F&C Asset Management

Organisational Overview
Organisational Overview This section captures information that helps determine if some of the subsequent questions are required and also plays a role in benchmarking. Please make sure you provide accurate answers. This is also one of the more challenging sections as it may require gathering information from multiple sources. We suggest you collect all this information before progressing to other parts of the questionnaire.
1. What were your organisation's total assets under management as of the most recent count (in millions)? (Estimating to the nearest hundred million as of December 31 2008 would be preferable - although the most recent available count would be sufficient. If your currency is not listed, please select 'other' and indicate your currency or convert to United States dollars.)			98600
Please select currency			British pound (GBP)
1a. If 'other' was selected, please specify the other currency here			No Answer
2. Please pick the one category and level of complexity that best describes your organisation (if your organisation is a pension fund, please also select your pension type). This information may be used to provide you with the best possible benchmarking. Complexity Highly complex:- (>20 investment strategies, multiple offices in different countries) Moderately complex:- (5-20 investment strategies, a few offices) Simple:- (<5 investment strategies, one office)
Category			Complexity
Mainstream investment manager			Highly complex
2a. If 'other' was selected, please specify the other category here			No answer
3. Please provide an approximation of your average asset mix for 2008 or your asset mix as of the most recent count (in percent): (+/- 5% is sufficient. The sum of all the fields must be 100%)
	Internal Active	Internal Passive	External Active	External Passive
Listed equity (developed markets)	24	0	0	0
Listed equity (emerging markets)	2	0	0	0
Fixed income (not including corporate issuers)	31	1	0	0
Fixed income (corporate issuers)	27	0	0	0
Private equity	0	0	0	0
Listed real estate or property	7	0	0	0
Non-listed real estate or property	0	0	0	0
Hedge funds	3	0	0	0
Commodities	0	0	0	0
Infrastructure	0	0	0	0
Cash	5	0	0	0
Other (Please specify):	0	0	0	0
Governance, Policy and Strategy
Governance, Policy and Strategy Questions 5 through 15 are about the governance and oversight of your organisation's responsible investment activities and the associated policies and strategy. This section will be scored separately from the six Principles. "Policy" in this section may refer to one overall RI policy or multiple policies that address various elements of RI.
5. Do you have a policy that makes specific reference to responsible investment (RI) or environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues?			Yes
6. If you have a policy that makes specific reference to RI/ESG issues, which of the following Principles does it address? (Please check all that apply.)			Principle 1: We will incorporate ESG issues into investment analysis and decision-making processes.,Principle 2: We will be active owners and incorporate ESG issues into our ownership policies and practices.,Principle 3: We will seek appropriate disclosure on ESG issues by the entities in which we invest.,Principle 4: We will promote acceptance and implementation of the Principles within the investment industry.,Principle 5: We will work together to enhance our effectiveness in implementing the Principles.,Principle 6: We will each report on our activities and progress towards implementing the Principles.
7. If you have a policy that makes specific reference to RI/ESG issues, which of the following asset classes does it apply to? (Please check all that apply.)			Listed equity (developed markets),Listed equity (emerging markets),Fixed income (corporate issuers),Listed real estate or property
8. If you have a policy that makes specific reference to RI/ESG issues, when was your policy last reviewed?			Within the last 3 years, and planning to in 2009
9. If you have a policy that makes specific reference to RI/ESG issues, has it been disclosed publicly? (If answering yes, please indicate how this statement can be obtained - a URL would be sufficient. If answering no, please explain why not.)			Yes: 'Our Responsible Ownership - Policy & Principles for Corporate Governance 2009 can be found at: http://www.fandc.com/FN_FileLibrary/file/GSI_RIR_Responsible%20Owenrship%20Guidelines.pdf'
10. To what extent has your approach to responsible investment been translated into a plan of action as reflected in business planning, strategic planning, or similar internal management processes? Large extent: you have both long and short term RI objectives relating to various aspects of your RI program across asset classes and regions that are regularly updated or reviewed. Larger organisational objectives have been reduced to individual objectives for which staff members are held accountable on a regular basis. There are key performance indicators related to responsible investment and resources have been allocated. You feel you have invested considerably in RI implementation and processes. Moderate extent: you have a plan for some aspects of your RI program but not others. Some staff members have specific RI objectives. High level goals may be understood but not documented. You feel you are progressing in RI implementation but have some way to go. Small extent: you have developed a list of actions when you first adopted responsible investment or your approach to RI is ad hoc with new initiatives being implemented as time allows. You are at an early stage in your RI implementation.			To a large extent
11. Who within your organisation has responsibilities related to RI implementation? (Please check all that apply.)			Board of trustees or board of directors,Committee of the board of trustees or board of directors,Chief Executive Officer or Chief Investment Officer or equivalent,Other senior management,Middle management,RI or ESG specialist,Non RI or ESG investment professional
12. Do you have a policy or approach/process that requires screening out or excluding stocks or sectors from your investment universe?			Both stocks and sectors
13. What are your reasons for screening out or excluding stocks or sectors from your investment universe? (Please check all that apply.)			We (and/or our clients) wish to avoid supporting the companies/sectors in question based on ethical considerations and we regard buying/holding their stock as providing such support,We wish to avoid potential negative publicity surrounding the companies/sectors in question as it may reflect adversely on our brand/licence to operate,We screen for clients when requested
14. Please describe how your organisation assesses if there is a link between your RI activities and the performance (risk and return) of your investments:			The outcomes of our RI activities are measured by recording each event called a Milestone in which a company has improved its policies, performance or practices after intervention by F&C. F&C's engagement programmes are actively designed to achieve improvements in ESG risk management, linked to company performance. F&C tracks and records each occasion on which a company has changed its policy, performance or practices after engagement by F&C. Each Milestone is rated on a scale, in a process requiring sign-off from one of F&C's senior investment professionals. The rating reflects both the Influence of F&C and the potential impact on value. F&C has recorded over 1000 milestones in the course of the past four years, demonstrating a commitment to ensuring that successful outcomes and investment performance are achieved from engagement and voting.
15. Please add any overall comments and clarifications related to Governance, Policy, and Strategy here.			Responsible Investment is core to F&C's business and we strongly believe that the prudent management of environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues is key to creating value for investors. It is championed by our both our Chairman & Chief Executive, supported by more than 200 investment professionals and implemented by our dedicated 15-person Governance & Sustainable Investment (GSI) team based in the UK and the US.
Principle 1
Principle 1: We will incorporate ESG issues into investment analysis and decision-making processes. For the purposes of this questionnaire, integration is the consideration of ESG issues alongside traditional financial measures, based on the belief that ESG issues can affect the performance (risk and/or return) of investment portfolios (to varying degrees across companies, sectors, regions, asset classes and through time). Please note that the view that ESG issues can influence investment returns may be based either on the premise that performance on these issues will eventually be reflected in financial and operational outcomes (revenue growth, margins, etc.) or the premise that the way in which the market rates or prices the stock will be affected even in the absence of an impact on financial or operational performance. However, exclusion of stocks from portfolios or downweighting them based on the possibility that an association with the stocks may adversely affect the owners profile or brand amongst stakeholders is not regarded as integration.
16. Please provide a one to two paragraph description of your approach to this Principle. This question and similar questions relating to each of the other Principles are being asked for three reasons. The first reason is to gather details regarding signatory implementation for inclusion in the PRI annual report on progress. The second reason is to capture activities not captured directly by questions in the Reporting and Assessment Tool. The third reason is to provide context and details to support verification calls.			F&C has over 200 professionals dedicated to active investment analysis and management. We also have over 140 years of fund management experience and extensive expertise in assessing ESG issues, in specialist thematic funds and across our broader portfolios. Our Responsible Ownership policy and detailed, country-specific guidelines articulate clearly to portfolio companies our expectations of sustainable corporate behaviour, enhancing investment performance over the long term. Our 15-strong GSI team is exclusively dedicated to analysing the ESG issues that drive investor value. Through close collaboration with F&C's equity and fixed-income teams and clear cross-departmental processes (shared research database, shared calendar, joint attendance at company meetings and sector and regional pairings), the GSI team is able to bring expertise to the analytical process and a credible and value-driven approach to responsible investment.
Integration of ESG issues into investment analysis and decision-making processes of internally managed assets
17. For what percentage of your internal assets under active management do you integrate RI/ESG issues into your internal investment decision-making processes (in percent)? (+/- 5% is sufficient.)
Listed equity (developed markets)			100
Listed equity (emerging markets)			100
Fixed income (not including corporate issuers)			0
Fixed income (corporate issuers)			100
Listed real estate or property			100
Hedge funds			0
18. To what extent have you integrated RI/ESG issues into your internal active investment decision-making processes? (Applies only to investments that include integration of RI/ESG issues as indicated in Q17.) Large extent: you employ a systematic process to integrate RI/ESG issue consideration. RI/ESG issues may be considered in security valuation, security selection, and/or portfolio construction. Moderate extent: for some RI/ESG issues you may have a systematic integration approach while for other issues you approach them in an ad hoc manner or not at all. Small extent: for a few RI/ESG issues you may integrate consideration some of the time.
Listed equity (developed markets)			To a large extent
Listed equity (emerging markets)			To a large extent
Fixed income (not including corporate issuers)			Not applicable
Fixed income (corporate issuers)			To a moderate extent
Listed real estate or property			To a moderate extent
Hedge funds			Not applicable
19. When forming investment views, to what extent does your organisation gather and analyse ESG information, including, where applicable, information obtained from engagement activities? (Applies only to investments that include integration of RI/ESG issues as indicated in Q17.) Large extent: you gather and analyse information across a comprehensive range of ESG issues and across a large proportion of the markets and assets in your investment universe. Furthermore, the information is updated regularly. This research and analysis may be undertaken internally or may be purchased from an external party. In the latter case, internal resources are nevertheless applied to interpreting the information. Alternatively, one or more ESG issues may be the key driver for your overall investment strategy and process. Moderate extent: you gather and analyse information across a moderate range of ESG issues and across a significant part of your investment universe. There remain some gaps in coverage, either in terms of the issues and asset markets covered, or the frequency with which analysis is refreshed, as well as some gaps in internal capacity to analyse the information. Small extent: you gather and analyse some information on ESG issues. This research is ad hoc in nature, however, and considerable gaps exist in coverage and timeliness. You feel that you are in the early stages of developing capacity to gather and analyse information on ESG issues. Not applicable: only a possible answer if you don't manage assets internally.			To a large extent
20. To what extent do portfolio managers or others making investment decisions in your organisation apply the ESG information and analysis available to them when constructing and managing portfolios? (Applies only to investments that include integration of RI/ESG issues as indicated in Q17.) Large extent: you have a systematic approach towards assessing the implications of all ESG research and analysis which is gathered by your organisation and incorporating it into your assessment of the investment outlook for all investments which are potentially affected and, hence, into portfolio holdings. Moderate extent: you regularly consider the implications of ESG research for investments where the case for doing so is clear-cut. In other cases, however, ESG research is not thoroughly assessed and applied in formulating views on all investments where it may be relevant. Small extent: ESG research is used on an  as-needed basis. Generally, ESG research may be used as part of a qualitative overlay and to decide between investments where the investment case, judged on traditional analysis, is marginal. Alternatively, ESG research may be applied in portfolios only in respect of a relatively small number of sectors where one or more ESG issues are of most obvious relevance e.g. major corporate governance failings, high exposure to heavy polluters. Not applicable: only a possible answer if you don't manage assets internally.			To a moderate extent
21. To what extent do you have a process for improving the effectiveness of research and portfolio management processes with regards to ESG factors? (Applies only to investments that include integration of RI/ESG issues as indicated in Q17.) Large extent: on a continuous basis, you review both the quality and relevance of ESG research and the effectiveness with which it is applied in your day-to-day portfolio management, with a view to optimising your overall investment process through identifying opportunities or risks. Moderate extent: you review ESG research regularly (at least annually) with a view to enhancing its coverage and relevance and/or the way it is used in portfolio management. The focus is both on identifying investment opportunities and avoiding risks. Small extent: you occasionally review the integration of ESG research.			To a large extent
22. To what extent do you have a process for assessing and improving internal investment staff competency to incorporate RI/ESG issues into investment analysis and decision-making processes? (Applies only to investments that include integration of RI/ESG issues as indicated in Q17.) Large extent: all relevant staff members undergo a regular assessment of their RI competency, resulting in an individual plan for ongoing professional development. In addition, the overall skill mix within the team is regularly reviewed to identify any gaps. RI-competency may be integral to recruitment decisions. Moderate extent: relevant staff members are encouraged to undertake relevant external RI-related training and some in-house sessions are provided. RI-competency may be an element in recruitment decisions. Small extent: relevant staff members are permitted, at the organisation's cost, to attend external RI-related training courses, conferences etc.			To a large extent
Integration of ESG issues into investment analysis and decision-making processes of externally managed assets
23. This question is not applicable to you due to your response to Q3 regarding the use of active external investment management. For what percentage of your external assets under management are RI/ESG issues integrated into the investment decision-making processes of your external investment managers (in percent, +/- 5% is sufficient)?
Listed equity (developed markets)
Listed equity (emerging markets)
Fixed income (not including corporate issuers)
Fixed income (corporate issuers)
Private equity
Listed real estate or property
Non-listed real estate or property
Hedge funds
Infrastructure
24. This question is not applicable to you due to your response to Q3 regarding the use of active external investment management. To what extent have RI/ESG issues been integrated into the investment decision-making processes of your external investment managers? (Applies only to investments that include integration of RI/ESG issues as indicated in Q23.) Large extent: your investment manager employs a systematic process to integrate RI/ESG issue consideration. RI/ESG issues may be considered in security valuation, security selection, and/or portfolio construction. Moderate extent: for some RI/ESG issues your investment manager may have a systematic integration approach while for other issues they approach them in an ad hoc manner or not at all. Small extent: for a few RI/ESG issues your investment manager may integrate consideration some of the time.
Listed equity (developed markets)			No Answer
Listed equity (emerging markets)			No Answer
Fixed income (not including corporate issuers)			No Answer
Fixed income (corporate issuers)			No Answer
Private equity			No Answer
Listed real estate or property			No Answer
Non-listed real estate or property			No Answer
Hedge funds			No Answer
Infrastructure			No Answer
25. This question is not applicable to you due to your response to Q3 regarding the use of active external investment management. To what extent do you consider the capabilities of external investment managers to incorporate RI/ESG issues when searching for, selecting and retaining your external investment managers? (Applies only to investments that include integration of RI/ESG issues as indicated in Q23.) Large extent: ESG integration is integral to your views on all of your investment managers and, hence, on your hire, fire and retain decisions. You look at the ESG information available to your managers, the way that they integrate it into their investment decisions and the competence of their staff in ESG areas. Where you believe that managers are not developing their capabilities to your satisfaction, you raise your concerns with them and ensure that they recognise the importance of RI capability in determining the awarding of future mandates. Moderate extent: ESG integration is part of your assessment of all managers and there have been cases where your degree of comfort with a manager has been affected by their performance in the area. You may have made hire/fire decisions on this basis on rare occasions. You monitor the resources which the managers devote to the area and encourage them to develop their capability. You do not, however, tend to investigate the way that ESG research is reflected in portfolios. Small extent: you observe that your existing and potential managers have differing degrees of commitment to RI/ESG integration and, at the margin, favour those with higher commitment. This issue could be a factor in hire and fire decisions in the future. You have not, however, made a detailed assessment of the RI-related resources applied by all of your managers, nor of the way that such resources are integrated into the investment process.			No Answer
Integration - final comments
26. Please add any overall comments and clarifications related to Principle 1 here. Please also describe any significant activities relating to Principle 1 that have not been captured by the questions above.			(i) While our approach to responsible investment extends across all our funds, our Global Climate Opportunities Fund is of particular note as it is a thematic fund driven by the incorporation of climate change issues into investment analysis and decision-making. The fund has 9 investment themes and stock selection therefore focuses on companies leading advances in the development of technologies and adaptations required to meet the challenge of global warming. (ii) We have taken an active decision not to apply our RI approach to Non-Corporate Fixed Income issuers. We believe that ESG engagement with sovereign issuers is best achieved through our public policy engagement work.
Principle 2
Principle 2: We will be active owners and incorporate ESG issues into our ownership policies and practices.
27. Please provide a one to two paragraph description of your approach to this Principle.			F&C is committed to active ownership through incorporation of ESG issues into its policies and practices. This is achieved through our Responsible Engagement Overlay (reoŽ) service, which enables clients to leverage their influence as asset owners and enhance shareholder value through constructive dialogue with companies on relevant ESG issues. On average, F&C engages over 5,000 companies on ESG issues ranging from board structure and anti-corruption to climate change and human rights. ReoŽ also incorporates a global, in-house proxy voting service based on our proprietary corporate governance guidelines.
(Proxy) voting - applies only to listed equity (developed markets), listed equity (emerging markets) and listed real estate or property.
28. Do you have a (proxy) voting policy? (If 'Yes - disclosed publicly', please indicate how your (proxy) voting policy can be obtained- a URL would be sufficient. If answering no, please explain why not.)			Yes - disclosed publicly: 'F&C's overarching Responsible Ownership Policy can be found at: http://www.fandc.com/FN_FileLibrary/file/GSI_RIR_Responsible%20Owenrship%20Guidelines.pdf This is supplemented by our Corporate Governance General Guidelines, available at: http://www.fandc.com/FN_FileLibrary/file/GSI_RIR_CGOG_General.pdf In addition, we have thirteen additional, region-specific corporate governance voting policies, which are sent to all companies in our portfolios ahead of voting season. These guidelines are proprietary to F&C.'
29. Does your (proxy) voting policy address environmental, social, and governance issues?
Environmental			Yes
Social			Yes
Governance			Yes
30. Who decided how to vote on ballot items on behalf of your organisation in 2008? (Please check all that apply.)			Internal voting or governance group
31. To what extent is information related to ballot items gathered and analysed before voting decisions are made? Large extent: you might buy external voting research and recommendations and supplement it with your own research. Alternatively, you may undertake the research largely in-house. You review each ballot item before casting your votes and undertake whatever analysis is necessary to make an informed judgement. Moderate extent: you might either buy external voting research and recommendations or perform your own research. You review most ballot items before casting your votes and undertake whatever analysis is necessary in most cases to make an informed judgement. Small extent: You generally rely on your research provider to gather and analyse ballot items. You might perform some very limited research on a small number of issues. You might only review some ballot items before your votes are cast and don't usually undertake additional analysis to make an informed judgement.			To a large extent
32. Do you ensure that voting is done in accordance with your voting instructions?			Yes for all
33. Do you inform companies of your rationale when you abstain or vote against management recommendations?			Yes for all
34. Please indicate how many resolutions you could have voted on and how many resolutions you did vote on in 2008: (include abstentions as votes where votes against are not possible, use the last available one year period if information for 2008 is not available or too difficult to gather, approximate numbers are acceptable. If you are unable to provide the exact number please provide an approximation of the percentage by entering 10 in the 'Resolutions could have voted on' column and your estimate in the 'Resolutions voted on' column. So if you voted on about 70% of the possible resolutions you would enter 7 in the 'Resolutions voted on' column. If you are not sure, please enter a 1 in all four fields.)
		Resolutions could have voted on	Resolutions voted on
Domestic		10	10
Foreign		10	9
35. For the listed equities that you manage, do you provide (proxy) voting services for your clients if they request them?			Yes - According to our own policy or client-specific policies
36. How does your securities lending program address voting?			We recall some securities for voting on some ballot items on an ad hoc basis
37. How many shareholder resolutions related to ESG issues did you file or co-file during 2008?
As lead filer			0
As co-filer			1
Planning to be lead filer in 2009			0
Planning to be co-filer in 2009			1
38. Please explain why you did or did not file or co-file any shareholder resolutions related to RI/ESG issues during 2008:			F&C generally prefers to build consensus with companies through discreet, long-term dialogue. However, when this does not achieve the desired results, the next step is to file shareholder proposals. In 2008, F&C co-filed a shareholder proposal with the New York Common Employees Retirement System, asking ExxonMobil to expand its non-discrimination policy to protect gay and lesbian employees. F&C also lead-filed a proposal at Walmart Stores, asking the company to address the implementation of its domestic labour policies across its global operations, but withdrew the proposal after the company agreed to open a serious dialogue with investors on this issue.
Engagement - general
39. Who engaged with companies to seek ESG improvements in 2008? Please rank who engaged with companies according to their importance within your overall active ownership activities. You can only select Most, Second, Third and Fourth most important once each. Only the method you rank as 'Most important' will be scored for benchmarking purposes. If you wish to request that your other methods of engagement also be scored, please complete all the relevant sections and email the PRI at assessment@unpri.org when you submit your response.
Internal staff			Most important
External engagement service provider(s)			Did not engage with companies in 2008
Other (Please specify):			No Answer
40. Do you have a written engagement policy or other documents that direct engagement? (If 'Yes - disclosed publicly', please indicate how your policy can be obtained- a URL would be sufficient.)			Yes - disclosed publicly: 'F&C's overarching Responsible Ownership Policy can be found at: http://www.fandc.com/FN_FileLibrary/file/GSI_RIR_Responsible%20Owenrship%20Guidelines.pdf'
41. If you have an engagement policy or other documents that direct engagement, what do they include? (Please check all that apply.)			General high level policy to support direction of agents to engage with companies,Indication of what markets it applies to,Expectations of companies with regards to environmental issues,Expectations of companies with regards to social issues,Expectations of companies with regards to governance issues,Approach to monitoring companies,Approach to selecting companies for engagement,Approach to measuring engagement success
42. How many companies are you invested in?			5800
Engagement - internal staff
43. To what extent do you have a process for identifying and prioritising ESG related engagement opportunities? Large extent: you gather and analyse information across a comprehensive range of ESG issues and across a large proportion of the markets in your investment universe. Furthermore, the information is updated regularly. This research and analysis may be entirely undertaken internally or may be purchased from an external party. In the latter case, however, it is understood that some internal resource would be required to interpret the information. Your research may include an analysis of the impacts of various issues on specific companies and prioritisation of engagement opportunities. Moderate extent: you gather and analyse information across a moderate range of ESG issues and across a significant part of your investment universe. There are some gaps in your coverage however, either in terms of the issues and markets covered, or the frequency with which analysis is refreshed. Small extent: you gather and analyse some information on ESG issues. This research is ad hoc in nature, however, and considerable gaps exist in coverage and timeliness. The process may be largely reactive rather than proactive.			To a large extent
44. How many portfolio companies did you engage with on ESG issues in 2008? Extensive engagement: you may have had multiple instances of focused interaction with a company on issues identified by you and with a view to changing the company's behaviour. You were predominantly engaging with people at the company with the authority to change corporate behaviour. The engagements were systematic and you began them with a clear goal in mind. Extensive engagement includes more than writing letters and includes bilateral meetings in person or on the phone. You may have identified other investors to work with to address the issues you have identified. Moderate engagement: you had more than one interaction with a company on issues identified by you or others. The engagement was somewhat systematic but the specific desired outcome may not have been clear at the outset. You may have responded to requests to engage with other investors on issues identified by them. Basic engagement: you directly contacted companies but your engagements tended to be ad hoc and reactive. At the commencement of the engagement, you may not have had clear goals in mind regarding the desired changes to the company's behaviour and you may not have pursued the issue beyond your initial contact with the company. You may have signed on to letters authored by others. Your engagements might be more about gathering information than seeking ESG related improvements.
Extensive engagement			902
Moderate engagement			1441
Basic engagement			3300
45. What proportion of your engagements addressed environmental, social or governance issues (in percent)? (One engagement may address more than one issue, so the three percentages need not add to 100%. For example, if you only had one engagement and it addressed environmental and governance issues then the answer would be 100% for environmental and 100% for governance.)
Environmental			31
Social			19
Governance			40
46. To what extent do you set ESG engagement objectives and attempt to evaluate your engagement success? Large extent: you may have developed a clear and systematic process (either through internal efforts or in partnership with an academic or other group) to regularly measure the impact of your engagement efforts. You set engagement objectives before engaging with companies and track outcomes against those objectives. Moderate extent: you may have developed a process to measure the impact of your engagement efforts but may not always apply it. You might set engagement objectives sometimes before engaging with companies. Small extent: you tend not to set engagement objectives before engaging with companies and may only keep track of your successful engagements.			To a large extent
47. What percentage of engagements that ended in 2008 were deemed successful (in percent)? (Engagement success: a considerable part of objectives or milestones that were set when the engagement commenced were achieved.)			30
48. To what extent do you have a process for assessing and improving staff competency to act as active owners and incorporate ESG issues into ownership practices? Large extent: all relevant staff members undergo a regular assessment of their competency in the area of active ownership, resulting in an individual plan for ongoing professional development. In addition, the overall skill mix within the team is regularly reviewed to identify gaps. Competency in the skills required to implement active ownership practices is integral to recruitment decisions. Moderate extent: relevant staff members are encouraged to undertake relevant external training and some in-house sessions are provided. Competency in active ownership activities is an element in recruitment decisions. Small extent: relevant staff members are permitted to attend external training courses, conferences etc, paid for by the organisation, where the events will enhance active ownership competencies.			To a large extent
Engagement - external engagement service provider(s)
49. This question is not applicable to you due to your response to Q39 regarding who engages with companies. How many portfolio companies did your external engagement service provider(s) engage with on ESG issues on your behalf in 2008? Extensive engagement: your external engagement service provider(s) may have had multiple instances of focused interaction with a company on issues identified by you or them and with a view to changing the company's behaviour. Your external engagement service provider(s) was predominantly engaging with people at the company with the authority to change corporate behaviour. The engagements were systematic and they began them with a clear goal in mind. Extensive engagement includes more than writing letters and includes bilateral meetings in person or on the phone. They may have identified other investors to work with to address the issues you or they have identified. Moderate engagement: your external engagement service provider(s) had more than one interaction with a company on issues identified by you, them or others. The engagement was somewhat systematic but the specific desired outcome may not have been clear at the outset. Your external engagement service provider(s) may have responded to requests to engage with other investors on issues identified by them. Basic engagement: your external engagement service provider(s) directly contacted companies but their engagements tended to be ad hoc and reactive. At the commencement of the engagement, they may not have had clear goals in mind regarding the desired changes to the company's behaviour and they may not have pursued the issue beyond their initial contact with the company. Your external engagement service provider(s) may have signed on to letters authored by others. Their engagements might be more about gathering information than seeking ESG related improvements.
Extensive engagement
Moderate engagement
Basic engagement
50. This question is not applicable to you due to your response to Q39 regarding who engages with companies. What proportion of your external engagement service provider(s)'s engagements on your behalf addressed environmental, social or governance issues (in percent)? (One engagement may address more than one issue, so the three percentages need not add to 100%. For example, if you only had one engagement and it addressed environmental and governance issues then the answer would be 100% for environmental and 100% for governance.)
Environmental
Social
Governance
51. This question is not applicable to you due to your response to Q39 regarding who engages with companies. To what extent do you contribute to and assess the ESG engagement activities of your external engagement service provider(s)? Large extent: you probably have a regular dialogue with your service provider to identify and prioritise engagement issues. You may also collaborate with them to set engagement objectives. You require and review regular reporting on engagement activities performed on your behalf. You question why companies have or have not been engaged, the success of the engagements, and the background and experience of staff performing engagement for you, with a view to assessing the value of the service on an ongoing basis. Moderate extent: you keep up-to-date with issues being pursued by your provider but do not generally participate in determining the issues or the objectives. You require and review regular reporting on engagement activities performed on your behalf. You evaluate the merit of the service regularly (say, annually) but do not undertake in-depth analysis in doing so. Small extent: you receive reporting on engagement activities performed on your behalf but have minimal dialogue with your service provider. You do not evaluate the merit of the service regularly.			No Answer
Engagement - external investment manager(s)
52. This question is not applicable to you due to your response to Q39 regarding who engages with companies. How many portfolio companies did your external investment manager(s)'s engage with on ESG issues on your behalf in 2008? Extensive engagement: your external investment manager(s) may have had multiple instances of focused interaction with a company on issues identified by you or them and with a view to changing the company's behaviour. Your external investment manager(s) was predominantly engaging with people at the company with the authority to change corporate behaviour. The engagements were systematic and they began them with a clear goal in mind. Extensive engagement includes more than writing letters and includes bilateral meetings in person or on the phone. They may have identified other investors to work with to address the issues you or they have identified. Moderate engagement: your external investment manager(s) had more than one interaction with a company on issues identified by you, them or others. The engagement was somewhat systematic but the specific desired outcome may not have been clear at the outset. Your external investment manager(s) may have responded to requests to engage with other investors on issues identified by them. Basic engagement: your external investment manager(s) directly contacted companies but their engagements tended to be ad hoc and reactive. At the commencement of the engagement, they may not have had clear goals in mind regarding the desired changes to the company's behaviour and they may not have pursued the issue beyond their initial contact with the company. Your external investment manager(s) may have signed on to letters authored by others. Their engagements might be more about gathering information than seeking ESG related improvements.
Extensive engagement
Moderate engagement
Basic engagement
53. This question is not applicable to you due to your response to Q39 regarding who engages with companies. What proportion of your external investment manager(s)'s engagements on your behalf addressed environmental, social or governance issues (in percent)? (One engagement may address more than one issue, so the three percentages need not add to 100%. For example, if you only had one engagement and it addressed environmental and governance issues then the answer would be 100% for environmental and 100% for governance.)
Environmental
Social
Governance
54. This question is not applicable to you due to your response to Q39 regarding who engages with companies. To what extent do you contribute to and assess the ESG engagement activities of your external investment manager(s)? Large extent: you require and review regular reporting on engagement activities performed on your behalf. You have regular discussions with your external managers on the issues to be pursued through engagement and the engagement objectives. You also have a dialogue on why companies have or have not been engaged, the success of engagements, and the background and experience of staff performing engagement for you. You regularly evaluate the managers' engagement activity based on these dialogues and other analysis. Moderate extent: you take an active interest in the managers' engagement activities but do not have regular dialogue with the manager. You require and review regular reporting on engagement activities performed on your behalf. You evaluate the managers' engagement activity regularly (say annually) but do not undertake additional analysis in doing so. Small extent: you receive reporting on engagement activities performed on your behalf where provided but do not actively seek to discuss engagement activities with your managers. You do not evaluate the managers' engagement activities regularly.			No Answer
55. This question is not applicable to you due to your response to Q39 regarding who engages with companies. Did you consider the capabilities of external investment managers to engage with companies on ESG issues on your behalf when searching for, selecting and retaining your investment managers?			No Answer
Engagement - final comments
56. What ESG issues were addressed in your or your service providers'engagement initiatives? (Please check all that apply.)			Activities in conflict zones,Benefits and compensation,Bribery/corruption,Climate change,Distribution of fair trade products,Environment,Governance,Health,Health and safety,HIV/AIDS,Human rights,Labour issues,Other (please specify): 'Environmental Standards; Supply Chain Environmental Standards; Pollution Control; Waste & Recycling; Biodiversity; Water; Emissions Management and Reporting; Waste and Recycling; Biofuels; Human Rights Security, Privacy & Free Expression; Community Relations; ILO Core Conventions; Diversity; Supply Chain Labour Standards; Nutrition & Obesity; Access to Medicines; Board Composition; Audit & Control; Disclosure & Reporting; Governance of Sustainability Issues; UNGC Compliance; Stakeholder Engagement; Business Ethics; Political Influence; Whistleblowing; and Responsible Marketing'
57. What measures do you or your external service provider(s) use to assess the impact and success of engagement?			F&C is strongly committed to measuring engagement success. We measure, and report to clients on, outcomes in three ways: - Voting: we measure the outcome of the voting process as the number of votes submitted and the percentage of Votes Against Management. - Engagement: we record both the number of companies that have been engaged, and the number of times an individual company has been engaged. - Milestones: F&C's engagement programmes are actively designed to achieve improvements in ESG risk management in the companies engaged. F&C tracks and records each occasion on which a company has changed its policy, performance or practices after engagement by F&C. Each milestone is rated in a process requiring sign-off from one of F&C's senior investment professionals.
58. Please add any overall comments and clarifications related to Principle 2 here. Please also describe any significant activities relating to Principle 2 that have not been captured by the questions above.			Please treat our response to Question 42 as confidential, as this number also reflects the portfolios of our clients. In addition, please note that F&C does not employ external engagement service providers to carry out engagement on its behalf (Question 39), as this is carried out by the in-house Governance & Sustainable Investment Team.
Principle 3
Principle 3: We will seek appropriate disclosure on ESG issues by the entities in which we invest.
59. Please provide a one to two paragraph description of your approach to this Principle.			In 2008, F&C published extensive stand-alone proprietary research addressing ESG disclosure & sent it to over 3000 global companies encouraging them to respond. Reports included  Corporate Governance in Emerging Markets; BRIC Sustainability; Banks & the Credit Crunch, plus our annually updated Corporate Governance Voting Guidelines (including 13 variants tailored to specific national & regional markets) & our 2008 Responsible Investment Report. All contained extensive disclosure recommendations. In 2008 we recorded 43 Milestones relating to our Sustainability Management & Reporting engagement programme where a company improved its policies, performance or practices after intervention by F&C. We also engage public policy makers on ESG disclosure to raise standards. This has involved over 20 detailed submissions to global regulators, trade associations & other influential bodies in 2008. We spearheaded a number of initiatives, including extensive work with the FSA to improve listings standards.
60. Who asked investee companies (or other investment entities) to provide information about their ESG policies, practices or performance in 2008? (Please check all that apply.)			Internal staff,Internal staff collaboratively with other investors
61. To what extent did you or your external engagement service provider(s) or your external investment manager(s) have a dialogue with investee companies (or other investment entities) regarding the production of standardized reporting about their ESG policies, practices or performance in 2008? ('Standardized' could also include systematic reporting in areas where standardized reporting has not yet emerged.) Large extent: you or your agents have direct contact with companies and regularly encourage systematic ESG reporting by them. You or your agents have a systematic approach to assessing the quality of reporting across a range of issues which are judged to be important and ask for standardised reporting where appropriate. You or your agents have taken a leading role in investor collaborations seeking systematic reporting by companies. You or your agents may also regularly provide feedback to companies on their reporting. Moderate extent: you or your agents have direct contact with companies. You or your agents ask them to provide standardised reporting on key ESG issues from time to time, but you do not have a systematic approach to identifying cases where scope exists for improved reporting. You or your agents may also occasionally provide feedback to companies on their reporting. Small extent: you or your agents have signed on to one or more collaborative initiatives regarding standardised reporting. You or your agents may also have occasionally asked companies for standardised reporting and /or provided feedback on their reporting.
Listed equity (developed market)			To a large extent
Listed equity (emerging markets)			To a large extent
Fixed income (not including corporate issuers)			Not at all
Fixed income (corporate issuers)			To a large extent
Listed real estate or property			To a moderate extent
Hedge funds			Not at all
62. What formats of reporting on ESG issue policies, practices or performance have been requested? Please check all that apply.			Integrated with regular financial reports,Standalone corporate social responsibility or sustainability reporting,Global Reporting Initiative (GRI),Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP),Other (please specify): 'F&C's 13-Step Guide to Best Practice ESG Reporting'
63. To what extent did you or your external engagement service provider(s) or your external investment manager(s) seek information from companies regarding their practices related to norms, standards, codes of conduct or international initiatives related to ESG issues in 2008? Large extent: you or your agents have made a substantial and systematic effort to seek information from companies regarding their participation in and compliance with a number of relevant norms, standards and codes. Moderate extent: you or your agents have made a significant effort to seek information from companies regarding their participation in and compliance with at least some relevant norms, standards and codes. Small extent: you or your agents have requested information from some companies but this has been undertaken in an ad hoc manner.			To a large extent
64. Please add any overall comments and clarifications related to Principle 3 here. Please also describe any significant activities relating to Principle 3 that have not been captured by the questions above.			F&C addresses this Principle through direct engagement with companies & public policy makers: (i) Our  Sustainability Management & Reporting engagement programme covers topics such as: disclosure & reporting; governance of sustainability issues; UN Global Compact compliance; & stakeholder engagement. Each quarter we detail company engagement & also track & report our progress & results (or Milestones ). Our 13-steps to best practice ESG reporting guide our engagement, are aligned with internationally-recognised standards & are effective in communicating our expectations to companies. (ii) More information about our engagement with public policy makers can be found at: http://www.fandc.com/new/aboutus/Default.aspx?ID=82073 These in-house activities are in addition to our participation in numerous collaborative engagement initiatives (particularly through the PRI ClearingHouse) relating to emerging markets disclosure & UN Global Compact compliance.
Principle 4
Principle 4: We will promote acceptance and implementation of the Principles within the investment industry.
65. Please provide a one to two paragraph description of your approach to this Principle.			F&C is a member of a wide range of organisations and networks promoting sustainable investment and strong ESG standards. We have leadership roles at global investment industry bodies, including: ABI Investment Committee; ABI Remuneration & Share Schemes Panel; Advisory Committee of LSE Primary Markets Group; NYSE-Euronext International Advisory Board; Steering Committee of UN Global Compact; US and European Social Investment Forums; Board member of UKSIF; VBDO; UK QCA Committee; AIC Board member; Chair of UK IMA; NAPF; UNEP FI. We also play a very active role in public policy engagement, communicating with governments and regulators about the type of policies that will improve ESG standards, while enhancing long-term investor value and competitiveness. This is line with our belief that on global issues it is often only when government regulation creates a level playing field that a step change occurs. A full list of our public policy submissions and outreach can be found on our website.
66. Did you consider RI/ESG requirements when searching for and selecting service providers in 2008 when applicable?
Investment consultant			Not applicable
Proxy voting service provider			Yes, all of the time
External overlay service provider			Not applicable
Investment research provider			Yes, all of the time
67. Have you included RI/ESG elements in the following?
Investment monitoring			Yes, all of the time
Incentive structure (internally managed)			Yes, all of the time
Incentive structure (externally managed)			Not applicable
Contractual relationships with external investment managers			Not applicable
Contractual relationships with other investment related service providers			Yes, all of the time
68. To what extent did you encourage your eligible service providers to become PRI signatories or consider RI/ESG factors in 2008? (Service providers include but are not limited to: external investment managers, investment consultants, proxy voting service providers, external engagement service providers, and investment research providers.) Large extent: in 2008 you asked all of your service providers that are not yet PRI signatories if they would sign the PRI or develop RI/ESG capability. Moderate extent: in 2008 you asked some (greater than 40%) of your service providers that are not yet PRI signatories if they would sign the PRI or develop RI/ESG capability. Small extent: in 2008 you asked a few (less than 40%) of your service providers that are not yet PRI signatories if they would sign the PRI or develop RI/ESG capability. Not applicable: only an available option if you have no service providers or if all of your service providers are already PRI signatories or already consider RI/ESG factors.			To a large extent
69. To what extent did you encourage your institutional clients to become PRI signatories or consider RI/ESG factors in 2008? Large extent: in 2008 you asked all of your institutional clients that are not yet PRI signatories or don't yet consider RI if they would become PRI signatories or consider RI. Moderate extent: in 2008 you asked some (greater than 40%) of your institutional clients that are not yet PRI signatories or don't yet consider RI if they would become PRI signatories or consider RI factors. Small extent: in 2008 you asked a few (less than 40%) of your institutional clients that are not yet PRI signatories or don't yet consider RI if they would become PRI signatories or consider RI. Not applicable: only an available option if you have no institutional clients or if all of your institutional clients are already PRI signatories or already consider RI/ESG factors.			To a large extent
70. To what extent did you encourage peer organisations to become PRI signatories or consider RI/ESG factors in 2008? Large extent: in 2008 you were an active advocate for RI and the PRI. You may have actively sought to promote RI or the PRI in industry forums or when speaking with the media. Moderate extent: in 2008 when approached, you were an advocate for RI and the PRI. When asked, you may have sought to promote RI or the PRI in industry forums or when asked about RI when speaking with the media. Small extent: in 2008 when approached, you were sometimes an advocate for RI and the PRI. When asked, you might have sought to promote RI or the PRI in industry forums or when asked about RI when speaking with the media, but you many not have encouraged your peers to become PRI signatories or consider RI/ESG factors very often.			To a large extent
71. Have you revisited any relationships with service providers in light of RI/ESG issue-related capabilities?			Yes
72. Does your broker evaluation process (which determines how you allocate commissions to brokers) include an ESG component and/or do you have a budget to pay for ESG broker research?			Yes
73A. What is your total investment research budget (including brokerage commissions intended to recognize research, in the same currency used in Q1)			No Answer
73B. what proportion of your total investment research budget is allocated to ESG research (in percent)?			6
74. To what extent do you identify ESG issues and suggest them to brokers or other investment research providers for research? Large extent: you have identified specific environmental, social, or governance issues that you would like more research on from your brokers or other research providers. You may have identified specific companies, sectors or themes for research. You may have contacted multiple research sources to indicate your desire to receive this sort of research. You may have asked for mainstream research that incorporates ESG issues. Moderate extent: you may have identified some research providers that can provide you with ESG research and suggested future research ideas. You may not have contacted all of your research providers to request this research. Small extent: you have indicated to your brokers or other investment research providers that you are interested in receiving ESG research.			To a large extent
75. To what extent did you engage in dialogue, lobbying or initiatives pertaining to government policy and/or industry regulations (for example, stock exchanges or accounting standards) related to RI/ESG issues in 2008? Large extent: you may have initiated dialogue on policy initiatives relating to RI/ESG issues or participated extensively in dialogues initiated by others. You may have commented on issues relevant to your domestic market as well as issues relevant to foreign markets. Moderate extent: you participated in some policy initiatives relating to RI/ESG issues. Your engagement may be focused on domestic markets. Small extent: you participated in a few policy initiatives relating to RI/ESG issues when asked to.			To a large extent
76. Please add any overall comments and clarifications related to Principle 4 here. Please also describe any significant activities relating to Principle 4 that have not been captured by the questions above.			Please note that our response to Q73A is not given as it is confidential and our response to Q73B is not for public disclosure.
Principle 5
Principle 5: We will work together to enhance our effectiveness in implementing the Principles.
77. Please provide a one to two paragraph description of your approach to this Principle.			Companies are more likely to listen to investors when they see evidence that what they are hearing is truly representative of a broad range of views. F&C therefore seeks out collaboration with like-minded investors around the world, as well as by enlisting global companies and other stakeholders. Two of the 15 GSI team members are based in the US and they work extensively with US multi stakeholder initiatives. The UK GSI team focuses on global, pan-European, Asian and emerging market initiatives. For a full list of organisations we collaborate with please refer to our 2008 Responsible Investment report: http://www.fandc.com/FN_FileLibrary/file/GSI_RIR_Full%20report.pdf
78. To what extent did you collaborate with other investors to improve your effectiveness in implementing each of the following Principles? Large extent: you may have initiated one or more collaborative initiatives or industry associations relevant to the principle and adopted a leadership position within established initiatives or associations. You may also have worked actively with a number of other investors on specific issues of relevance to the principle. Moderate extent: you have been an active participant in a number of relevant collaborative initiatives. You may also have undertaken some work with other investors on specific issues of relevance to the principle. Small extent: you may have joined a small number of relevant collaborative initiatives but have not been an active participant in their activities.
Principle 1			To a large extent
Principle 2			To a large extent
Principle 3			To a large extent
Principle 4			To a large extent
79. How did you use the PRI Engagement Clearinghouse in 2008? (Please check all that apply.)			Logged in during 2008 to use the Clearinghouse as a learning tool or to keep up to date on ongoing engagements,Joined a collaborative engagement led by another signatory that was posted to the Clearinghouse,Led a collaborative engagement and posted it to the Clearinghouse
80. Did you participate in any of the following RI/ESG issue-related collaborations and/or associations? For those not listed, please use the "other" field: (Please check all that apply.)			Carbon Disclosure Project,Council of Institutional Investors (CII),Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI),Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC),International Corporate Governance Network (ICGN),Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR),Regional social investment organisation (for example SIF or UKSIF),Social Investment Research Analyst (SIRAN),United Nations Environmental Program Finance Initiative (UNEP FI),Other (please specify): 'Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change',Other (please specify): 'Global Network Initiative',Other (please specify): 'List is too extensive please refer to link in Question 77'
81. Please indicate the three RI/ESG issue-related collaborative engagement initiatives and/or industry associations that you participated in most extensively and indicate how you did so: Large extent: you may have participated actively in the leadership of the initiative and in the preparation of position papers, joint statements or meetings. You also acted as a spokesperson for the initiative and actively promoted the initiative. You may participate in working groups on specific issues and contribute to the organisation or content of events organised by the group. You may have provided financial support for the initiative. Moderate extent: you may have participated to some degree in leadership of the initiative and/or in preparation of position papers and joint statements. You also provided general support for the initiative in various non-public forums. Small extent: You joined the initiative or association, attended some meetings and paid a membership fee but were not actively involved in the leadership or work program of the initiative.
Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI)		To a large extent	Since 2002, F&C has led investor collaboration for the EITI, from the intense multi-stakeholder dialogue leading up to the Initiative’s launch in 2003, to the recruitment of some 80 supporting investment institutions who now represent approximately $14 trillion of AUM. F&C has played a key role in making the investment case for resource revenue transparency, mobilising its Chairman to engage business, investment and government leaders at the highest levels. Karina Litvack, head of the GSI team, sat on the EITI Board from 2003 to 2009, serving on several key Board sub-committees. F&C has also led joint investor efforts to engage directly with over 175 extractive companies to encourage them to participate in EITI, and has travelled to Brazil, China, Japan, Malaysia, Peru and Russia to meet with local companies.
1st Other specify from Q80		To a large extent	F&C is a founding member of the CLGCC, and the sole fund manager represented on the group. The CLGCC has been highly influential in persuading UK and EU political leaders to adopt strong long-term policies to tackle climate change over the past four years. CLGCC has 27 European members, representing sectors including energy producers, manufacturers and banks. Most recently F&C co-authored and signed a Global Agreement on Climate Change, which was delivered to heads of state in advance of the UN climate change talks in Poznan in December 2008. F&C then met with several Ministers of the European Parliament and EU negotiators to discuss further what investors hope to see from a future global climate change agreement.
2nd Other specify from Q80		To a large extent	In 2007 F&C published its landmark study Managing Access, Security and Privacy in the Global Digital Economy and was subsequently invited to participate in a multi-stakeholder initiative to develop a set of industry principles for protecting free expression and privacy online. The Principles, developed over 2 years in collaboration with 5 investors, 5 companies, 4 universities, and nine NGOs, set a new standard for how Internet Service Providers (ISP) and telecommunications companies can protect the free speech and privacy rights of their users, while also complying with national laws that may press them to infringe them. F&C was one of three investor representatives on the sub-committee that drafted the principles, which were unveiled publicly in October 2008 under a new organisation, the Global Network Initiative, that will ensure their implementation. To date, the three largest ISPs in the world have signed up and we plan to raise awareness of the principles among other companies and stakeholders in 2009.
82. Please add any overall comments and clarifications related to Principle 5 here. Please also describe any significant activities relating to Principle 5 that have not been captured by the questions above.			In addition to our responses above, F&C actively participated in a number of UNPRI Clearinghouse initiatives including a webinar on how investors can integrate labour standards into investor decisions and our ongoing participation in the Sudan Engagement Group.
Principle 6
Principle 6: We will each report on our activities and progress towards implementing the Principles.
83. Please provide a one to two paragraph description of your approach to this Principle.			F&C provides comprehensive and detailed reporting on our responsible investment activities. These reports demonstrate our commitment to transparency and enable clients to meet their disclosure obligations. The reports include: a) Annual Responsible Investment Report on global ESG engagement, voting and public policy activities b) Quarterly engagement reports on ESG engagement public report c) Quarterly engagement reports on ESG engagement tailored to client portfolios d) Tailored proxy voting reports with analysis of all votes e) Regular email bulletins on high profile ESG issues f) In-depth, original research reports, guidance documents and analysis on key ESG issues, including in 2008: banking and the credit crunch, sustainability in BRIC countries, China after the Olympics, biofuels and sustainability, and corporate governance in emerging markets g) Disclosing F&C's submissions to the UNPRI Please see the Literature section of F&C's website: http://www.fandc.com/new/aboutus/default.aspx?id=80622
84. To what extent did you disclose (privately and/or publicly) your approach to incorporating ESG issues into investment analysis and decision-making processes in 2008? (If you disclose publicly, please indicate how this disclosure can be obtained - a URL would be sufficient. If answering not at all, please explain why not.) Large extent: you provided a review of your investment process, highlighting the way in which analysis of ESG issues is integrated into investment decisions. This review was comprehensive (e.g. covered multiple asset classes where relevant) and detailed, subject to the necessity to protect information on proprietary techniques. This review was disclosed publicly and is readily accessible via your website. Moderate extent: you may have prepared a comprehensive and detailed review of your investment process highlighting ESG integration. However, it was not necessarily distributed publicly. Alternatively, your review may have contained gaps either in coverage or in detail. Small extent: you provided only a relatively brief overview of your investment approach and the integration of ESG analysis into decisions.			To a large extent: 'See response to Question 83'
85. How did you disclose your (proxy) voting record in 2008? (Please select all that apply. If you disclose publicly, please indicate how this disclosure can be obtained - a URL would be sufficient. If answering not at all, please explain why not.)			Disclosed publicly: 'http://www.fandc.com/FN_FileLibrary/file/co_gsri_voting_records_2008_year_to_date.pdf.pdf',All votes,Guidance explaining all votes,Disclosed annually,Disclosed continuously (soon after votes are cast)
86. To what extent did you disclose (privately and/or publicly) your RI/ESG issue-related engagement activities, results and progress in 2008? (If you disclose publicly, please indicate how this disclosure can be obtained - a URL would be sufficient. If answering not at all, please explain why not.) Large extent: your reporting provided background on the issues at hand, the nature of the engagement and the outcomes. You may have reported the companies that you engaged with and the issues covered with the companies. You may have also covered emerging issues on which you intend to pursue engagement in future. You may have reported publicly on all of your key RI/ESG engagement activities. Moderate extent: you reported on some of your key RI/ESG engagement activities. Your reporting may not have been disclosed publicly. Small extent: you provided an overview of your RI/ESG engagement activities, possibly including some examples.			To a large extent: 'All available on our website: http://www.fandc.com/new/aboutus/Default.aspx?id=82810'
87. Did you disclose (privately and/or publicly) RI/ESG activities, results and progress related to Principle 3, Principle 4 or Principle 5 in 2008? (If you disclose publicly, please indicate how this disclosure can be obtained - a URL would be sufficient. If answering not at all, please explain why not.)
Principle 3		Yes - to clients or beneficiaries and the public	http://www.fandc.com/new/aboutus/Default.aspx?ID=80961
Principle 4		Yes - to clients or beneficiaries and the public	http://www.fandc.com/new/aboutus/Default.aspx?ID=82073
Principle 5		Yes - to clients or beneficiaries and the public	http://www.fandc.com/FN_FileLibrary/file/GSI_RIR_Full%20report.pdf
88. How would you like to publish your responses to this PRI Reporting and Assessment tool? (Please check all that apply.)			Please automatically publish our responses to the reporting and assessment tool in full on the PRI website
89. Please add any overall comments and clarifications related to Principle 6 here. Please also describe any significant activities relating to Principle 6 that have not been captured by the questions above.			Further information on how F&C implements the six Principles please see our Responsible Investment Report 2008: http://www.fandc.com/FN_FileLibrary/file/GSI_RIR_Full%20report.pdf
Closing Comments
90. Please describe the benefits you have enjoyed as a result of signing the PRI:			We have welcomed the ways in which the PRI has helped to promote awareness of the importance of ESG issues across the global investment industry. We have benefited from PRI Secretariat's role in facilitating collaborative engagement initiatives.
91. What has your organisation changed as a direct result of becoming a PRI signatory?			Responsible investment has been at the core of F&C's philosophy since the launch of the ethical fund Stewardship in 1984, followed by the introduction of the reoŽ service in 2000. As a founding signatory of the Principles, F&C has ensured that the reoŽ service enables its clients to become fully compliant with the PRI.
92. Did the financial market turmoil of 2008 cause you to change your approach to the consideration of ESG factors or active ownership? If it did, please explain how.			The financial turmoil has not changed our approach to considering ESG issues, but it has underlined the need for active ownership to be practised by a much broader slice of the market, and form part of a comprehensive set of reforms at corporate and regulatory levels. Both our Chairman & CEO have been extremely vocal in calling for this, encouraging all market participants, including investors, to focus on learning the right lessons from the global crisis.
93. What are the top three activities the PRI Secretariat could undertake to enhance and encourage further implementation of the PRI by current and prospective signatories?
1.			Continuing its efforts to involve the global investment industry so that the PRI has widespread international support and becomes a de facto standard.
2.			Developing training for fund trustees about the Principles and ESG analysis.
3.			Requiring signatories to publish their self-assessments to promote greater transparency in the investment industry.
94. What are your top three PRI-related goals/priorities for 2009?
1.			Leveraging the role of asset managers to help the market better respond to risks such as the financial crisis.
2.			Using our influence to promote and facilitate a global response to the challenge of climate change ahead of the Copenhagen Summit in December 2009.
3.			Strengthening the implementation of the PRI across different asset classes.
95. What were your most significant achievements in 2008 in relation to your implementation of Principles?
Principle 1: We will incorporate ESG issues into investment analysis and decision-making processes.			In 2007 F&C launched a fund investing in companies providing technologies and strategies to help tackle climate change, the Global Climate Opportunities Fund. Experts in climate change from our Governance and Sustainable Investment team were involved from the early design phase of this product, helping to identify nine investment themes, which include themes relevant both to mitigation (eg alternative energy, sustainable transport), and adaptation (eg water). The GSI team now has a key role in running the fund, which includes both assessing the suitability of companies for inclusion in the fund, and advising on how future regulatory developments may affect prospects for the performance of companies in the fund. For instance, fund managers consulted the GSI team about the prospects for renewal of the US federal renewable energy schemes (ITC and PTC) in 2008.
Principle 2: We will be active owners and incorporate ESG issues into our ownership policies and practices.			Our most significant achievement in 2008 in relation to Principle 2 was the comprehensiveness and quality of our active ownership approach. In 2008, we exercised voting rights across 100% of our global holdings, representing a total of 29,165 proposals, comprising 28,457 management proposals and 708 shareholder proposals, at 2553 companies in 59 countries. In addition, we wrote over 1,500 letters, explaining our vote wherever we abstained or voted against management. Our one-to-one contact with companies is the core of our engagement work, and in 2008 we raised ESG issues at over 900 companies in 42 countries, including over 70 face-to-face meetings with board members. For our most engaged companies, the number of contacts was as high as forty times during the year. This engagement resulted in us identifying 429 'milestones', instances in which a company improves its policies, procedures or practices following engagement by F&C.
Principle 3: We will seek appropriate disclosure on ESG issues by the entities in which we invest.			F&C has led calls for the UK's Financial Services Authority's (FSA) to revisit the standards for foreign issuers seeking a listing on the London markets, reflecting our concern that the growth in London financings has been dominated by issuers from emerging markets who enter via the Global Depository Receipt (GDR) market, diluting London's stringent standards. Reform is now underway, and F&C has participated actively in consultations with the FSA, calling for clear labelling that distinguishes the high-quality primary listings from the GDR issuers, and urging the FSA to encourage issuers from other markets to report against a clear set of voluntary good governance standards that we developed. At the end of 2008, the regulator published a follow-up Consultation Paper that reflected many of these recommendations, including calling for a clearer differentiation between companies that do and do not meet the full London listing standards, labelling them as  Premium or  Standard issuers, as F&C had urged.
Principle 4: We will promote acceptance and implementation of the Principles within the investment industry.			F&C has led a high-profile global investor initiative to encourage the Brazilian securities regulator and Brazilian stock exchange (Bovespa) to strengthen protections for minority shareholders, including through the enforcement of  tag-along' rights in all mergers and acquisitions. To further enhance the success of the initiative, F&C travelled to Brazil to meet with Bovespa management, Brazilian issuers, fellow investors and investment banks to follow up on this effort to maintain strong governance standards in Brazil. We were pleased to note that, following our engagement, Bovespa has decided to revise its listing standards, and is currently soliciting feedback from global investors on its draft guidelines.
Principle 5: We will work together to enhance our effectiveness in implementing the Principles.			Since 2002, F&C has led investor collaboration for the EITI, from the intense multi-stakeholder dialogue leading up to the Initiative's launch in 2003, to the recruitment of some 80 supporting investment institutions who now represent approximately $14 trillion of AUM. F&C has played a key role in making the investment case for resource revenue transparency, mobilising its Chairman to engage business, investment and government leaders at the highest levels. Karina Litvack, head of the GSI team, sat on the EITI Board from 2003 to 2009, serving on several key Board sub-committees. F&C has also led joint investor efforts to engage directly with over 175 extractive companies to encourage them to participate in EITI, and has travelled to Brazil, China, Japan, Malaysia, Peru and Russia to meet with local companies.
Principle 6: We will each report on our activities and progress towards implementing the Principles.			Our most significant achievement in 2008 was the publication of our Responsible Investment Report. The in-depth, 33-page report provides a comprehensive overview of our approach to active ownership. It reveals both our voting record at shareholder meetings during 2008, and provides a detailed review of flashpoints during the year, developments in local governance codes, and an assessment of the key debates likely to flare up during 2009. It also is one of the ways in which we report on our compliance with the PRI.
96. What were your biggest barriers in 2008 with relation to your implementation of the Principles?
Principle 1: We will incorporate ESG issues into investment analysis and decision-making processes.
Principle 2: We will be active owners and incorporate ESG issues into our ownership policies and practices.			One of the biggest challenges to successful active ownership is the time and resources needed to develop and implement effective and credible engagement strategies.
Principle 3: We will seek appropriate disclosure on ESG issues by the entities in which we invest.			One of the biggest challenges in 2008 was the constraints placed on companies by the worsening economic climate, and the implications this has had on their ability to disclose their approach to the management of ESG risks.
Principle 4: We will promote acceptance and implementation of the Principles within the investment industry.
Principle 5: We will work together to enhance our effectiveness in implementing the Principles.			One of the most significant challenges has been the time and resources needed to reach consensus amongst collaborators without diluting the overall effectiveness of the engagement.
Principle 6: We will each report on our activities and progress towards implementing the Principles.
97. Please indicate which principle you find the most difficult to implement and the principle you find the least difficult to implement:
Most difficult			Principle 5
Least difficult			Principle 4