×

The Nottinghamshire and District Miners’ Pension Scheme 1939 (“the Scheme”)

 

Annual Engagement Policy Implementation Statement

 

1.      Introduction

This statement sets out how, and the extent to which the Scheme’s Engagement Policy in the Statement of Investment Principles (“SIP”) produced by the Trustees has been followed during the year to 30 September 2025 (the “Scheme Year”). This statement has been produced in accordance with the Occupational Pension Schemes (Investment and Disclosure) (Amendment and Modification) Regulations 2018, the subsequent amendment in The Occupational Pension Schemes (Investment and Disclosure) (Amendment) Regulations 2019 and the guidance published by the Pensions Regulator.

This statement also includes a summary of the voting activity that was carried out on behalf of the Trustees over the Scheme year by the investment managers.

Section 2 of this statement sets out the investment objectives of the Scheme and whether any changes have been made to the SIP during the Scheme Year. A copy of the SIP is available at www.nmps39.org.uk.

Sections 3 and 4 include information on the engagement and key voting activities of the underlying investment managers of the Scheme and also sets out how the Scheme’s engagement and voting policy has been followed during the Scheme Year.

 

2.      Investment Objectives of the Scheme

 

The Trustees believe it is important to consider the policies in place in the context of the investment objectives they have set. The objectives of the Scheme included in the SIP are as follows:

·        The Trustees aim to invest the Scheme’s assets in the best interests of members and beneficiaries. Within this framework, the investment objectives are twofold:

o   In the absence of future contributions to the Scheme, to invest the assets in such a manner that members’ benefit entitlements can be paid as they fall due.

o   Through a successful investment policy, to further improve the benefits to the Scheme’s beneficiaries.

No revisions were made to the SIP during the Scheme year. The SIP was last updated in in November 2024 following changes to the Scheme’s investment strategy.

The information provided in the following sections highlight the work undertaken by the Trustees during the Scheme year to 30 September 2025 and sets out how this work followed the Trustees’ policies in the SIP. 

In summary, it is the Trustees view that the policies in the SIP have been followed during the Scheme year to 30 September 2025.

3.      Policy on ESG, Stewardship and Climate Change

The Scheme’s SIP includes the Trustees’ policy on Environmental, Social and Governance (‘ESG’) factors, Stewardship and Climate Change. This policy sets out the Trustees’ beliefs on ESG and climate change and the processes followed by the Scheme’s investment managers in relation to voting rights and stewardship. The investment manager’s stewardship policy was last reviewed in May 2025 and can be found here: https://www.brewin.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2023/06/stewardship-policy.pdf.

The following work was undertaken during the year to 30 September 2025 relating to the Trustees’ policy on ESG factors, Stewardship and Climate Change, and sets out how the Trustees’ engagement and voting policies were followed and implemented during the year.

The Trustees support the aims of the UK Stewardship Code and its investment managers are encouraged to report their adherence to the Code. Both managers, Schroders and Brewin Dolphin (“Brewin”) are signatories to the current UK Stewardship Code.

Brewin Dolphin

Brewin are members of Climate Action 100+, an investor initiative to ensure the world’s largest corporate greenhouse gas emitters take necessary action on climate change. They also have a separate socially responsible investing (SRI) list for funds which aim to deliver attractive investment returns while contributing positively to global environmental and social challenges.

Brewin believes active engagement is key to being a responsible owner, particularly when linked to material issues which might affect the long-term value of their clients’ holdings. Material issues identified via their stewardship monitoring may lead to engagement directly with an investee company, or with a fund manager that is invested in the company. These could include concerns about the company’s strategy, performance, governance, remuneration or approach to risk, and severe controversies including those that may arise from social and environmental matters.

 

Brewin does not prioritise engagement with issuers of direct fixed income securities, as this represents a small proportion of total assets under management across their client base (and for the Scheme’s mandate). Engagement activities are also carried out with managers of collective investment schemes.

Schroders

Schroders Group was an early signatory of the UN Principles of Responsible Investment (PRI), supports the UN Global Compact initiative and the Sustainable Development Goals.

Schroders produced a roadmap for their climate transition plans, a document that outlines how they expect to reach net zero across their operations and supply chain. Schroders supports the Task Force on Climate Related Financial Disclosure (TCFD) and encourages companies to report against the key elements of this framework.

4.      Voting Activity and Engagement during the Scheme Year

The Trustees’ policy is to delegate responsibility for the exercising of rights (including voting rights) attaching to the Scheme’s investments to the investment managers.  In addition, it is the Trustees’ policy to obtain reporting on voting and engagement and periodically (on at least an annual basis) review the reports to ensure the policies are being met.

The Trustees have delegated their voting rights to Brewin as investment manager of the Scheme’s growth assets. The Scheme’s other investments consist of government issued debt, corporate bonds and securitised credit. As such, voting activities are not applicable for Schroders.

 

The Trustees will look to discuss voting activity where applicable with their investment managers and/or investment consultant, including how this has been consistent with the managers’ policies on climate change. Over the 12 months to 30 September 2025, the Trustees have not actively challenged the managers on their voting activity.

 

Brewin uses ISS as a proxy voting advisor to receive recommendations on how to vote, aligned with ISS’s sustainability voting policy. However, Brewin reviews carefully the recommendations, make the final decision and execute their own voting.

Set out below is a summary of voting activity for this reporting period and a sample of the most significant votes cast on behalf of the Trustees by Brewin (i.e. the Scheme’s only investment manager with equity investments).

Key voting activity

The below sets out the meetings at which Brewin analysts actively voted on core holdings.

Question

Response

How many votable meetings did Brewin voted at?

138

Meetings in which Brewin voted For?

108

Meetings in which Brewin voted against management at least once

30

Meetings in which Brewin abstained at least once

1

Meetings in which Brewin disagreed with ISS as least once

29

Total proposals recorded 

1973

Votes For / Against / Abstain

1906 / 66 / 1

Source: Brewin Dolphin. Year to 31 December 2024

 

 

 

 

 

Sample of the most significant votes

 

Updated guidance was provided by the Department for Work and Pensions (“DWP”) in June 2022, which requires trustees to also define their key stewardship themes / priorities and to report on significant votes in the Engagement Policy Implementation Statement.  

The Trustees define a significant vote as one that is linked to the Scheme’s stewardship priorities/themes. A vote could also be significant for other reasons, e.g. due to the size of holding, however given the nature of the Scheme’s holdings, this is unlikely to be a material consideration for the Trustees as only a minority of the Scheme’s investments are in return seeking assets. The Trustees have set out below their criteria for significant votes, which are aligned to some of the key themes outlined in the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals, and are satisfied that these are also captured as high areas of focus in the Brewin Stewardship Policy :

·        Environmental (E) – Climate change (e.g. vote on a company’s carbon disclosures)

·        Social (S) – Human rights (e.g. worker conditions, safety and pay)

·        Governance (G) – Corporate Governance (e.g. Board quality, diversity, remuneration and inclusion)

 

Brewin use ISS as a proxy voting advisor to provide recommendations on how to vote, aligned with their sustainability voting policy. However, Brewin review carefully, make the final decision and execute their own voting. Brewin defines as significant any votes against management, votes not in line with the ISS recommendation, and special meetings of importance.

Having reviewed the information provided by the managers, the Trustees are comfortable with the voting that has been completed on their behalf in relation to their definition of a significant vote, and the managers’ own definitions of a significant vote.

A sample of the most significant votes is provided below:                  

 

 

 

Holding Details

Resolution Details

Why the vote was considered to be ‘significant’

Manager Voting Decision

Was intention to vote against communicated to the company ahead of vote?

Rationale for voting decision

Outcome of the vote and any relevant next steps

Ashtead PLC

Summary resolution:
Re-elect director

 

Date of vote:
02/09/2025

 

Related with Board diversity

AGAINST

No, voted in line with ISS

ISS recommended voting against the chair of the nomination committee due to insufficient board diversity. Brewin agreed with the assessment and recommendation, and will monitor and engage going forward should the situation not improve

Passed

 

 

Berkeley Group PLC

Summary resolution:
Approve the Remuneration Policy

 

Date of vote:
05/09/2025

Related with remuneration policy

FOR

No, supported the board

Brewin were happy to vote in line with management on the revised remuneration policy, against the recommendation of ISS. The key element of the plan is the 'performance share plan', which aligns with shareholder interests and the delivery of their 2035 strategy. Furthermore, Brewin believes it is more in line with standard UK practice than the previous plan.

Passed

 

ThermoFisher Scientific

Summary resolution:
Advisory Vote to Ratify Named Executive Officers' Compensation

 

Date of vote:

21/05/2025

Related with Executive compensation

FOR

No, supported the board

ISS recommended a vote against the remuneration proposal due to the aversion to rewards targeting negative organic revenue growth. Brewin felt that this needs the context of the scale of the revenue step up that occurred during Covid-19 as is therefore hard to compare.

Passed

 

 

Amazon.com

Summary resolution:

Disclose all material Scope 3 Emissions

 

Date of vote:

21/05/2025

 

Related with climate change

FOR

No, voted in line with ISS

Brewin support the expanded Scope 3 disclosure, which would enhance transparency and enable shareholders to more accurately evaluate Amazon's environmental risks and sustainability performance.

Failed

Alphabet PLC

Summary resolution:

Elect Director Larry Page

 

Date of vote:

06/06/2025

Related with Board quality

AGAINST

No, voted in line with ISS

Brewin voted against the director due to him missing at least 75% of board meetings without disclosing a reason for the absences.

Passed

BP PLC

Summary resolution:

Re-elect Helge Lund as Director

Date of vote:

17/04/2025

Related with Board quality

FOR

No, supported the board

Brewin acknowledge that there have been valid governance concerns during the chair's tenure - including insufficient shareholder input and engagements on strategic changes, questions around board focus and responsiveness, and delays in CEO succession. However, in light of the Chair’s decision to step down and start the succession planning process, announced shortly before the AGM, Brewin supported his re-election to help ensure an orderly transition.

Passed. Brewin will monitor this transition closely while engaging with the board on strengthening its governance structures to ensure that future decisions align with longterm shareholder interests.

Berkshire Hathaway

Summary resolution:

Report on Clean Energy Supply Financing Ratio

 

Date of vote:

03/05/2025

Related with climate change

AGAINST

No, supported the board

Brewin agree with management that the metric is targeted at bank financing activities and Berkshire is not a bank. Given this fact, and that the metric is still not standardised or widely used, Brewin does not believe it will lead to meaningful information for investors.

Failed

 

Assa Abloy

Summary resolution:

Approve Performance Share Matching Plan LTI 2025 for Senior Executives and Key Employees

 

Date of vote:

23/04/2025

Related with Executive compensation

FOR

No, supported the board

Brewin were happy to support this plan, given that Brewin view the overall pay quantum as modest and that management are incentivised for the long term, despite the annual performance period that ISS objected to.

Passed

Source: Brewin Dolphin. Year to 30 September 2025