Morrisons

Ahold Carrefour Colruyt Danone Groupe Casino

Food products ABF Unilever

Nestle China Mengniu Dairy China Modern Dairy Kraft Foods

Personal products L’Oreal

Energy

Energy equipment & services BP

Integrated oils Gazprom

Oil, gas and consumable fuels

Asia Resource Minerals Royal Dutch Shell

ENI Neste Oil Repsol Total

Apache Exxon Mobil Petrochina Santos

Financials

Capital markets 3i Credit Suisse

Commercial banks HSBC Royal Bank of Scotland Standard Chartered

BNP Credit Agricole Societe Generale

Consumer finance Provident Financial

Diversified financial services Nomura Holdings

Insurance RSA Insurance group Munich Re

Real estate British Land

Healthcare

Pharmaceuticals GlaxosmithKline

Bayer Novo Nordisk

Industrials

Aerospace & defence BAE Systems Ultra Electronics

Lockheed Martin

Airlines International Consolidated Airlines Group

Building products Xinyi Glass

Commercial services & supplies G4S

Electrical equipment Alstom

Industrial conglomerates Sime Darby

Swire Pacific

Machinery Bodycote Machinery

Vallourec

Transportation infrastructure Zhejiang Expressway

Information technology

Communications equipment Prysmian Cisco

Internet software & services Tencent Holdings

Semiconductors & semiconductor equipment

Mediatek Samsung Electronics

Software Dassault

Materials

Chemicals Croda International Victrex

Solvay Syngenta

Monsanto

Construction materials AMEC Semen Indonesia

TOTO ltd

Containers & packaging Greatview Aseptic

Packaging

Metals & mining

Anglo American Antofagasta BHP Billiton GlencoreXstrata

Arcelor MIttal Grupo Mexico Newcrest Mining Teck Resources

Paper & forest products DS Smith Rocktenn

Utilities

Electric utilities Drax

Multi-utilities Centrica

Water utilities Beijing Enterprises Water

Group CT Environmental Group


8

Proxy voting and shareholder resolutions

We recognise our responsibility to make considered use of voting rights. We therefore evaluate voting issues on our investments and, where we have the authority to do so, vote on them in line with our fiduciary responsibilities in what we deem to be the interests of our clients. We vote on all resolutions unless we are restricted from doing so (e.g. as a result of share blocking).

Table 5: Voting activity 2009-20131

Figure 4: 2013 breakdown of resolutions voted on by category (according to MSCI ISS classifications)

As Figure 4 shows, the majority of resolutions target specific corporate governance issues which are required under local stock exchange listing requirements (e.g. approval of directors, accepting reports and accounts, approval of incentive plans). A small minority of these resolutions are tabled by shareholders in the company and focus on the social, ethical and environmental (SEE) issues that a company faces. As with previous years, the majority of these shareholder resolutions have tended to be tabled at the AGMs of US companies (because US corporate governance regulations make this easier to achieve than in other jurisdictions). Where a shareholder resolution of an SEE nature is tabled at the AGM of a company, we will take into account company performance, best practice, whether the company has faced similar resolutions before and, ultimately, if the resolution is in shareholders’ interest. We normally hope to support company management; however, we will withhold support or oppose management if we believe that it is in the best interests of our

1 Please note the figures in this table do not include resolutions or meetings at which we did not vote. We aim to vote

at all meetings except were there are onerous restrictions – for example, where trading is restricted prior to a meeting in shares committed to vote (share blocking), we will usually only vote in cases where the benefit of voting outweighs the ability to trade.

7%1%

55%3%

8%

0%

22%

3%

Capitalisation

Takeover related

Director related

Reorganisation and mergers

Non-salary compensation

Preferred/bondholder

Routine business

Shareholder resolutions

2013 2012 2011 2010 2009

Meetings 6,489 5,633 5,191 4,758 5,032

Resolutions 63,422 49,536 45,350 43,674 46,521

Votes with management 58,862 46,065 42,101 41,497 42,181

Against management 4,560 3,471 3,339 2,177 4,340


9

clients to do so. Further details about Schroders’ approach to voting are covered in Investment and Corporate Governance Policy. Table 6 provides a historical breakdown of recent shareholder resolutions that we have voted on (our records go back to 2000). Whilst it is feasible to attempt to draw conclusions from an analysis of the trends it should also be noted that the investment strategies of Schroders’ fund managers will determine which sectors and companies we will have exposure to and will thus influence which resolutions we will have to vote on. Having said this, we have noticed that certain topics have dropped off shareholder resolution filings (e.g. access to protected areas and AIDS/HIV) whilst there has been a growing interest in areas such as fracking and political lobbying.

Table 6: Social, environmental and ethical shareholder resolution five-year voting records by issue

Eth

ical

Issues 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009

Animal testing/welfare 2 9 6 5 8

GMO 2 1 1 0 1

Weapons 0 0 0 2 5

Tobacco 0 0 1 3 5

Miscellaneous 2 0 1 1 0

En

vir

on

men

t

Toxic chemicals 1 0 3 4 0

Climate change 4 5 9 16 15

Renewable energy & energy efficiency 0 8 5 4 0

Nuclear power 0 14 5 20 3

Environmental policy / programme 4 6 2 16 0

Forestry 0 0 0 0 2

Shale gas/fracking 1 1 3 0


So

cia

l

Equal Opportunities 11 8 12 7 16

Labour standards & human rights 7 3 6 15 12

Drug pricing / access 0 0 1 0 0

Healthcare 0 0 0 0 12

Health & safety 1 3 2 2 3

Pay disparity 1 0 3 0 1


Oth

er

Sustainability report 3 3 3 9 6

Link pay to ESG performance 1 0 1 0 0

Political activity 2 7 0 0 0


Number of resolutions voted on 54 79 81 116 99

Figure 5 demonstrates that the incidence of SEE shareholder resolutions since our records began. There would appear to be a four year decline in the number of SEE resolutions tabled at AGMs, which could reflect improvements in ESG performance at US companies (where the majority of SEE shareholder resolutions are tabled).


10

Figure 5: Total number of shareholder resolutions voted on (2000-2013)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Number of resolutions voted on


11

Integration In its 2013 report “Integrated Analysis: How Investors are addressing environmental, social and governance factors in fundamental equity valuation” the Principles of responsible Investment presented a very useful diagram for picturing how ESG factors could be integrated into the different stages of a textbook stock valuation process. This is shown in Figure 6. Figure 6: Integrating ESG analysis into listed equity analysis

Source: PRI, Integrated Analysis, 2013 Within Schroders we have been working on addressing all the stages of this ESG integration investment chain.

1. Economic Analysis Whilst the majority of historical ESG work has tended to focus on sector or company-specific research we have been increasingly realising the need to emphasise that ESG needs to be reflected in the macro-economic research which guides growth forecasts used in most analysts’ models. This is based on the understanding that the economy is a sub-system of the global environmental system and that changes to one will result in changes to the other (e.g. water scarcity will reduce productivity). We first began writing on this issue in 2009 with the publication of our report “Ecosystem credit crunch”, which highlighted that the depletion and pollution of ecosystem services

2 caused by unsustainable population and

economic growth would have impacts on the sectors and companies directly exposed to these services. We followed this report up in 2011 with “Ecosystem services: Where’s the discussion” which presented the results of our efforts to engage the chief economists of some of the world’s biggest investment banks on how, if at all, they took account of changing ecosystem service function within their long-term forecasts (the catalyst for this piece of work was reading several 2050 economic outlooks, which all failed to reference the impacts of climate change to their forecasts). In 2013, we collaborated with two other asset managers, Alliance Trust and Newton Investment Management, in a repeat of the 2011 project, culminating in the publication of “Broken Models: Economics and ecosystem services”. There are numerous challenges in seeing environmental factors recognised in economic forecasts (one could easily argue that social factors, in the form of productivity and education are already well integrated) ranging from a lack of data, a lack of understanding of the data, client demand and short termism. However we believe that greater integration will improve the quality of analysts modelling, provider greater recognition of

2 There are four recognised ecosystem service groups: supporting services (e.g. nutrient cycling, soil

formation, primary production), provisioning services (e.g. production of fresh water, food, materials and fuels, genetic resources), regulation services (e.g. climate and flood regulation, water purification, pollination and pest control) and cultural services (e.g. aesthetic, spiritual, educational and recreational).

Economic Analysis

Industry Analysis

Company Strategy

Financial Reports

Valuation Tools

Understanding how ESG factors affect economic

growth and macro themes,

such as resource scarcity

Understanding how ESG factors

influence consumer

preference and regulatory

change, such as environmental

legislation

Understanding how a company manages ESG

risks and opportunities, for

example in supply chain management

Understanding how ESG factors

impact on earnings growth,

operational efficiency,

intangible assets and underlying

cash flows

Understanding how analysts are integrating ESG considerations into valuation tools, such as discount rates and economic value added


12

the need for a more rapid update of truly sustainable financial models and enable more informed political discussion and decision making on environmental factors. We are planning on updating the “Broken Models” report in the near future.

2. Industry analysis Perhaps one of the easiest concepts to model is how do ESG factors affect an industry. The impacts could be through numerous factors such as changing consumer preferences (e.g. the increase in demand for organic produce, changing demand for tobacco or alcohol), regulatory impacts (e.g. the aviation sector being included in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme). Clear examples that we would use within Schroders are in the inclusion of a cost of carbon for carbon companies with exposure to Canadian tar sands regulation or indeed for those with exposure to the growing global use of emissions trading regimes. The unburnable carbon piece (see page 15) is an example of an industry-level piece of research, and typically many of our quarterly research reports will focus on industry issues.

3. Company strategy Essentially this refers to how a company’s management is implementing a strategy to minimise the ESG risks and maximise the ESG opportunities presented by the economies and industries to which a company is exposed. The ESG analysts would prepare an in depth report on a company’s ESG performance prior to engaging with a stock, and this would typically enable them to form a view on management’s strategy. For example, “The bee and the stockmarket” (page 14) included an analysis of corporate strategy for managing the issue of pollinator decline. Another example of integration would be in considering how management is minimising corporate exposure to climate change risks (e.g. decreased demand for high-carbon fuels, or increasing supply chain disruptions). This sort of analysis has a much more qualitative nature to it, though quantitative measures could be used to assess the performance of management’s strategy. One would expect that this assessment of ESG strategy (and hence corporate strategy) would be reflected in the growth forecasts that an analyst makes (e.g. terminal growth figures, maturity year and adjustments for the risk premium); however, the extent that ESG performance will impact on this is a subjective assessment. One could also use an assessment of ESG strategy as a differentiator at the stock selection level when faced with an investment choice between two similar stocks.

4. Financial reports There are numerous examples from the companies that we have engaged with over the years demonstrating how ESG factors can affect fundamental financial returns. For example, how will sales be affected by consumer demand, changing weather patterns or new regulations? Or indeed how will ESG factors influence raw material availability, labour costs, research and development, and hence cost forecasts? It is clear that ESG factors should legitimately be considered when taking a view on future revenue streams or costs; however, in our experience, there are two constraints to this. One is that analysts very rarely adjust individual estimates for revenue or costs, preferring to use a macro growth figure (based on their thoughts on parts 1, 2 and 3 above). Second, individual examples of ESG impacts on costs or revenues have tended to be immaterial when considered in isolation and against the income statements of some of the world’s largest corporations. Naturally there are some examples, e.g. inputting labour cost increases where regional changes to labour laws will impact these (e.g. China and textile manufacturers) or a cost for carbon could be included in an analyst’s model. As we mentioned last year, it is also possible to put a cost on the ecosystem services that a company uses and impacts on (as has been done by the oft cited Puma environmental profit and loss report), which would enable management to identify areas in its value chain where efficiencies and processes could be improved. However, this relies on placing a value on externalities, which is currently outside of standard market practice, though tools for valuing these services are improving.


13

5. Valuation tools It is here that the elements of assessing the previous factors come together into determining what the impact may be on the valuation of a company. For example, an analyst may judge that better ESG practices will have a positive impact on free cash flow and hence on the return on invested capital (ROIC), or that a well-managed company will benefit from lower cost of capital. Or indeed an analyst may adjust the risk premium attached to a company based on its ESG performance, or the discount rate (e.g. two mining stocks could have different discount rates applied depending on the commodity that they mined). For the past five years we have been working on integrating ESG into the investment notes of our analysts, with the ESG specialists auditing these notes. This has seen a gradual improvement in the level of integration with many of the examples cited in this section being reflected in the analysts’ notes. ESG Integration at Schroders At Schroders we facilitate the integration of ESG into the mainstream investment process through the following tools:

1. The ESG teams sit with the equity analyst teams to facilitate regular dialogue between ESG specialists and company analysts.

2. The ESG team provides both general ESG training as well as very detailed sector specific ESG training for investors.

3. ESG specialists and company analysts have collaborated on the production of an online, sector-focused, ESG guideline template which is available to all analysts.

4. We are gradually rolling out (at desk level) a requirement for all company analysts to complete an ESG review of the stocks under their coverage. The ESG analysts audit a proportion of these notes, and provide feedback to the analysts.

5. We use the ESG ratings from our specialist ESG research provider to undertake a review of each desk’s holdings. This information is fed back to the desk and helps to facilitate further discussion on the reasons for the low rating as well as being used as a tool to guide our engagement programme.

6. In addition to company-specific research the ESG specialists produce regular thematic research reports which explore ESG concepts and how, or why, they should be integrated into the investment process (please see the “responsible investment special topics” section for examples of this research).

There is a long way to go in integrating ESG into the investment process and numerous challenges to overcome. We hope that the above steps help to facilitate this process, but recognise that there are other changes that could also speed up this process (e.g. integration into macro-economic forecasts, not just company analysis; increasing investor time horizons; regulation). But we also recognise that these steps may not be enough on their own for humanity to operate within the planetary limits as defined by the Stockholm Resilience Centre. Perhaps this is one of the risks of ESG integration, in that there is an imagined belief that simply taking account of ESG factors in the investment process means that the investments (and their outcomes) will deliver the goals of sustainable development. We believe that this is not necessarily the case and will seek to develop other indicators in order to measure the sustainability impact of client portfolios (e.g. the carbon or water footprint of their portfolios versus the benchmark).


14

Responsible investment special topics

In order to enhance our understanding of how ESG issues may create risks to or opportunities for our investments we produce specific research reports into a range of topics. Some of these may be topical issues, others more forward looking pieces addressing topics that may impact the financial markets. During 2013 we published the following special reports:

Broken models? Economics and ecosystem services A collaborative research project between Alliance Trust Investments, Newton Investment Management and Schroders. As changes to ecosystem services continue to increase in visibility on a global level, from the drought in the USA to the smog of Beijing, there is increasing recognition that the consequences of these changes are having material economic impacts. The evidence may emerge quickly through visible indicators, such as rising crop prices, or gradually through less immediately tangible indicators, such as declining health. This short report (a follow-up to Schroders' 2011 report "Ecosystem Services: Where's the discussion?") summarises the findings of a project which set out to explore how the chief economists of some of the world's largest investment banks are integrating changes to ecosystem services into their economic forecasts.

The bee and the stock market An overview of pollinator decline and its economic and corporate significance For several years there has been a constant flow of research on the topic of pollinator decline and its impact on food security. This report aims to distil the current research and to determine if this is a current or future material issue for companies with exposure to agricultural produce within their supply chain. The majority of research has focused on the demise of the most active pollinator species apis mellifera – or the European honey bee (though there are another 25,000 to 30,000 bee species and around 150,000 different pollinator species in total). Research has focused on the European honey bee as it is one of the most common commercial bees; the research has predominantly been conducted in North America and Europe (where the majority of specialists are located). This research shows that honey bee numbers in these regions are in decline. Looking on a global scale, the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates that around three quarters of all pollinators are in decline and that their numbers have reduced by about a third in the past decade. There are several reasons for this which include habitat decline, pesticide use (in April 2013 the EU placed a two year ban on the use of neonicotinoids which had been linked to bee deaths) and the spread of disease vectors. The importance of pollinators to agricultural crops varies. In all, around 70% of agricultural crops (by crop species) depend to some degree on pollination, though if looked at by mass, 60% of global agricultural yield is not affected by animal pollination (this refers to crops such as wheat, maize and rice). In total it is estimated that should animal pollinators disappear, this global agricultural production would only decrease by 4-6% by mass. That does not measure the nutritional or economic value that could be lost as pollinator-dependant crops are an important source of proteins, vitamins and minerals in our diet and also tend to have a higher economic value than non-pollinator dependant crops. By calculating the yield dependency on animal pollination, economists have been able to determine that pollinators contribute around £130 billion to the global economy (a service that is predominantly provided for free). Should this service be lost then the impact on food prices would mean a consumer surplus loss of £160 billion to £260 billion. The degree of economic importance of pollination services at a national or farm level can be much more significant than within the global economy as at these smaller scales exposure to pollinator services may be greater. Farmers clearly put a value on pollination by employing the services of commercial bee keepers but there is also strong evidence to suggest that payment for commercial pollination services could be better employed by investing in the conservation and establishment of wild habitat for pollinators near crops with pollinator dependence. At the corporate level this is clearly an issue that will affect cash flow due to the impact on raw material prices and is therefore a topic that should be addressed by companies with exposure to agricultural produce. However, our research suggests that there is limited focus on this specific issue by the companies we assessed, though there is a broader, and growing, recognition of the economic value of maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem services within the supply chain. We will follow up on this report by engaging with the companies we analysed to develop our thinking further.


15

Unburnable carbon How should investors respond?......RSVP 97% of the world’s climate scientists agree that human emissions of greenhouse gases are responsible for climate change. Limiting atmospheric concentrations of CO2 to 450ppm will give us a 50% chance of avoiding a dangerous level of global warming (2

oC by 2100). 2

oC warming will have significant biophysical

and economic impacts, potentially causing a drag on the world’s GDP of up to 20%. The world’s governments are committed to limiting warming to 2

oC. Current atmospheric concentrations of

CO2 are 395ppm. This means we can only emit around 570GT of CO2 between now and 2050 to stay within 450ppm. The carbon embedded in the world’s fossil fuel reserves is around 2,800GT, implying that the majority of it cannot be burnt. This means that the majority of assets for listed fossil fuel companies cannot be burnt and (under this scenario) should be recognised as a liability The question is: how should institutional investors respond to this carbon bubble? We recognise that, as a discretionary fund manager, the responsibility for considering such issues lies with us; however, we are interested in gauging opinions on this topic and welcome all comments, thoughts and suggestions.

Mining the ESG ground Assessing the financial component of sustainability strategies in the mining sector Mining operations have considerable impacts on the environment and the wider communities in which they operate. The ESG performance of companies in the sector has traditionally been under great scrutiny and this has led to higher levels of disclosure on key material risks from large mining companies. These traditional ESG risks, however, are now being exacerbated by more difficult operating conditions, mainly because of lower quality ore grades and access challenges. Mining companies have also had to broaden their horizon and look for materials in emerging market countries. This has, in turn, led to the emergence of new areas of risk, which include resource nationalism and community actions, whereby key mining stakeholders are increasingly challenging companies for a better management and fairer share of the resources. Corruption and water are also amongst the new areas of risk that mining companies have had to cope with in recent years. Poor governance systems in some developing countries and localised water scarcity both threaten the ability to continue to mine. These vulnerabilities and risks have tangible financial implications for mining companies. The adaptation to adverse environmental and social impacts that jeopardize operations bears additional costs for the miners. More adverse operating conditions have led to higher consumption of energy and water, while production output has remained quite stable in comparison. Despite the financial materiality of some of these issues and their impact on shareholder value, it remains difficult to assess if, and to what extent, mining companies have had to spend more on environmental or social mitigation programmes over the years. Usually subsumed in operating and capital expenditure figures, these costs are not easily identified and quantified by companies. Therefore, a qualitative appreciation of these factors remains the most robust way of assessing good ESG management practices in the mining sector.


16

Themed Funds

Schroders’ Global Climate Change Fund

Schroders’ Global Climate Change Fund was launched in June 2007. Since inception the fund has performed broadly in line with the MSCI World Index to December 2013 (see Figure 7, below) but has also exhibited periods of significant outperformance (and underperformance) relative to the benchmark, reflecting the market background. The fund has, though, performed consistently relative to its peer group for the three year and since inception time periods, and it is in the second quartile for the one year period (see Figure 8). Schroders believes that climate change will be the catalyst for a new “industrial revolution” as the world moves inextricably towards a lower carbon economy. Increasingly stringent emissions targets will necessitate large-scale capital investment alongside less costly abatement measures. The economic consequences both at a country and corporate level are becoming increasingly clear. Climate change policy and regulation will have a profound effect on most companies’ revenues, operating costs, competitive advantage and ultimately, earnings growth. Schroders’ Global Climate Change Fund seeks to maximise excess returns by investing in companies which are beneficiaries of efforts to both mitigate and adapt to the impact of climate change. The investment thesis for the fund is founded on the expectation that the accelerating pace of national and international policy action on climate change is creating a favourable outlook for companies involved in efforts to mitigate climate change as well as the need to adapt to the impacts of climate change. The fund draws its ideas from five broad pockets of opportunity: 1. Environmental resources (e.g. water resource management, agriculture)

2. Low carbon fossil fuels (e.g. natural gas)

3. Clean energy (e.g. solar power)

4. Sustainable transport (e.g. electric cars)

5. Energy efficiency (e.g. light weighting in transport).

More broadly, however, any company that is positively affected by climate change will be considered as a potential investment candidate for the fund.


17

Figure 7: Schroders Global Climate Change Fund performance since inception versus the MSCI World Index

The global nature of climate change inevitably requires a global investment perspective. It should therefore be no surprise that the fund’s managers are fully integrated within Schroders’ Global and International Equity team, where climate change is regarded as a key theme supporting long-term structural growth.

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

Ju

n-0

7

De

c-0

7

Ju

n-0

8

De

c-0

8

Ju

n-0

9

De

c-0

9

Ju

n-1

0

De

c-1

0

Ju

n-1

1

De

c-1

1

Ju

n-1

2

De

c-1

2

Ju

n-1

3

De

c-1

3

Schroder ISF GlobalClimate Change Equity Net

MSCI World TR ‒ Net Return

Schroder ISF Global Climate Change Equity vs MSCI World (rebased to 100)

Ju

n-0

7

De

c-0

7

Ja

n-0

9

Ju

l-08

Ju

l-09

Ja

n-1

0

Ju

l-10

Ja

n-1

1

Ju

l-11

Ja

n-1

2

Ju

l-12

Jan-1

3

Ju

l-13

Ja

n-1

4


18

Figure 8: Schroders Global Climate Change Fund peer group comparison

Source: Factset, Schroders, Morningstar Micropal. Universe = Offshore, Sector Equity – Ecology, in USD. We have excluded the top 5 and bottom 5 percentiles from the peer group charts above.

*Note: Inception date is 29 June 2007, C-share class Acc units

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

Category 1

+21.8

Peer Group Ranking relative to Peer Group universe

1 Year to 31 January 2014

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Category 1

+23.3


3 Years to 31 January 2014

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

Category 1

+17.3


Since Inception* to 31 January 2014

1st Quartile 2nd Quartile 3rd Quartile 4th Quartile

Schroder ISF Global Climate Change Equity


19

Ethical assets under management

Ethical exclusions As Table 7 shows, we have continued to see a remarkable increase in the value of assets under management (AUM) to which some form of ethical exclusion is applied. Here, “ethical exclusion” can be defined as the screening out of certain stocks from the investment universe, also commonly referred to as “negative screening”. AUM with some ethical exclusion has increased 69% year-on-year. This is far greater than the 20% increase in the MSCI World index during the same period, indicating a clear increase in client demand for ethically managed portfolios on top of any growth in assets due to market changes. Table 7: Group ethical assets under management (2009-2013)

Year Ethical AUM (GBP bn) % of Group AUM

2013 25.3 9.6

2012 15.0 7.0

2011 11.3 6.1

2010 8.2 4.2

2009 3.8 2.6

Of the £25.32 billion of AUM with ethical constraints in 2013, approximately £0.8bn was managed by Schroders’ Private Bank team (including charities)

3, a similar proportion to 2012. This would indicate that the

dramatic increase in ethical investments is a response to a demand surge from the central client base. Figure 9: Group ethical AUM by source (2011-2013)

These “ethical” mandates vary from excluding stocks on a single issue to incorporating multiple issues. In addition they often define a degree of materiality (e.g. percentage of revenues) a stock derives from its exposure to an issue. In 2013, Schroders recorded a total of 21 different active screens applied across its ethical AUMs. On a cumulative basis

4, tobacco, gambling and alcohol are the three screens that are most

often used, as shown in Figure 10 (please note that there is an element of double counting with Table 10 as some of the assets will have multiple exclusions applied).

3 The total figure for Schroders Charities/Private Bank does not include Cazenove

4 The same account may have different ethical constraints applied to it; for instance, a client portfolio could be excluding tobacco, alcohol

and gambling stocks.

0.5 0.4 0.8

10.8

14.6

24.5

-

5

10

15

20

25

30

2011 2012 2013

£ bn

Charities/Private Bank

Central


20

Figure 10: Group ethical AUM by constraint (2013)

Regulatory Constraints In addition to these screens, legislative developments on cluster munitions and terrorist financing in Europe and the USA have forced the de facto exclusion of certain stocks from investment portfolios. - Cluster munitions The Oslo Convention on cluster munitions was signed in 2008 and became binding international law in 2010. It prohibits all use, production, transfer and stockpiling of cluster munitions and establishes a framework for action in that respect. While the Convention does not itself refer to the financing of cluster munitions, several governments adopted wording of this nature in their national legislation. The Belgian and Luxembourg governments have both augmented the initial text of the Convention to include cluster munitions financing. In 2012, we took the decision to exclude any stock we deemed to be involved in the manufacture of cluster munitions from our Luxembourg-registered funds, using a series of “exclusion” lists available in the public domain as guidance. In an effort to bring more clarity, we looked to governments (and government agencies) to provide their own list of excluded stocks under their legislation. In 2013, the Dutch financial authority had started using an indicative list compiled by the sector as its own risk radar and reviewed annually, which Schroders has subsequently adopted. Figure 11 shows the AUM that this legislation applies to.

- 5 10 15 20 25

Interest IncomeCompany Specific

Nuclear EnergyHuman Rights

Cluster MunitionsNuclear Weapons

OtherPornography

Healthcare/PharmaBiotech and Envt

MiningBanks/Financial…

OilPork

Adult EntertainmentSudan

Armaments & DefenseShariahAlcohol

GamblingTobacco

£bn


21

Figure 11: AUM with a cluster munition screen applied (absolute and as percentage of Group AUM)

- Terrorist financing As a result of the Patriot Act and the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing law in the USA, many US state pension funds are now requesting their fund managers divest from any companies which could be undertaking business within countries that the US government considers terrorist states. As of 31 December 2013, we estimate that £5.6 billion of AUM had some form of “terror screening” applied to them.


22

Collaboration, industry involvement, seminars and training Over the year we have continued to lend our support (whether financial, intellectual or brand sponsorship) to, as well as participate in, several industry initiatives. These can serve, but are not limited, to promote the on-going development and recognition of ESG within the investment industry, to provide us with learning opportunities or to improve disclosure standards within the companies in which we invest. The following section summarises the additional work we have done outside of what has already been reported (this is not an exhaustive summary).

Collaborative initiatives

Working to improve ESG disclosure We have continued our long-term participation in the Carbon Disclosure Project and its off-shoot project, the Carbon Action Initiative. These projects are helping to improve the level of disclosure by companies on their carbon emissions as well as encouraging the adoption of meaningful carbon reduction targets. We have also continued our participation in the Sustainable Solar Initiative which encourages solar companies to improve the quality of their ESG disclosure.

Industry bodies promoting ESG practices

Sustainable investment forums We have continued our membership of the UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Forum (UKSIF) and the European Sustainable Investment Forum. Over the course of the year we have met with the CEOs of both organisations to understand their plans and to provide input into the direction that we feel responsible investment should take. In addition, we sit on the analyst committee at UKSIF, providing guidance on how the organisation can best serve the interests of ESG analysts. We are also a member of the Responsible Investment Working Group of the European Fund and Asset Manager Association. We have also maintained our membership of the Principles for Responsible Investment.

Seminars providing training and learning

Over the course of the year we have attended numerous events providing us with insight into specific ESG issues both for the ESG specialists and the wider investment teams within Schroders. We have also spoken at seminars on the subject of our own research. Below we list some of these topics.

Environmental Social Governance Other

Arctic – oil and gas

Climate change Carbon markets

Portfolio carbon footprint

Unburnable carbon

Ecosystem services

Fracking

Hazardous chemicals

Resource limits

Water

Weather

Bribery and corruption Aerospace and defence

Cross sector risks

Extractives sector

Food safety

Health and safety

Labour standards

Nutrition and obesity

Executive remuneration

Tax disclosure

3D printing

Cluster munitions

ESG in the mining sector

ESG integration

Impact investing

Sustainable capitalism


23

Responsible property investment Schroder Property Investment Management has been managing property funds since 1971 and operates across Europe, headquartered in London. With £10.6 billion (€12.8 billion / US$17.6 billion) of assets under management as at 31 December 2013, we are one of the largest institutional property investment managers in Europe. The issues of environmental sustainability and social responsibility have long been integrated into our investment process. The global financial crisis accentuated the importance of understanding economic risk that may affect our investments and the focus on environmental and social issues in recent years is no different. It is critical to understand and manage all risks to develop resilience within our portfolios. A good investment strategy must incorporate environmental and social issues alongside traditional economic considerations. At Schroders we believe a complete approach should be rewarded by improved investment decisions and performance, improved business performance to tenants, and tangible benefits to local communities and wider society. Investment management Our commitment begins at the initial appraisal stage when seeking to identify new investment opportunities. Each new acquisition undergoes a responsible property investment RPI audit tailored for each local market. The process is designed to identify any weakness in the building’s ability to deliver future returns resulting from issues such as flooding, contamination, energy efficiency, water management, community interaction and long-term impacts to occupier appeal. Asset management Existing buildings are asset managed in accordance with our belief that through factoring environmental and social issues into the management regime of a building it will become more attractive to occupiers. Our approach is focused on delivering on-site solutions to achieve our clients’ objectives effectively. Where the management of a building is undertaken on our behalf by a managing agent we ensure their policies are fully aligned with our own. Whether driven by legislation or not, we seek to find new ways to manage occupancy costs through energy savings, reducing water consumption and facilitating the disposal of waste away from landfill. Where possible we will seek to work in partnership with our existing occupiers, although a cost benefit analysis of any expenditure is important to ensure the investment objectives of our clients are protected. New versus old Schroder Property has limited exposure to property development, but where it does undertake schemes to deliver new buildings to occupiers we will ensure that they are built to the high standard required to obtain sustainability accreditations (such as BREEAM Excellent) as appropriate for local markets. It is generally acknowledged that by 2050, the vast majority of today’s buildings will still be in existence. It is key to have a process that both assesses the challenges of obsolescence in existing buildings and can deliver solutions that add value by future-proofing potential new acquisitions. Progress in 2013 In 2013 we issued a new Responsible Property Investment (RPI) statement which outlines our role and responsibilities as owners, managers and developers of property assets. It confirms the importance we put on identifying and understanding all investment risks in order to seek to protect our clients’ assets from depreciation. We are continually working to improve our understanding and analysis of risk within our assets and portfolios to help deliver resilience to the ever-changing profile of risks.


24

Responsible fixed income investment Schroders’ overriding objective for integrating an ESG approach into the credit investment process is to, wherever possible, enhance returns and protect value for our clients. Analysis Schroders believes that an analysis and evaluation of ESG issues and their impact on investments is a fundamental part of a bond valuation and selection process. Typically, ESG analysis will source information from a mosaic of sources, including (but not limited to) the issuer itself, specialist research providers, brokers and academics. We will use internationally-recognised benchmarks, codes and standards as guidelines for best practice within our ESG analysis, but we are pragmatic in our recognition that no single model of ESG management can apply to a company, and that each company has to be considered in respect of the industry and markets in which it operates. Typically good corporate ESG practice should ensure that:

– There is an empowered and effective board

– There are appropriate checks and balances in company management systems

– There are effective systems for internal control and risk management covering ESG and other significant issues

– There is suitable transparency and accountability

– Management remuneration is aligned with long-term shareholder value. Process changes to increase the visibility of ESG factors in the analytical process included the statement of MSCI ESG ratings where available, alongside NSRO third party credit ratings and the commencement of training sessions by the Schroders Responsible Investment team with Schroders’ credit research desks. Integration

ESG factors will be initially addressed at the analyst level and will be discussed by the team to determine the importance to the stability of future earnings streams and the resulting ability of the issuer to meet their interest and principal obligations. ESG factors are then taken into consideration in the portfolio construction process. Whilst qualitative factors such as ESG issues are difficult to value, we consider that they impact the likelihood of future financial success and the risk inherent in the business. As such, while the more traditional financial indicators and the analysis of business strategy form the basis of investment decisions, ESG factors will often impact the size of position, given its impact on the inherent risk to our financial forecasts. We primarily focus on the longer-term impact of ESG issues rather than unduly weighting factors which are currently occupying market attention. From a practical perspective, analysts should integrate ESG commentary as follows: – Initiation reports. These reports should explicitly include a commentary and ESG rating, where appropriate. – Ongoing research reports. The process of preparing these reports should implicitly address the question “are there

any significant ESG issues with this credit?” Engagement Engagement with companies is part of our fundamental approach to the investment process as an active investor. It has the advantage of enhancing communication and understanding between companies and investors. We will look to engage with bond issuers and communicate any specific concerns we may have in respect to ESG practices. When engaging with companies our purpose is to either seek additional understanding or, where necessary, to seek change that will protect and enhance the value of investments for which we are responsible. We concentrate on each company’s ability to create sustainable value and will question or challenge companies about issues, including those relating to ESG, that we perceive might affect the future value of those issuers’ bonds. Future actions Our objective is to ensure the success of this policy and enable our clients to take the benefits from this best practice. We will implement internal systems and processes to continuously improve the integration process, strengthening the links between credit and ESG teams and developing ESG skills and knowledge among credit analysts. We will monitor the ESG integration process into the Fixed Income investment team and will disclose on a regular basis the outcomes of the engagement programme.


25

Compliance with UN Principles for responsible investment This section demonstrates our compliance with the UNPRI as well as highlighting the relevant pages within this report where evidence of this compliance is demonstrated, in addition to other sources not included in this report.

UN PRI Principle Schroders compliance Location in annual RI report

P1. We will incorporate ESG issues into investment analysis and decision-making processes

– Six ESG specialists – Over 400 investment professionals – 214 years experience as active fund managers – Responsible Investment (RI) and Corporate

Governance policies for property, equities and fixed income

– Proprietary Global Research Investment Database – Joint (ESG and company analysts) attendance at

company meetings – Collaboration between specialists and professionals – Allocation of broker commission for ESG research – ESG analysts sector twinning with financial analysts – Ad hoc internal ESG training

Pg 14 - 21 Pg 23 Pg 24

P2. We will be active owners and incorporate ESG issues into our ownership policies and practices

– RI policies for property, equity and fixed income – Global voting strategy – Active engagement, with regular monitoring of success

Pg 3 - 22 Pg 23 Pg 24

P3. We will seek appropriate disclosure on ESG issues by the entities in which we invest.

– Engagement can address issues of disclosure, when necessary

– Participation in collaborative disclosure initiatives – Submissions to regulators, trade associations,

legislators and other bodies

Pg 3 - 7 Pg 22

P4. We will promote acceptance and implementation of the principles within the investment industry

– Submissions to regulators, trade associations, legislators and other bodies

– Membership of various bodies promoting ESG – Participating in speaker panels at conferences etc.

Pg 22

P5. We will work together to enhance our effectiveness in implementing the principles

– Collaboration – Investor networks

Pg 22

P6. We will each report on our activities and progress towards implementing the principles.

– Quarterly reports – Annual reports – Thematic and special reports – Responsible investment intranet site – Responsible investment internet – Client reporting portal

Issued in March 2014 by Schroder Investment Management Limited, 31 Gresham Street, London EC2V 7QA. Registration No 1893220 England. Authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.

2013 Annual RI report

Documents

Transcript of 2013 Annual RI report