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