The presence of intermediaries acting as independent decision makers influences the incentives and the ability to engage in corporate governance. The share of equity investments held by institutional investors such as mutual funds, pension funds, insurance companies and hedge funds has increased significantly, and many of their assets are managed by specialised asset managers. The ability and interest of institutional investors and asset managers to engage in corporate governance varies widely. For some, engagement in corporate governance, including the exercise of voting rights, is a natural part of their business model. Others may offer their beneficiaries and clients a business model and investment strategy that does not include or motivate spending resources on active shareholder engagement. If shareholder engagement is not part of the institution’s business model and investment strategy, mandatory requirements to engage, for example through voting, may be ineffective and lead to a box-ticking approach.
The Principles recommend that institutional investors disclose their policies with respect to corporate governance. Voting at shareholder meetings is, however, only one channel for shareholder engagement. Direct contact and dialogue with the board and management, represent other forms of shareholder engagement that are frequently used. In recent years, some countries have begun to consider adoption of codes on shareholder engagement (“stewardship codes”) that institutional investors are invited to sign up to on a voluntary basis.
A. Institutional investors acting in a fiduciary capacity should disclose their corporate governance and voting policies with respect to their investments, including the procedures that they have in place for deciding on the use of their voting rights.
The effectiveness and credibility of the entire corporate governance framework and company oversight depend to a large extent on institutional investors’ willingness and ability to make informed use of their shareholder rights and effectively exercise their ownership functions in companies in which they invest. While this principle does not require institutional investors to vote their shares, it calls for disclosure of how they exercise their ownership rights with due consideration to cost effectiveness. For institutions acting in a fiduciary capacity, such as pension funds, collective investment schemes and some activities of insurance companies, and asset managers acting on their behalf, the right to vote can be considered part of the value of the investment being undertaken on behalf of their clients. Failure to exercise the ownership rights could result in a loss to the investor who should therefore be made aware of the policy to be followed by the institutional investors. In some countries, the demand for disclosure of corporate governance policies to the market is quite detailed and includes requirements for explicit strategies regarding the circumstances in which the institution will intervene in a company; the approach they will use for such intervention; and how they will assess the effectiveness of the strategy.
Disclosure of actual voting records is regarded as good practice, especially where an institution has a declared policy to vote. Disclosure is either to their clients (only with respect to the securities of each client) or, in the case of investment advisors to registered investment companies, to the market. A complementary approach to participation in shareholders’ meetings is to establish a continuing dialogue with portfolio companies. Such a dialogue between institutional investors and companies should be encouraged, although it is incumbent on the company to treat all investors equally and not to divulge information to the institutional investors which is not at the same time made available to the market. The additional information provided by a company would normally therefore include general background information about the markets in which the company is operating and further elaboration of information already available to the market. When institutional investors have developed and disclosed a corporate governance policy, effective implementation requires that they also set aside the appropriate human and financial resources to pursue this policy in a way that their beneficiaries and portfolio companies can expect. The nature and practical implementation of an active corporate governance policy by such institutional investors, including staffing, should be transparent to clients who rely on institutional investors with active corporate governance policies.
B. Votes should be cast by custodians or nominees in line with the directions of the beneficial owner of the shares.
Custodian institutions holding securities as nominees for customers should not be permitted to cast the votes on those securities unless they have received specific instructions to do so. In some jurisdictions, listing requirements contain broad lists of items on which custodians may not vote without instruction, while leaving this possibility open for certain routine items. Rules should require custodian institutions to provide shareholders with timely information concerning their options in the exercise of their voting rights. Shareholders may elect to vote by themselves or to delegate all voting rights to custodians. Alternatively, shareholders may choose to be informed of all upcoming shareholder votes and may decide to cast some votes while delegating some voting rights to the custodian. Holders of depository receipts should be provided with the same ultimate rights and practical opportunities to participate in corporate governance as are accorded to holders of the underlying shares. Where the direct holders of shares may use proxies, the depositary, trust office or equivalent body should therefore issue proxies on a timely basis to depository receipt holders. The depository receipt holders should be able to issue binding voting instructions with respect to the shares, which the depositary or trust office holds on their behalf. It should be noted that this principle does not apply to the exercise of voting rights by trustees or other persons acting under a special legal mandate (such as, for example, bankruptcy receivers and estate executors).
C. Institutional investors acting in a fiduciary capacity should disclose how they manage material conflicts of interest that may affect the exercise of key ownership rights regarding their investments.
The incentives for intermediary owners to vote their shares and exercise key ownership functions may, under certain circumstances, differ from those of direct owners. Such differences may sometimes be commercially sound but may also arise from conflicts of interest which are particularly acute when the fiduciary institution is a subsidiary or an affiliate of another financial institution, and especially an integrated financial group. When such conflicts arise from material business relationships, for example, through an agreement to manage the portfolio company’s funds, such conflicts should be identified and disclosed. At the same time, institutions should disclose what actions they are taking to minimise the potentially negative impact on their ability to exercise key ownership rights. Such actions may include the separation of bonuses for fund management from those related to the acquisition of new business elsewhere in the organisation. Fee structures for asset management and other intermediary services should be transparent.
D. The corporate governance framework should require that proxy advisors, analysts, brokers, rating agencies and others that provide analysis or advice relevant to decisions by investors, disclose and minimise conflicts of interest that might compromise the integrity of their analysis or advice.
The investment chain from ultimate owners to corporations does not only involve multiple intermediary owners. It also includes a wide variety of professions that offer advice and services to intermediary owners. Proxy advisors who offer recommendations to institutional investors on how to vote and sell services that help in the process of voting are among the most relevant from a direct corporate governance perspective. In some cases, proxy advisors also offer corporate governance related consulting services to corporations. Other service providers rate companies according to various corporate governance criteria. Analysts, brokers and rating agencies, perform similar roles and face the same potential conflicts of interest. Considering the importance of – and sometimes dependence on – various services in corporate governance, the corporate governance framework should promote the integrity of professions such as analysts, brokers, rating agencies, and proxy advisors.
When managed appropriately, these can play an important role in shaping good corporate governance practices. At the same time, conflicts of interest may arise and affect judgement, such as when the provider of advice is also seeking to provide other services to the company in question, or where the provider has a direct material interest in the company or its competitors. Many jurisdictions have adopted regulations or encouraged the implementation of self-regulatory codes designed to mitigate such conflicts of interest or other risks related to integrity, and have provided for private and/or public monitoring arrangements. Providers of proxy advisory services should, where appropriate in each context, disclose publicly and/or to investor clients the process and methodology that underpin their recommendations, and the criteria for their voting policies relevant for their clients. E. Insider trading and market manipulation should be prohibited and the applicable rules enforced. As insider trading entails manipulation of the capital markets, it is prohibited by securities regulations, company law and/or criminal law in most countries. These practices can be seen as constituting a breach of good corporate governance as they violate the principle of equitable treatment of shareholders. However, the effectiveness of such prohibition depends on vigorous enforcement action.
F. For companies who are listed in a jurisdiction other than their jurisdiction of incorporation, the applicable corporate governance laws and regulations should be clearly disclosed.
In the case of cross listings, the criteria and procedure for recognising the listing requirements of the primary listing should be transparent and documented. It is increasingly common that companies are listed or traded at venues located in a different jurisdiction than the one where the company is incorporated. This may create uncertainty among investors about which corporate governance rules and regulations apply for that company. It may concern everything from procedures and locations for the annual shareholders meeting, to minority rights. The company should therefore clearly disclose which jurisdiction’s rules are applicable. When key corporate governance provisions fall under another jurisdiction than the jurisdiction of trading, the main differences should be noted. Another important consequence of increased internationalisation and integration of stock markets is the prevalence of secondary listings of an already listed company on another stock exchange, so called cross-listings. Companies with cross-listings are often subject to the regulations and authorities of the jurisdiction where they have their primary listing. In case of a secondary listing, exceptions from local listing rules are typically granted based on the recognition of the listing requirements and corporate governance regulations of the exchange where the company has its primary listing. Stock markets should clearly disclose the rules and procedures that apply to crosslistings and related exceptions from local corporate governance rules.
G. Stock markets should provide fair and efficient price discovery as a means to help promote effective corporate governance.
Effective corporate governance means that shareholders should be able to monitor and assess their corporate investments by comparing marketrelated information with the company’s information about its prospects and performance. When shareholders believe it is advantageous, they can either use their voice to influence corporate behaviour, sell their shares (or buy additional shares), or re-evaluate a company’s shares in their portfolios. The quality of and access to market information including fair and efficient price discovery regarding their investments is therefore important for shareholders to exercise their rights.
