Strengthening Our investment Escalation Message from Key highlights our stewardship Our progress Our purpose approach and Our approach and exercising Our aspirations for 38 Pension Protection Fund Responsible Investment Report 2022/23 our Chair of the year commitment at a glance and governance incorporating ESG to engagement shareholder rights the coming year Appendices ESCALATION AND EXERCISING SHAREHOLDER RIGHTS CONTINUED The pie charts present our global approach to voting throughout the year under review. Every year shareholders, including activists, propose resolutions at company annual meetings. Resolutions span a broad range of issues, from climate change to human rights to data privacy. The 2022 voting season was an active one with the majority of shareholder meetings taking place from March through to May each year. There was no doubt that 2022 was busier due to the high volume of ESG shareholder resolutions requiring a vote decision. Against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2022 voting season witnessed an increased focus on shareholder rights. Virtual-only shareholder meetings and a push for robust minority shareholder rights came into focus. Proposals to adopt ‘one share, one vote’ share class principles were prevalent along with proposals to allow proxy access. Changes of this nature show the developed understanding of investors in leveraging their rights as shareholders. During the season we noted the numerous post-pandemic Say-On-Pay proposals and corporate governance agenda items covering board elections that required consideration. Additionally, the signi昀椀cant increase in Say-On-Climate resolutions required a case-by-case analysis of the speci昀椀cs surrounding the company. The 2022 proxy season also saw an increase in anti-ESG proposals by shareholders. A notable example was the ‘civil rights and non-discrimination’ proposal, which was proposed at several US companies to conduct civil rights audits. Whilst these proposals seem to promote diversity and equal opportunity, closer consideration showed that the proposals argued that ‘anti-racist’ programmes are discriminatory against employees deemed non-diverse. These proposals actually aimed to frustrate companies’ e昀昀orts to promote civil rights and social justice.