AEF abrdn Emerging Markets Equity Income Fund Inc

 

abrdn Emerging Markets
Equity Income Fund, Inc. (AEF)

Annual Report

December 31, 2023

abrdn.com

Total Investment Return  (unaudited) 

---

The following table summarizes the average annual Fund performance compared to the Fund’s primary benchmark and Custom Index (as defined below) for the 1-year, 3-year, 5-year and 10-year periods ended December 31, 2023.

	1 Year	3 Years	5 Years	10 Years
Net Asset Value (NAV)	11.32%	-7.72%	1.33%	-0.03%
Market Price	7.12%	-8.06%	1.23%	-0.61%
MSCI Emerging Markets Index (Net Daily Total Return)	9.83%	-5.08%	3.68%	2.66%
Custom AEF Emerging Markets Index1	9.83%	-5.08%	3.68%	0.74%

Performance of a $10,000 Investment (as of December 31, 2023)

This graph shows the change in value of a hypothetical investment of $10,000 in the Fund for the periods indicated. For comparison, the same investment is shown in the indicated index.

All performance information for the periods prior to April 30, 2018 are for the Aberdeen Latin American Equity Fund, Inc. (“LAQ”), the performance and accounting survivor of the reorganizations of seven closed-end funds into the Fund. Performance information for periods prior to April 30, 2018 do not reflect the Fund’s current investment strategy. Returns prior to April 30, 2018 reflect the impact of any contractual waivers in effect for LAQ, without which performance would be lower. Effective April 30, 2018, abrdn Investments Limited (formerly known as Aberdeen Asset Managers Limited) (the "Investment Adviser" or the "Adviser"), the Fund’s Adviser, entered into an expense limitation agreement with the Fund that is effective through June 30, 2024. Without such waivers and limitation agreements, performance would be lower.

abrdn Inc. has entered into an agreement with the Fund to limit investor relations services fees,without which performance would be lower if the Fund’s investor services fees exceeded such limit during the relevant period. This agreement aligns with the term of the advisory agreement and may not be terminated prior to the end of the current term of the advisory agreement. See Note 3 in the Notes to Financial Statements.

{foots1}

1

The Custom Index reflects the returns of the MSCI Emerging Markets Latin America Index (Net Daily Total Return) for periods prior to April 27, 2018 and the returns of the MSCI Emerging Markets Index (Net Daily Total Return) for periods subsequent to April 30, 2018. The indices and time periods for the Custom Index align with the strategies utilized and benchmark for the Fund during the same time periods.

5

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm  

---

To the  Shareholders and Board of Directors
abrdn Emerging Markets Equity Income Fund, Inc.:

Opinion on the Financial Statements

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities of abrdn Emerging Markets Equity Income Fund, Inc. (the Fund), including the portfolio of investments, as of December 31, 2023, the related statements of operations and cash flows for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the years in the two-year period then ended, and the related notes (collectively, the financial statements) and the financial highlights for each of the years in the five-year period then ended. In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Fund as of December 31, 2023, the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the years in the two-year period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the years in the five-year period then ended, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

Basis for Opinion

These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Fund's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Fund in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements and financial highlights, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements and financial highlights. Such procedures also included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2023, by correspondence with custodians and brokers; when replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements and financial highlights. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

We have served as the auditor of one or more abrdn investment companies since 2009.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
February 28, 2024 

29

Corporate Information 

---

Directors

Steven N. Rappaport, Chair
C. William Maher
Rahn Porter
Nancy Yao

Investment Adviser

abrdn Investments Limited
10 Queen's Terrace
Aberdeen, AB10 1XL
Scotland, United Kingdom

Administrator

abrdn Inc.
1900 Market Street, Suite 200
Philadelphia, PA 19103

Custodian

State Street Bank and Trust Company
One Congress Street, Suite 1
Boston, MA 02114-2016

Transfer Agent

Computershare Trust Company, N.A.
P.O. Box 43006
Providence, RI 02940-3078

Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

KPMG LLP
1601 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103

Legal Counsel

Dechert LLP
1900 K Street N.W.
Washington D.C. 20006

Investor Relations

abrdn Inc.
1900 Market Street, Suite 200
Philadelphia, PA 19103
1-800-522-5465
Investor.Relations@abrdn.com

 

Notice is hereby given in accordance with Section 23(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, that the Fund may purchase, from time to time, shares of its common stock in the open market.

Shares of abrdn Emerging Markets Equity Income Fund, Inc. are traded on the NYSE American under the symbol “AEF”. Information about the Fund’s net asset value and market price is available at www.abrdnaef.com.

This report, including the financial information herein, is transmitted to the shareholders of abrdn Emerging Markets Equity Income Fund, Inc. for their general information only. It does not have regard to the specific investment objectives, financial situation and the particular needs of any specific person. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Exhibit 99.CODEETH

CODE OF ETHICS (SOX)

(Principal Executive Officer/President and Principal Financial Officer/Treasurer)

Pursuant to Section 406 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has adopted rules requiring annual disclosure of an investment company’s code of ethics applicable to its principal executive, principal financial and principal accounting officers. The Funds have adopted this Code of Ethics (the “Code”) pursuant to these rules. The Code applies to the series (each a “Fund”). The Code specifically applies to each Fund’s President/Principal Executive Officer and Treasurer/Principal Financial Officer (“Covered Officers”) for the purpose of promoting:

The Covered Officers are integral to the Funds’ goal of creating a culture of high ethical standards and commitment to compliance. In their roles, the Covered Officers will refrain from engaging in any activity that may compromise their professional ethics or otherwise prejudice their ability to carry out their duties to the Funds.’ They will act in good faith, with due care, competence and diligence, without misrepresenting material facts or allowing their independent judgment to be subordinated.

Overview: A “conflict of interest” occurs when a Covered Officer’s private interest interferes with the interests of, or service to, the Funds. For example, a conflict of interest would arise if a Covered Officer, or a member of his or her family, receives improper benefits as a result of his or her position with the Funds.

Certain conflicts of interest arise out of the relationship between Covered Officers and each Fund and already are subject to conflict of interest provisions in the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”) and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”). For example, Covered Officers may not individually engage in certain transactions (such as the purchase or sale of securities or other property) with the Funds because of their status as “affiliated persons” of the Funds. Each Fund’s Adviser and Sub-adviser (the “adviser(s)”) have adopted and implemented respective compliance programs and procedures that are designed to prevent, or identify and correct, violations of these provisions. This Code does not, and is not intended to repeat or replace these programs and procedures, and such conflicts fall outside of the parameters of this Code. Each Covered Officer should be sensitive to situations that may give rise to actual as well as apparent conflicts of interest and should encourage his or her colleagues who provide service to the Funds, whether directly or indirectly, to do the same.

Although typically not presenting an opportunity for improper personal benefit, conflicts arise from, or as a result of, the contractual relationship between each Fund and the investment adviser (and distributor to the Aberdeen open-end funds) of which the Covered Officers are also officers or employees. As a result, this Code recognizes that the Covered Officers will, in the normal course of their duties (whether formally for the Fund or the investment adviser or for both), be involved in establishing policies and implementing decisions that will have different effects on the investment adviser, distributor and the Funds. The participation of the Covered Officers in such activities is inherent in the contractual relationship between the Funds and the Adviser and is consistent with the performance by the Covered Officers of their duties as officers of each Fund. Thus, if performed in conformity with the provisions of the 1940 Act and the Advisers Act, such activities will be deemed to have been handled ethically. In addition, it is recognized by the Funds’ Board that the Covered Officers may also be officers or employees of the Funds.

Other conflicts of interest are covered by this Code, even if such conflicts of interest are not subject to provisions in the 1940 Act and the Advisers Act. The overarching principle is that the personal interest of a Covered Officer should not be placed improperly before the interest of the Funds. A defining question is, “What is the long term interest of current shareholders?” The following list provides examples of conflicts of interest under this Code, but Covered Officers should keep in mind that these examples are not exhaustive.

Each Covered Officer must:

Any activity or relationship that would present a conflict for a Covered Officer would likely also present a conflict for the Covered Officer if a member of the Covered Officer’s family engages in such activity or has such a relationship. There are some conflict of interest situations that should always be discussed with the Compliance Officer prior to their occurrence, or if foreseen, as soon as reasonably possible after discovery. Examples of these include:

(A)           “Covered Officer” with respect to a Fund means the principal executive officer of the Fund and senior financial officers of the Fund, including the principal financial officer, controller or principal accounting officer, or persons performing similar functions, regardless of whether these persons are employed by the Fund or a third party.

(B)           “Executive Officer” of a Fund has the same meaning as set forth in Rule 3b-7 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Subject to any changes in that rule, the term “executive officer,” when used in the Code, means the president, any vice president, any officer who performs a policy making function, or any other person who performs similar policy making functions for a Fund.

(C)           “Waiver” means the approval by a Fund’s CCO of a material departure from a provision of the Code. “Waiver” includes an “Implicit Waiver,” which is a Fund’s failure to take action within a reasonable period of time regarding a material departure from a provision of this Code that has been made known to an Executive Officer of the Fund.

Each Covered Officer:

Each Covered Officer must:

See Exhibit A for the form of PEO/PFO certification.

The Funds’ CCO is responsible for applying this Code to specific situations in which questions are presented under it and has the authority to interpret this Code in any particular situation. However, any approvals or Waivers sought by the President will be considered by the Funds’ Audit Committee.

The Funds will follow these procedures in investigating and enforcing this Code.

The matters covered in the Code are of the utmost importance to the Funds and their stockholders and are essential to each Fund’s ability to conduct its business in accordance with its stated values. Each Covered Officer and each Executive Officer is expected to adhere to these rules (to the extent applicable) in carrying out his or her duties for the Funds. The conduct of each Covered Officer and each Executive Officer can reinforce an ethical atmosphere and positively influence the conduct of all officers, employees and agents of the Funds. A Fund will, if appropriate, take action against any Covered Officer whose actions are found to violate the Code. Appropriate sanctions for violations of the Code will depend on the materiality of the violation to the Fund.

Sanctions may include, among other things, a requirement that the violator undergo training related to the violation, a letter or sanction or written censure by the Board, the imposition of a monetary penalty, suspension of the violator as an officer of a Fund or termination of the employment of the violator. If a Fund has suffered a loss because of violations of the Code, the Fund may pursue remedies against the individuals or entities responsible.

This Code shall be the sole code of ethics adopted by the Funds for the purposes of Section 406 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the rules and forms applicable to registered investment companies thereunder. Insofar as other policies or procedures of the Funds, the Adviser, principal underwriter, or other service providers govern or purport to govern the behavior or activities if the Covered Officers who are subject to this Code, they are superseded by this Code to the extent that they overlap or conflict with the provisions of this Code. The Funds’ and Adviser’s code of ethics under Rule 17j-1 under the Investment Company Act of 1940 are not part of this Code.

Any amendments to this Code must be approved or ratified by a majority vote of the each Fund’s Board, including a majority of Independent Board members.

All reports and records prepared or maintained pursuant to this Code will be considered confidential and shall be maintained and protected accordingly. Except as otherwise required by law or this Code, such matters shall not be disclosed to anyone other than the appropriate Board and its Counsel.

This Code is intended solely for internal use by the Funds and does not constitute an admission, by or on behalf of the Funds, as to any fact, circumstance, or legal conclusion. This Code is a statement of certain fundamental principles, policies, and procedures that govern the Covered Officers in the conduct of each Fund’s business. It is not intended and does not create any rights in any employee, investor, supplier, creditor, shareholder or any other person.

Exhibit A

CODE OF ETHICS 

PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Initial and Annual Certification of Compliance

________________________________

Name (please print)

This is to certify that I have received a copy of the Code of Ethics Pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Code”) for the following Funds:

List of Funds

I have read and understand the Code. Moreover, I agree to promptly report to the Chief Compliance Officer any violation or possible violation of this Code of which I become aware. I understand that violation of the Code will be grounds for disciplinary action or dismissal.

Check one:

Initial

¨          I further certify that I am subject to the Code and will comply with each of the Code’s provisions to which I am subject.

Annual

¨          I further certify that I have complied with and will continue to comply with each of the provisions of the Code to which I am subject.

Exhibit 99.CERT

Certification Pursuant to Rule 30a-2(a) under the 1940 Act and Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

I, Sharon Ferrari, certify that:

Date: March 11, 2024

Certification Pursuant to Rule 30a-2(a) under the 1940 Act and Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

I, Christian Pittard, certify that:

Date: March 11, 2024

Exhibit 99.906CERT

Certification Pursuant to Rule 30a-2(b) under the 1940 Act and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

Christian Pittard, Principal Executive Officer, and Sharon Ferrari, Principal Financial Officer, of abrdn Emerging Markets Equity Income Fund, Inc. (the “Registrant”), each certify that:

PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

abrdn Emerging Markets Equity Income Fund, Inc.

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

abrdn Emerging Markets Equity Income Fund, Inc.

This certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of Form N-CSR or as a separate disclosure document. A signed original of this written statement, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Exhibit 99.14c

PROXY VOTING POLICY

I.            Generally

Rules adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”) require the Funds to disclose publicly its proxy voting policies and procedures, as well as its actual proxy votes. The SEC rules also permit the Funds to delegate its proxy voting responsibilities to the Funds’ Investment Manager, Investment Adviser, and Sub-advisers (collectively “the Advisers”). In connection with this ability to delegate proxy voting responsibilities, the SEC has adopted rules under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended, that require the Advisers to adopt and implement written proxy voting policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure that it votes proxies on behalf of its clients, when given such authority, in the best interests of those clients.

Consistent with the SEC’s requirements, the Funds have delegated responsibility for voting its proxy to the Funds’ Investment Manager, Investment Adviser and Sub-advisers. The Advisers have adopted proxy voting policies and procedures to ensure the proper, and timely, voting of the proxies on behalf of the Funds. Moreover, the Advisers will assist the Funds in the preparation of each Fund’s complete proxy voting record on Form N-PX for the twelve-month period ended June 30, by no later than August 31 of each year.

II.            Procedures

Each Fund shall ensure that its investment manager, investment adviser and sub-advisers are compliant with applicable rules and regulations. These rules and regulations require, in part, that each Fund disclose how it votes each proxy. The rules and regulations also require that the Advisers disclose that they have (1) adopted and implemented proxy voting policies; and (2) adopted procedures regarding how each portfolio security is voted in relation to each Fund. The Adviser must disclose that the procedures are the following:

The Funds also shall disclose to shareholders the policies and procedures that are used to determine how to vote proxies. The Funds include in the Funds’ statement of additional information appropriate summary disclosure regarding the proxy voting policies and procedures of the Funds’ adviser and sub-advisers, and any third party retained by the Funds’ investment adviser or sub-adviser to determine how to vote proxies. In addition, as required by the financial statements’ requirements of Form N-1A and N-2, the Funds’ financial statements must include a statement that a description of the policies and procedures that the Funds use to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available, without charge: (i) upon request, by calling a specified toll-free (or collect) telephone number; or (ii) on the Funds’ website; and (iii) on the SEC website at www.sec.gov.

The Funds also shall file with the SEC, on an annual basis, the complete proxy voting record of each Fund on Form N-PX for the twelve-month period ending June 30^th, by no later than August 31^st of each year, which Report on Form N-PX shall be executed by the principal executive officer of the each Fund. Each Fund’s proxy voting record on the Form N-PX Report shall be made available by each Fund, without charge, upon request, by calling specified toll-free (or collect) telephone number (but is not available on the Funds’ website). If a Fund receives a telephonic request for a proxy voting record, the Fund shall send the requested information disclosed in the Fund’s most-recently filed Report on Form N-PX within three (3) business days of the receipt of the request for this information, by first-class mail or other means designed to ensure equally prompt delivery.

Sub-advisers to the Funds must have procedures and internal controls to ensure compliance with proxy voting regulations. Specifically, the sub-advisers must have procedures for the reporting of proxy voting, and communicating changes in proxy voting policies to the Funds. Prior to Board approval of new advisers, the Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) reviews the proxy voting policies and procedures of the sub-adviser. The CCO ensures that any inadequate procedures or controls of a sub-adviser are reported to the Board and must be corrected in a timely manner.

Exhibit 99.14d

U.S. Registered Advisers

Summary of Proxy Voting Guidelines 

as of October 26, 2022

Where clients appoint abrdn Inc. to vote proxies on their behalf, policies have been established to vote these proxies in the best interests of our clients.

We employ ISS as a service provider to facilitate electronic voting. We require ISS to provide recommendations based on our own set of parameters tailored to abrdn’s assessment and approach, but remain conscious that all voting decisions are our own on behalf of our clients. We consider ISS’s recommendations and those based on our custom parameters as input to our voting decisions. We make use of the ISS standard research and recommendations and those based on our own custom policy as input to our voting decisions. Where our analysts make a voting decision that is different from the recommendations based on our custom policy they will provide a rationale for such a decisions which will be made publicly available in our voting disclosures.

In order to make proxy voting decisions, an abrdn analyst assesses the resolutions at general meetings in our active investment portfolios. This analysis will be based on our knowledge of the company, but will also make use of the custom and standard recommendations provided by ISS as described above. The product of this analysis will be a final voting decision instructed through ISS and applied to all funds for which abrdn have been appointed to vote. For funds managed by a sub-adviser, we may delegate to the sub-adviser the authority to vote proxies; however, the sub-adviser will be required to either follow our policies and procedures or to demonstrate that their policies and procedures are consistent with ours, or otherwise implemented in the best interest of clients.

There may be certain circumstances where abrdn Inc. may take a more limited role in voting proxies. We will not vote proxies for client accounts in which the client contract specifies that abrdn Inc. will not vote. We may abstain from voting a client proxy if the voting is uneconomic or otherwise not in clients’ best interests. For companies held only in passively managed portfolios, abrdn Inc. custom recommendations provided by ISS will be used to automatically apply our voting approach; we have scope to intervene to test that this delivers appropriate results, and will on occasions intrude to apply a vote more fully in clients’ best interests. If voting securities are part of a securities lending program, we may be unable to vote while the securities are on loan. However, we have the ability to recall shares on loan or to restrict lending when required, in order to ensure all shares have voted. In addition, certain jurisdictions may impose share-blocking restrictions at various times which may prevent abrdn Inc. from exercising our voting authority.

We recognize that there may be situations in which we vote at a company meeting where we encounter a conflict of interest. Such situations include:

We have adopted procedures within our proxy voting process to identify where a conflict exists. These procedures are designed to ensure that our voting decisions are based on our client’s best interests and are not impacted by any conflict.

The implementation of this policy, along with conflicts of interest, will be reviewed periodically by the Active Ownership team. abrdn’s Global ESG Principles & Voting Policies are published on our website.

Clients may obtain a free copy of abrdn Inc.’s proxy voting policies and procedures and/or proxy voting records for their account by contacting us at (215) 405-5700. abrdn publishes ESG Principles & Voting Policies, which describe our approach to investment analysis, shareholder engagement and proxy voting across companies worldwide. There are published on our website.

Clients that have not granted abrdn Inc. voting authority over securities held in their accounts will receive their proxies in accordance with the arrangements they have made with their service providers.

Listed Company ESG Principles & Voting Policies

February 2023

Introduction

Active Ownership and Environmental, Social & Governance (ESG) considerations are a driver of our investment process, our investment activity, our client journey and our corporate influence.

Through engagement with the companies in which we invest, and by exercising votes on behalf of our clients, we seek to improve the financial resilience and performance of our clients’ investments. Where we believe change is needed, we endeavour to catalyse this through our stewardship capabilities.

Our expectations

As global investors, we are particularly aware that ESG structures and frameworks vary across regions. Furthermore, what we expect of the companies in which we invest varies between different stages of business development and the underlying history and nature of the company in question. We seek to understand each company’s individual circumstances and so evaluate how it can best be governed and overseen. As such, we strive to apply the principles and policies set out on these pages in response to the needs of that individual company at that particular time. Our heritage as a predominantly active fund manager helps drive this bespoke approach to understanding good governance and risk management.

We have a clear perception of what we consider to be best practice globally – as set out in this document. However we will reflect the nature of the business, our close understanding of individual companies and regional considerations, where appropriate, in our approach to applying these policies, which are not exhaustive.

This document has received approval from the Head of Public Markets and the Investment Vector’s Chief Sustainability Officer following consultation with various internal stakeholders.

Our approach to stewardship

We seek to integrate and appraise environmental, social and governance factors in our investment process. Our aim is to generate the best long-term outcomes for our clients and we will actively take steps as stewards and owners to protect and enhance the value of our clients’ assets.

Stewardship is a reflection of this bespoke approach to good governance and risk management. We seek to understand each company’s specific approach to governance, how value is created through business success and how investors’ interests are protected through the management of risks that materially impact business success. This requires us to play our part in the governance process by being active stewards of companies, involved in dialogue with management and non-executive directors where appropriate, understanding the material risks and opportunities – including those relating to environmental and social factors and helping to shape the future success of the business.

We will:

abrdn is committed to exercising responsible ownership with a conviction that companies adopting improving practices in corporate governance and risk management will be more successful in their core activities and deliver enhanced returns to shareholders. As owners of companies, the process of stewardship is a natural part of our investment approach as we seek to benefit from their long-term success on our clients’ behalf.

Engagement

It is a central tenet of our active investment approach that we strive to meet with the management and directors of our investee companies on a regular basis. The discussions we have cover a wide range of topics, including: strategic, operational, and ESG issues and consider the long-term drivers of value. Engagement with companies on ESG risks and opportunities is a fundamental part of our investment process. It is a process by which we can discuss how a company identifies, prioritises and mitigates its key risks and optimises its most significant opportunities. As such, we regard engagement as:

Proxy Voting

Proxy voting is an integral part of our active stewardship approach and we seek to exercise voting rights in a manner in line with our clients’ best interests. We seek to ensure that voting reflects our understanding of the companies in which we invest on behalf of our clients. We believe that voting is a vital mechanism for holding boards and management teams to account, and is an important tool for escalation and shareholder action.

This document includes our process and overarching policy guidelines which we apply when voting at general meetings. These policies are not exhaustive and we evaluate our voting on a case by case basis. As a global investment firm we recognise the importance of adopting a regional approach, taking into account differing and developing market practices. Where a policy is specific to one region this is denoted.

We endeavour to engage with companies regarding our voting decisions to maintain a dialogue on matters of concern.

Voting Process

In line with our active ownership approach, we review the majority of general meeting agendas convened by companies which are held in our active equity portfolios. Analysis is undertaken by a member of our regional investment teams or our Active Ownership team and votes instructed following consideration of our policies, our views of the company and our investment insights. To enhance our analysis we may engage with a company prior to voting to understand additional context and explanations, particularly where there is deviation from what we believe to be best practice.

To supplement our own analysis we make use of the benchmark research and recommendations provided by ISS, a provider of proxy voting services. In the UK we also make use of the Investment Association’s (IA) Institutional Voting Information Service. We have implemented regional voting policy guidelines with ISS which ISS applies to all meetings in order to produce customised vote recommendations. These custom recommendations help identify resolutions which deviate from our expectations. They are also used to determine votes where a company is held only in passive funds. Within our custom policies, however, we do specify numerous resolutions which should be referred to us for active review. For example we will analyse all proposals marked by ISS as environmental or social proposals.

While it is most common for us to vote in line with a board’s voting recommendation we will vote our clients’ shares against resolutions which are not consistent with their best interests. We may also vote against resolutions which conflict with local governance guidelines, such as the IA in the UK. Although we seek to vote either in favour or against a resolution we do make use of an abstain vote where this is considered appropriate. For example we may use an abstention to acknowledge some improvement, but as a means to reserve our position in expectation that further improvement is needed before we can vote in favour. Where we vote against a resolution we endeavour to inform companies of our rationale.

In exceptional circumstances we may attend and speak at a shareholder meeting to reinforce our views to the company’s board.

We endeavour to vote all shares for which we have voting authority. We may not vote when there are obstacles to do so, for example those impacting liquidity, such as share- blocking, or where there is a significant conflict of interest. We use the voting platform of ISS to instruct our votes. Where we lend stock on behalf of clients, and subject to the terms of client agreements, we hold the right to recall shares where it is in clients’ interests and we take the view that it will impact the final vote to maintain full voting weight on a particular meeting or resolution.

Our votes are disclosed publicly on our website one day after a general meeting has taken place.

Strategy

We invest in companies to create the best outcome for our clients. Companies must be clear about the drivers of their business success and their strategy for maintaining and enhancing it. Investment is a forward- looking process; we seek to understand the opportunity for a business and its scope for future value-creation over the long term. In order to do this, we need clarity on past business delivery and its drivers, and on the effective track record of management; we require honest and open reporting to build confidence in that track record. We seek confidence that companies and their management can maintain their competitive positioning and operational performance and subsequently enhance returns for investors. A clear strategy and clarity about the drivers of operational success provides the lens through which we will consider most corporate issues, not least assessing performance and risk management.

Board of Directors

We believe effective board governance promotes the long-term success and value creation of the company. The board should be responsible for establishing the company’s purpose and strategy, overseeing management in their implementation of strategy and performance against objectives. The board should ensure a strong framework of control and risk oversight, including material ESG risks. The board should assess and monitor culture and be engaged with the workforce, shareholders and wider society.

Board Composition

Effective decision making requires a mix of skills around the table and constructive debate between diverse and different-minded individuals. A range of skills, experience and perspectives should be drawn together on the board. These include industry knowledge, experience from other sectors and relevant geographical knowledge. Independence of thought plays a crucial role in the ability of a board to generate the debate and discussion that will challenge management, help enhance business performance and improve decision-making. Board assessments will help the board ensure it has the necessary mix of skills, diversity and quality of individuals to address the current risks and opportunities the company faces. Unitary boards should comprise an appropriate combination of executive and non-executive directors such that no group of individuals dominates decision-making. We expect the size of the board to reflect the size, nature and complexity of the business. We also expect regular internal and external board evaluations which include an assessment of board composition and effectiveness.

Leadership

Running businesses effectively for the long term requires effective collaboration and cooperation, with no individual or small group having unfettered powers. Nor should they have dominant influence over the way a business is run or over major decisions about its operations or future. There should be a division of responsibility between board leadership and executive leadership of the business. We believe that there should be a division of roles at the top of the organisation, typically between a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and an independent Chair.

Independence

Companies should be led and overseen by genuinely independent boards. When looking at board composition we generally expect to see a majority of independent directors, with boards identifying their independence classifications in the Annual Report. It is preferable to see an identified Senior Independent Director (SID) on the board, who will lead the appraisal of and succession planning for the Chair. We expect SIDs to meet with investors and be a point of contact for escalating concerns if required.

In assessing a director’s independence we will have due regard for whether a director:

Succession Planning & Refreshment

Regular refreshment of the non-executive portion of a board helps draw in fresh perspectives, not least in the context of changes to business and emerging opportunities and risks. It also helps limit the danger of group-think. Thoughtful and proactive succession planning is therefore needed for board continuity, to ensure that a board is populated by individuals with an appropriate mix of skills, experience and perspective. We expect the board to implement a formal process for the recruitment and appointment of new directors, and to provide transparency of this in the Annual Report.

Diversity

We believe that companies that make progress in diversity and inclusion (D&I) are better positioned for long-term sustainability and outperformance. Diversity of thought, paired with a culture of inclusion, can help companies to tackle increasingly complex challenges and markets. We expect boards to report on how they promote D&I throughout the business and believe that setting targets is important to addressing imbalances. We recognise the importance of adopting a regional approach to diversity and inclusion, allowing us to press for progress with appropriate consideration for the starting point. We have for several years, actively encouraged progress in gender diversity at all levels, and have expanded our scope in relation to diversity and inclusion across geographies. In respect of ethnic diversity, this is coming increasingly into focus as we encourage boards to progress in ensuring that their composition reflects their employee and customer bases.

Our regional specific policies are below. In determining our votes we will take account of mitigating factors, such as the sudden departure of a female board member. We will also consider any clear progress being made by the company on diversity and any assurance that diversity shortfalls will soon be addressed.

Gender Diversity

Ethnic Diversity

Directors’ Time Commitment

Individual directors need sufficient time to carry out their role effectively and therefore we seek to ensure that all directors maintain an appropriate level of overall commitments such that allows them to be properly diligent.

Board Committees

Boards should establish committees, populated by independent and appropriately skilled non-executive directors, to oversee (as a minimum) the nomination, audit and remuneration processes. It may also be appropriate for additional committees to be established, such as a risk or sustainability committee. These committees should report openly on an annual basis about their activities and key decisions taken.

Nomination Committee

This committee has responsibility for leading the process for orderly non-executive and senior management succession planning and recruitment, and for overseeing the composition of the board including skillset, experience and diversity. We expect the committee to be comprised of a majority of independent directors with an independent Chair.

Audit Committee

This committee has responsibility for monitoring the integrity of the financial statements, reviewing the company’s internal financial controls and risk management systems, reviewing the effectiveness of the company’s internal audit function and appointing auditors. While we prefer the committee to be wholly independent, at minimum we expect the committee to be comprised of a majority of independent directors with an independent Chair and at least one member having recent and relevant financial experience.

Remuneration Committee

This committee is responsible for determining the policy and setting remuneration for executive and non-executive directors. The committee should ensure that remuneration is aligned with strategy and company performance and should clearly demonstrate regard for the company’s employees, for wider society and be cognisant of the company’s licence to operate when considering policy and the overall level of remuneration. We expect remuneration committees to be robust in their approach to developing and implementing remuneration policies, with formal and transparent procedures for developing policies and for determining remuneration packages. Remuneration committees should be comprised of a majority of independent directors with an independent Chair and we expect members to have appropriate experience and knowledge of the business. No executive should be involved in setting their own remuneration.

Director Accountability

We expect to be able to hold boards to account through engagement and regular director re-elections and directors should feel that they are accountable to investors. We encourage individual, rather than bundled, director elections. While our preference is for directors to be subject to re-election annually, we expect re-elections to take place at least every three years. Lengthier board mandates, while not uncommon in some markets, risk divorcing directors from an appropriate sense of accountability. Directors and management should make themselves available for discussions with major shareholders as we expect to have open dialogue to share our perspectives and gain confidence that the individuals are carrying out their roles with appropriate vigour and diligence. A further important element of director accountability to shareholders is that investors should have the right, both formal and informal, to propose and promote individual directors to be considered for election to the board by all shareholders.

Reporting

A company’s board should present a fair, balanced and understandable assessment of the company’s position and prospects – financial and non-financial – and of how it has fulfilled its responsibilities. We support the principle of full disclosure of relevant and useful information, subject to issues of commercial confidentiality and prejudice. Boilerplate disclosure should be avoided. We encourage companies to consider using the appropriate globally developed standards and would particularly encourage the use of those created by the Taskforce for Climate related Financial Disclosure (TCFD), the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC), the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). Audited reporting and financial numbers should be published ahead of any relevant shareholder meetings. We continue to monitor the evolving reporting landscape and consider new reporting developments as they emerge, either voluntary or regulatory.

Political Donations & Lobbying

Companies should be consistent in their public statements and not undermine these in private commentary to market participants or to politicians and regulators. We welcome transparency from companies about their lobbying activities and believe that good companies have nothing to hide in this respect. Similarly we encourage transparency of any political donations that companies deem appropriate – and we expect a clear explanation of why such donations are an appropriate use of corporate funds.

Risk & Audit

The board is responsible for determining the company’s risk appetite, establishing procedures to manage risk and for monitoring the company’s internal controls. We expect boards to conduct robust assessments of the company’s material risks and report to shareholders on risks, controls and effectiveness. The introduction of global accounting standards has led to much greater investor confidence in the accounts produced by companies around the world. It has also assisted in creating consistency of reporting across companies, enabling fairer comparisons between different operating businesses. We therefore encourage companies seeking international investment to report under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) or US GAAP. As a firm abrdn supports the continued development of high quality global accounting standards.

An independent audit, delivered by a respected audit firm, is a required element for investor confidence in reporting by companies. We strongly favour meaningful, transparent and informative auditor reports, giving us additional insights into the audit process and accounting outcomes. Audit fees must be sufficient to pay for an appropriately in-depth assurance process. We would be concerned if a company sought to make savings in this respect as the cost in terms of damage to audit effectiveness and confidence in the company’s accounts would be much more substantial.

The independence of the auditor and the standard of their work, particularly in challenging management, should be subject to regular assessment that is appropriately disclosed. Even when individuals carrying out the audit are refreshed, we believe that the independence of the audit firm erodes over time and we will encourage a tender process and change of audit firm where an engagement has lasted for an extended period. In order to demonstrate the level of independence, companies should not have the same audit firm in place for more than 20 years.

The relationship with the auditor should be mediated through the audit committee. Where we are significant shareholders, we expect to be consulted on plans to tender and replace auditors.

Remuneration

Remuneration policies and the overall levels of pay should be aligned with strategy, attracting and retaining talent and incentivising the decisions and behaviours needed to create long-term value. The component parts of remuneration should be structured so as to link rewards to corporate and individual performance and they should be considered in the context of the remuneration policies when taken as a whole. We recognise the benefits of simplicity in forming the policy, which should clearly link outcomes and expectations for those receiving the remuneration, as well as external stakeholders. The structure should be transparent and understandable.

A company’s annual report should contain an informative statement of remuneration policy which communicates clearly to stakeholders how it has developed and evolved. This should include details of any stress testing that may have been undertaken to understand the policy outcomes for different business scenarios. The remuneration committee should provide a clear description of the application of policy and the outcomes achieved.

Base salary should be set at a level appropriate for the role and responsibility of the executive. We discourage increases which are driven by peer benchmarking, and expect increases to be aligned with the wider workforce. Consideration should also be given to the knock on impact to variable remuneration potential. Pension arrangements and benefits should be clearly disclosed. We generally expect pension structures to be aligned with the wider workforce.

A company should structure variable, performance- related pay to incentivise and reward management in a manner that is aligned with the company’s sustainable performance and risk appetite over the long term. We expect all variable pay to be capped, preferably as a proportion of base salary. In the UK we expect variable pay to be capped as a proportion of salary. In other markets, if variable pay is capped at a number of shares, we expect the value of grants to be kept under review annually to ensure the value remains appropriate and is not excessive.

Performance metrics used to determine variable pay should be clearly disclosed and aligned with the company’s strategy. A significant portion of performance metrics should seek to measure significant improvements in the underlying financial performance of the company. We also encourage the inclusion of non-financial metrics linked to targets which are aligned with the company’s progress on its ESG strategy. Where possible we expect these targets to be quantifiable and disclosed.

Variable pay arrangements should incentivise participants to achieve above-average performance through the use of challenging targets. We encourage sliding-scale performance measures and expect performance target ranges to be disclosed to enable shareholders to assess the level of challenge and pay for performance alignment. We expect annual bonus targets to be disclosed retrospectively and encourage the disclosure of long term incentive (LTI) targets at the beginning of the performance period, but at minimum we expect retrospective disclosure. Where bonus or LTI targets are not disclosed due to commercial sensitivity we expect an explanation of why the targets continue to be considered sensitive retrospectively and expect some detail regarding the level of achievement vs target. Where a share price metric is being used, we expect this to be underpinned by a challenging measure of underlying performance.

We encourage settlement of a portion of the annual bonus in shares which are deferred for at least one year.

We expect settlement of long term incentives to be in shares, with rationale provided for any awards settled in cash. Long term incentives should have a performance period of no less than three years. In the UK we expect a further holding period of two years to be applied, and we encourage this in other markets.

We do not generally support restricted share schemes or value creation plans. We will consider supporting the use of restricted share plans which have been structured consistent with the guidelines of the Investment Association.

We expect appropriate malus and clawback provisions to be applied to variable remuneration plans.

We expect shareholding guidelines to be adopted for executive directors and encourage the adoption of post-departure shareholding guidelines.

We expect details of any use of discretion to be disclosed and its use should be justifiable, appropriate and clearly explained. We would expect policies to be sufficiently robust so that discretion is only necessary in exceptional circumstances. We do not generally support exceptional awards, and are particularly sensitive to such awards being granted to reward a corporate transaction.

We expect executive service contracts to provide for a maximum notice period of 12 months. We will consider local best practice provisions related to severance arrangements when voting.

Non-executive fees should reflect the role’s level of responsibility and time commitment. We do not support NED’s participation in option or performance-related arrangements. However we do support the payment of fees in shares, particularly where conservation of cash is an issue.

In the UK our expectations of companies are aligned with the Investment Association’s Principles of Remuneration.

Where significant changes to remuneration arrangements are being considered, we would expect remuneration committees to consult with their largest shareholders prior to finalising any changes. Where any increase to variable remuneration is proposed, we would expect this to be accompanied by a demonstrable increase in the stretch of the targets. Furthermore we expect any increases to remuneration to be subject to shareholder approval.

In response to the issues arising from the cost of living crisis being experienced by many people in the UK, we expect companies to focus any additional help towards those members of the workforce who need it most. We expect Remuneration Committees to take into account factors arising from the cost of living crisis when deliberating over executive pay outcomes. We would be concerned by reputational issues arising from decisions made in these unusual circumstances and may make this a factor in our voting decisions at relevant AGMs.

In line with the expectations set out above we will generally vote against the appropriate resolution(s) where:

Investor Rights

The interests of minority shareholders must be protected and any major, or majority, investor should not enjoy preferential treatment. The structure of ownership or control should minimise the potential for abuse of public shareholders.

Corporate Transactions

Companies should not make significant changes to their structure or nature without being fully transparent to their investors. Shareholders should have the opportunity to vote on significant corporate activity, such as mergers and acquisitions. Where a transaction is with a related party, only independent shareholders should have a vote. Even in markets where no vote is given to shareholders in these circumstances, investors need transparent disclosure of the reasons for any such major change. Companies should expect that shareholders may want to discuss and debate proposed developments

Diversification beyond the core skills of the business needs to be justified as it is more often than not a distraction from operational performance. All major deals need to be clearly explained and justified in the context of the pre- existing strategy and be subject to shareholder approval.

We will vote on corporate transactions on a case by case basis.

Dividends

We will generally support the payment of dividends but will scrutinise the proposed level where it appears excessive given the company’s financial position.

Share Capital

The board carries responsibility for prudent capital management and allocation.

Share Issuance

We will consider capital raises which are proposed for a specific purpose on a case by case basis but recognise that it can be beneficial for companies to have some general flexibility to issue shares to raise capital. However we expect issuances to be limited to the needs of the business and companies should not issue significant portions of shares unless offering these on a pro-rata basis to existing shareholders to protect against inappropriate dilution of investments.

When considering our votes we will, however, take account of the company’s circumstances and any further detail regarding proposed capital issuance authorities prior to voting.

Following changes to the UK’s Pre-Emption Group Guidelines in November 2022, which reflect an increase on previous limits, we will hold the Chair of the company accountable for any perceived misuse of the increased flexibility through a vote against their re-election.

Buyback

We recognise that share buybacks can be a flexible means of returning cash to shareholders.

Related Party Transactions

The nature of relations – particularly any related party transactions (RPTs) – with parent or related companies, or other major investors, must be disclosed fully. Related party transactions must be agreed on arm’s length terms and be made fully transparent. Where they are material, they should be subject to the approval of independent shareholders.

Article/Bylaw amendments

While it is standard to see proposals from companies to amend their articles of association or bylaws, we will review these on a case by case basis. When doing so we expect full transparency of the proposed changes to be disclosed.

Anti-Takeover Defences

There should be no artificial structures put in place to entrench management and protect companies from takeover. The best defence from hostile takeover is strong operational delivery.

Voting Rights

We are strong supporters of the principle of ‘one share, one vote’ and therefore favour equal voting rights for all shareholders.

General Meetings

Shareholder meetings provide an important opportunity to hold boards to account not only through voting on the proposed resolutions but also by enabling investors the opportunity to raise questions, express views and emphasise concerns to the entire board. We may make a statement at a company’s AGM as a means of escalation to reinforce our views to a company’s board.

We welcome the opportunity to attend meetings virtually, being of the view that this can increase participation given obstacles such as location or meeting concentration. However we are not supportive of companies adopting virtual-only meetings as we believe this format reduces accountability. Our preference is for a hybrid meeting format to balance the flexibility of remote attendance with the accountability of an in-person meeting.

As part of strategic planning, boards need to have oversight of, and clearly articulate, the key opportunities and risks affecting the sustainability of the business model. This includes having a process for, and transparent disclosure of, potential and emerging opportunities and risks and the actions being taken to address them.

The effective management of risks extends to long-term issues that are hard to measure and whose timeframe is uncertain and will include the management of environmental and social issues. We use the UN Global Compact’s four areas of focus in assessing how companies are performing in this area.

Specifically we expect companies to be able to demonstrate how they manage their exposures under the following headings.

The Environment

It is generally accepted that companies are responsible for the effects of their operations and products on the environment. The steps they take to assess and reduce those impacts can lead to cost savings and reduce potential reputational damage. Companies are responsible for their impact on the climate and they face increased regulation from world governments on activities that contribute to climate change.

We expect that companies will

Where we have serious concerns regarding a board’s actions, or inaction, in relation to the environment we will consider taking voting action on an appropriate resolution.

We will use the indicators within the Carbon Disclosure Project to identify companies which are not fulfilling their climate commitments. Where appropriate we will take voting action to encourage better practice among companies which we deem to be laggards.

Labour and employment

Companies that respect internationally recognised labour rights and provide safe and healthy working environments for employees are likely to reap the benefits. This approach is likely to foster a more committed and productive workforce, and help reduce damage to reputation and a company’s license to operate. We expect companies to comply with all employment laws and regulations and adopt practices in line with the International Labour Organization’s core labour standards. a minimum.

In particular, companies will:

Where we have serious concerns regarding a board’s actions, or inaction, in relation to labour and employment we will consider taking voting action on an appropriate resolution.

Human rights

We recognise the impact that human- rights issues can have on our investments and the role we can play in stimulating progress. We draw upon a number of international, legal and voluntary agreements for guidance on human-rights responsibilities and compliance. Our primary sources are the International Bill of Rights and the core conventions of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), which form the list of internationally agreed human rights, and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), which clarifies the roles of states and businesses. We encourage companies to use the UNGPs Reporting Framework and encourage disclosure in line with this guidance.

We expect companies to:

Where we have serious concerns regarding a board’s actions, or inaction, in relation to human rights we will consider taking voting action on an appropriate resolution.

Business ethics

As institutions of wealth and influence, companies have a significant impact on the prosperity of their local communities and the wider world. Having a robust code of ethics and ensuring professional conduct mean companies operate more effectively, particularly when it comes to ethical principles governing decision- making. A company’s failure to conform to internationally recognised standards of business ethics on matters such as bribery and corruption, can increase its risk of facing investigation, litigation and fines. This could undermine its license to operate, and affect its reputation and image.

We expect companies to have policies in place to support the following:

Where we have serious concerns regarding a board’s actions, or inaction, related to business ethics we will consider taking voting action on an appropriate resolution.

We will review any resolution at company meetings which ISS has identified as covering environmental and social factors.

The following will detail our overarching approach and expectations.

Our approach to vote analysis is consistent across active and quantitative investment strategies

Review the resolution, proponent and board statements, existing disclosures, and external research.

Engage with the company, proponents, and other stakeholders as required.

Involve thematic experts, regional specialists, and investment analysts in decision-making to harness a wide range of expertise and include all material factors in our analysis.

Ensure consistency by using our own in-house guidance to frame case-by-case analysis.

Monitor the outcomes of votes.

Follow-up with on-going engagement as required.

Given the nature of the topics covered by these resolutions we do not apply binary voting policies. We adopt a nuanced approach to our voting research and outcomes and will consider the specific circumstances of the company concerned. Our objective is not to vote in favour of all shareholder resolutions but to determine the best outcome for the company in the context of the best outcome for our clients. There are instances where we are supportive of the spirit of a resolution however there may be a reason which prevents our support for the proposal. For example, where the purpose of the resolution is unclear, where the wording is overly prescriptive, when suggested implementation is overly burdensome or where the proposal strays too closely to the board’s responsibility for setting the company’s strategy.

Management Proposals

We are supportive of the steps being taken by companies to provide transparent, detailed reporting of their ESG strategies and targets. While shareholder proposals on environmental and social topics have been common on AGM agenda for several years, an increasing number of companies are presenting management proposals, such as so called ‘say on climate’ votes, for shareholder approval. While we welcome the intention of accountability behind these votes, we have reservations about the potential for them to limit the scope for subsequent investor challenge and diminish the direct responsibility and accountability of the board and individual directors. We believe it is the role of the board and the executive to develop and apply strategy, including ESG strategies, and we will continue to use existing voting items to hold boards to account on the implementation of these strategies. As active investors we also regularly engage with investee companies on ESG topics and find this dialogue to be the best opportunity to provide feedback.

We will review the appropriateness of ‘say on climate’ votes and consider if other voting mechanisms should be applied to ensure both Boards and Executives apply the appropriate rigour to initiate and deliver strategies to support the climate transition.

Shareholder Proposals

The number of resolutions focused on environmental and social (E&S) issues filed by shareholders continues to grow rapidly. The following provides an overview of some of the factors we consider when assessing the most prevalent themes for shareholder proposals.

Climate Change

We are members of the Net Zero Asset Manager Initiatives and this is reflected in our Active Ownership approach. We encourage the companies in which we invest to demonstrate a robust methodology underpinning Paris aligned goals and targets and are supportive of resolutions that will help companies to achieve this. Once a credible climate strategy is in place, we prioritise evidence of implementation over requests to re-draft strategies and targets after only a year or two.

A growing number of resolutions call on companies to increase the transparency of their reporting on climate- related lobbying. These proposals typically encompass direct lobbying undertaken by the company and indirect lobbying undertaken by trade associations and other organisations of which it is a member or supporter. Lobbying contrary to the objectives of the Paris Agreement is effective in creating climate policy inertia and impeding the transition to net zero economies.

We do not evaluate resolutions in isolation. Our approach recognises the links between corporate governance, strategy and climate approach. Where a company’s operational response to climate change is inadequate, the effectiveness of board oversight and corporate governance may also be called into question.

We expect and encourage companies to:

Diversity & Inclusion

Diversity & Inclusion (D&I) is an important and growing theme for shareholder resolutions. In recent years resolutions have focussed on racial equity audits, pay gap reporting, transparent disclosure of D&I metrics and assessments of the efficacy of D&I programmes.

A racial equity audit is an independent analysis of a company’s business practices designed to identify practices that may have a discriminatory effect. We are supportive of racial equity audits in relation to internal and external D&I programmes. It is appropriate that these programmes should have KPIs and audit mechanisms in place to measure and evaluate outcomes. Some proposals request racial equity audits of provision of services. We are aware that measuring provision of service is challenging and gathering racial data on customers can be difficult and inappropriate. There are also multiple different factors that can influence service provision and which could be misconstrued as being racially motivated. We will however, support resolutions which are not unduly prescriptive and allow companies to carry out audits within a reasonable timeframe, at a reasonable cost, and excluding confidential or proprietary information.

We consider standardised gender pay gap disclosure to be an important tool for assessing how companies are addressing gender inequality. Reporting on gender pay gaps across global operations can help companies to remain ahead of the regulatory curve. It also enables them to offer better opportunities and remuneration for women around the world. We are therefore supportive of resolutions which are likely to deliver these benefits. Proposals must be carefully drafted to achieve these outcomes. For instance, in the past we have been unable to support resolutions which called for global median gender and racial pay gap reporting as it was unclear how this would reveal potential pay disparities at a local level and how it could be implemented by companies with operations in jurisdictions where collection of racial identity data is illegal.

In the US market we support public disclosure of EEO- 1 forms by companies. The EEO-1 form details a comprehensive breakdown of workforce by race and gender according to ten employment categories. The form is submitted privately to the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on an annual basis. When publicly disclosed, it offers investors and other stakeholders data in a standardised and comparable form. We have used our engagement programme to ask the companies in which we invest to disclose this form for their US operations while making it central to our D&I voting approach and supporting resolutions that request it.

Human rights

As a supporter of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), we expect companies to demonstrate how human rights due diligence is conducted across operations, services, product use and the supply chain. Companies can have a significant impact on human rights directly through operations and provision of services, and indirectly through product use and the supply chain. In recent years the sale and end-use of controversial technologies, such as facial recognition software, has emerged as a prominent theme.

We expect and encourage companies to: