Responsible Investment – Active Ownership

Proxy Voting
PolicyJanuary 2024

Responsible Investment – Active Ownership

Contents

1. Introduction.............................................................................................................3
2. Purpose..................................................................................................................3
3. Background.............................................................................................................4
4. Global proxy voting process.......................................................................................4
5. Global proxy voting framework....................................................................................5
5.1. Corporate governance guidelines.....................................................................55.2. The firm’s global conflicts of interest policy – proxy voting.................................55.3. Stewardship code statement............................................................................5
5.4. The Ri team....................................................................................................55.5. The proxy working group..................................................................................65.6. Categorisation of votes: execution & manual voting...........................................7
5.7. Regional authority for manual vote recommendations........................................85.8. Independent proxy voting administration...........................................................85.9. Disclosures – client, public and regulatory........................................................95.10. Record keeping.............................................................................................96. Monitoring and reporting.........................................................................................10
7. Exceptions/Escalations...........................................................................................10
8. Cross-references.................................................................................................... 10
Appendix .................................................................................................................. 112

Responsible Investment – Active Ownership

1. Introduction
The Responsible Investment Proxy Voting Policy (“Policy”)
applies to all Directors and employees of Columbia
Threadneedle Investments (“Firm”) that support the following
legal entities, which have adopted this Policy:	Threadneedle Asset Management Ltd.
	Columbia Threadneedle Management Ltd.

Employees must ensure that the necessary actions required tocomply with this Policy are implemented and executed.
The objectives of this Policy are to:	Reinforce the Global Proxy Voting Framework (“Framework”)
and process for the Firm’s voting;	Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC

	Ensure proxies are voted in the best economic interestsof clients;	Threadneedle Investments Services Ltd.

	Address material conflicts of interest that may arise;	Columbia Wanger Asset Management, LLC

	Comply with disclosure and other requirements in connection
with its proxy voting responsibilities; and	Threadneedle International Ltd.
	Threadneedle Management Luxembourg S.A.
	Threadneedle Investments Singapore (PTE.) Ltd.
	Columbia Threadneedle Netherlands B.V.
	Columbia Threadneedle (EM) Investments Limited	Set the requirements and expectations for those individuals
and groups involved in the Firm’s proxy voting process
globally, including to meet regional regulatory requirements.
Please see Appendix A for a set of defined terms used in thisPolicy.

2. Purpose
This Policy was created to ensure knowledge of and compliance with the Framework and associatedregional regulatory requirements.
This Policy outlines our approach to and implementationof proxy voting by our Responsible Investment (“RI”) Team(defined below). The Policy applies globally to all Columbia
Threadneedle Investments client accounts to the extent

1agreed upon and/or permissible. It also outlines our approach toproxy voting on behalf of reo® clients1 and is supplemented by the
Responsible Investment Engagement Policy.

reo® is a pooled service that allows investors to receive engagement, and proxy voting where selected, on equity and corporate bond holdings, independent from portfolio
management services received either from third party asset managers or Columbia Threadneedle Investments.

3

Responsible Investment – Active Ownership

3. Background
This document outlines the principles as well as the roles and responsibilities for all employees whoserole involves interactions with the global proxy voting process.
The Firm needs to fulfil fiduciary responsibilities in terms of
how proxies for companies in their portfolios are voted. The
Firm must act in the best interests of any account to which it
provides portfolio advisory services, including investment funds
or separately managed accounts (together “Portfolios”). Since aclient is the beneficial owner of its portfolio securities, the Firm,
acting on the client’s behalf, has the right and the obligation
to vote proxies relating to the client’s portfolio securities
subject to any practical limitations or exceptions (including,for example, because a client has opted not to delegate voting
discretion to the Firm, due to technical or administrative issues,
share blocking, option rights, or other exception or marketspecific issues). Subject to specific direction from the client,
the Firm will vote proxies related to each Portfolio’s securities
in a manner it determines to be in the best interests of each
Portfolio. The Firm may determine that what is in the bestinterest may differ by client due to differences in investment
objectives, different applicable regulatory requirements, or otherreasons. For example, with respect to ERISA accounts, there istypically an affirmative obligation to vote proxies for an ERISA

account for all votes with a discernible economic benefit, unlessthe client expressly retains proxy voting authority.
While the Firm will make reasonable efforts to vote securities onbehalf of clients, voting proxies of companies in certain jurisdictions
may involve greater effort and cost due to the variety of regulatory
schemes and corporate practices. Certain countries require
securities to be blocked prior to a vote. The Firm typically will not
vote securities in shareblocking countries as the need for liquidity
outweighs the benefit of voting. There may also be additional costs
associated with voting in certain countries such that the Firm may
determine that the cost of voting outweighs the potential benefit.
Some of the Firm’s clients may participate in securities lending
programs. In these situations, in which the Firm is responsible
for voting a client’s proxies, the Firm will work with the client todetermine whether there will be situations in which securities
loaned out under these lending arrangements will be recalled forthe purpose of exercising voting rights. In certain circumstances
securities on loan may not be recalled due to clients’ preferences
or due to circumstances beyond the control of the Firm.

4. Global proxy voting process
Effective 2023, the Firm exercises Portfolio votes at investee
company meetings through the global proxy voting process,4other than where a client mandate specifies the use of a
specific alternative proxy voting policy.

Responsible Investment – Active Ownership

5. Global proxy voting framework
5.1. Corporate governance guidelines

5.2. The firm’s global conflicts of interest policy – proxy voting

The Guidelines set out our expectations of investee companies interms of good governance and guide how we vote securities of,and (where applicable) engage, in relation to proxy voting,on environmental, social and governance matters with, investee
companies. These address matters related to topics such as
shareholder rights, boards of directors, corporate governance,compensation, capital management, environmental, social andgovernance practices and certain other matters. Corporate
governance has particular importance to us in this context,
which reflects our view that well governed companies are
better positioned to manage the risks and challenges inherent
in business and to capture opportunities that help deliver
sustainable growth and returns for our clients.

As an asset management business, we seek to act in the bestinterests of clients when carrying out our investment activities,
including Proxy Voting.

The Guidelines outline the Firm’s expectations of good practicefor items that appear most frequently in proxy voting resolutionsat shareholder meetings and reflect how the Firm is likely to vote.
Where a company’s practices fall short of these expectations, theFirm may oppose the resolution, either through a vote against or anabstention depending upon the severity of our concerns.
The Guidelines are applied globally save to the extent that one
or more legal entities within the Firm are required for some or
all their client portfolios to apply an alternative set of guidelines
to the Guidelines, or otherwise determine that such alternative
should be applied to these portfolios in client best interests.
The Firm is also sensitive to governance practices and norms
in local markets and has developed specific Voting Rules that,whilst derived from the Guidelines, take into account nuances
to governance best practice for a number of individual countries
or regions that supersede the general guidelines. These marketspecific Voting Rules are applied in over 20 jurisdictions. The
Firm’s Guidelines and Voting Rules also cover how we vote onshareholder resolutions, investment funds and other investment
vehicles such as investment trusts. However, from time to time
one or more legal entities within the Firm may vote contrary to
one or more other affiliates.
The Guidelines, and any alternative set of guidelines applied forspecific client portfolios, are reviewed annually; any changes
are proposed by the RI team and approved by the Proxy Working
Group and the Governance Committees. Any reference in theremainder of this document to the Guidelines or Proxy Voting
Rules shall also be deemed to refer, where applicable, to any
alternative applied for specific client portfolios.

Conflicts of interest may arise in our investment activities, andthe Firm’s Global Conflicts of Interest Policy – Proxy Voting, anaddendum to this Policy, defines how we identify, and manage
potential conflicts to serve our clients’ best interests. For
purpose of this Policy, a conflict of interest is a relationship or
activity engaged in by the Firm or a Firm employee that creates
an incentive (or appearance thereof) to favor the interests of theFirm, or the employee, rather than the clients’ interests. A conflictof interest is considered to be “material” to the extent that areasonable person could expect the conflict to influence thedecision on the particular vote at issue.

5.3. Stewardship code statement
The Firm currently maintains Stewardship Code/Principles
Statement disclosures, for the UK, Japan, and Taiwan.

5.4. The RI team
The RI Team is made up of individuals with corporate governanceknowledge who are responsible for the implementation of the
Firm’s active ownership approach, including the analysis andinstruction of the Firm’s proxies, pursuant to the Global Proxy
Voting Model. They utilise specific regional governance expertiseand collaborate with Portfolio Managers (“PMs”), Investment
Research Analysts ("Analysts") and PWG members (whereapplicable), factoring in company specific information andengagement context as well as information obtained from outside
resources, including one or more third-party research providers
to avoid votes against management where possible2. In addition,
designated RI Team members are responsible for undertaking all
administrative processes necessary for the timely execution ofproxy votes.
The RI Team has primary responsibility for the operation of the
Framework and carries out daily and weekly voting workflows todiscern what meetings should be manually voted by the RI Team,after consultation with Fundamental Research and Portfolio
Management teams, where applicable.
The RI Team liaises with other operational teams within the Firmin relation to the timely on-boarding of Firm and third-party clientreo® accounts onto the platform of Proxy Administrator.

We have also published separate corporate governance andresponsible investment guidelines for debt, which reference
associated efforts in the fixed income space.

2

Vote directions may be subject to override by one or more clients of the Firm.

5

Responsible Investment – Active Ownership

The RI Team arranges the delivery of client specific proxy voting
reporting for all regions and entities in scope of the global proxyvoting process. In addition, the Firm’s votes are disclosed on our
vote disclosure websites, as arranged through the Proxy
Administrator.
Not less frequently than annually, the RI Team will review
and propose changes, if any, for approval by the PWG and
the Governance Committees, to the Corporate Governance
Guidelines.
The RI Team will provide the Proxy Voting Rules, in accordancewith the Corporate Governance Guidelines to the Proxy
Administrator to use for execution purposes. If the Proxy
Administrator requires assistance in interpreting the Proxy Voting
Rules or the Proxy Voting Rules are otherwise unclear as to how
a particular matter should be voted, then the RI Team will workwith the Proxy Administrator to clarify how the matter should
be voted by applying the principles and policies underlying our
Corporate Governance Guidelines.
The RI Team will consult with PMs and Analysts to obtain direction
as to how to vote on a matter in the following circumstances:	If the RI Team believes that votes should be executed contrary
to the Corporate Governance Guidelines, as executed by the
Proxy Administrator, for a matter the PWG has not previously
provided direction on and the result would be a vote direction
not in support of management recommendations; orIf the principles and policies underlying our Corporate
Governance Guidelines do not clearly provide direction on as
to how the matter should be voted in circumstances where theProxy Administrator has referred such vote to the RI team for adecision; orWhere any vote relates to a ballot forming part of M&A activity
or a proxy contest.

The PWG’s full mandate is outlined in its Terms of Reference but
broadly speaking, the PWG includes Regional Representatives andis responsible for:
	Review and approval of changes to this Proxy Voting Policy
proposed by the RI Team;	Approval of the Corporate Governance Guidelines and otherpolicies and procedures pertaining to proxy voting corporate
governance;	Monitor adherence of proxy voting activities to the applicablepolicies and procedures as evidenced by our Annual Voting Report;	Providing direction to the RI Team on how to vote on certain
matters, including where votes will not be executed under the
Proxy Voting Rules by the Proxy Administrator;
	Communicating proxy decisions back to the RI Team for execution;and	Acting as a focal point to collate regional investment team input
and as an escalation point where the RI Team or PMs/Analysts
view this as desirable.
5.5.1. The chair
The PWG Chair maintains the following characteristics andresponsibilities:• As an individual with Corporate Governance, ESG and otherexpertise, his or her main responsibility is to be a point ofescalation and consultancy for PWG members, in cases where
the RI team, PMs and Analysts are unable to reach consensus
on a particular vote decision;• Where the Chair deems a split vote may have specificreputational or other risks, the Chair can escalate to theGovernance Committees;

Consensus on how to vote cannot be achieved by the RI Teamthrough the socialisation of votes with PMs and Analysts; or• The Chair does not have the authority to enforce a voterecommendation on members of the PWG and for avoidance of
doubt, PWG members cannot delegate discretion over votes to
the Chair; andA vote is considered reputationally or otherwise sensitive to
the Firm.

• Coordinate quarterly and ad hoc meetings of the PWG, including
at the request of RI Team and PWG members.

The RI Team will escalate votes to the PWG where:

The RI Team maintains a log of Manual Vote Recommendations 5.5.2. Investment operations teams
that are proposed to the PWG for review and approval that
includes a rationale for why we are voting, when not in line with The Firm’s Investment Operations Teams (where they perform
ancillary proxy voting operational functions) perform the following
the Corporate Governance Guidelines.
key activities in the global proxy voting process:5.5. The proxy working group• Advise the RI Team or arrange for the RI Team to be advised of
new clients that require on-boarding and clients to be removed
from the proxy voting service contemplated in this document; andThe PWG is established to support, approve, and oversee howeach legal entity exercises its voting rights in investee companies
through the Corporate Governance Guidelines and ensure they are • Notify the Proxy Administrator of reporting requirements asaligned with clients’ best interests.
needed from time to time to be set up on its platform and act
as a co-ordination point for all reporting received from the Proxy
Administrator.
• Advise the RI Team of specific regulatory changes that may
impact the implementation of the Framework.
6

Responsible Investment – Active Ownership5.5.3. Fund/Portfolio Managers
PMs perform the following key activities in the global proxyvoting process:• Review voting intentions, as set forth in Section 5.6;
• Highlight/request overrides or manual voting to the RITeam in place of any votes set to be voted by the Proxy
Administrator in line with the Proxy Voting Rules;• Provide feedback and/or guidance on voting for issues
raised to them by the RI Team, PWG and/or GovernanceCommittees; and• Review and provide feedback to the RI Team and PWG on
the annual review of global proxy process related policies
and guidelines.
5.5.4. Governance committees
The Governance Committees provide oversight of the
Framework. The Committees are responsible for supporting,approving, and overseeing the adoption and application of
the Firm’s active ownership approach and activities relating
to ESG matters (including how each legal entity within thescope exercises voting rights in its investee companies
through the Firm’s Global Proxy Voting Framework) andensuring the approach is aligned with our clients’ bestinterests. As such, they do not replace, supersede, or nullify
the lines of escalation within management of the Firm’s linesof business, any other component of the Firm’s corporate
governance (including Board authority), or Ameriprise
Financial, Inc. policies and procedures.
The Governance Committees provide the following oversight:• Review and approval of the Framework’s related policies
and guidelines (see Appendix);• Monitor adherence to the Firm’s proxy voting to the policies
and guidelines as evidenced by the Firm’s Annual Voting
Report;• Act as an escalation point for matters where the PWG
seeks further guidance on an ad hoc basis and• Review and approve RI Team procedures, which reference
and are linked to the global proxy voting process.
The Governance Committees approve the delegation of
specified responsibilities to the PWG as set out in its termsof reference which they have approved. The Committees
also approve any change in the Regional Representatives
and ensure the Regional Representatives have theresources and abilities to act in the best interest of clients
within their region.

5.6. Categorisation of votes: execution & manual voting
PMs and Analysts, globally, are furnished with details ofvote intentions for all upcoming meetings, pursuant tothe application of our Proxy Voting Rules by our Proxy

Administrator. Based on this information, PMs and analysts
can request overrides of any specific vote intention if they
deem it as in one or more clients’ best interests. Any suchoverride is in the first instance referred to the RI Team forreview. In the event that consensus cannot be reached on
any request vote override, then the matter can be escalated
by either the RI Team and/or the PMs and Analysts to
the PWG as referenced above in 5.4. In terms of thecategorisation of votes, meetings are then defined as either
Priority or Non-Priority, based on defined criteria.
All votes are executed in line with the Firm’s Proxy Voting
Rules, as coded into the Proxy Administrator’s system.
The actions subsequently taken are determined by theprioritisation process.
In the case of Non-Priority meetings, the RI Team maintains
the authority to execute votes (subject to override requests),
utilising “positive discretion” where applicable as set out
below – this mainly relates to referred items and reo® client
only meetings. The vast majority of Non-Priority meetings will
be voted pursuant to the Firm’s Proxy Voting Rules without
additional intervention by the RI Team.
Priority meetings, as derived by the prioritisation process, areanalysed by the RI Team. Pursuant to this analysis, the RITeam maintains “positive discretion”, where:	The Firm’s Proxy Voting Rules result in a voterecommendation in support of management, to agree withthe recommendation and instruct the vote without specificsocialisation with PMs and Analysts (although these voting
intentions are provided to PMs and Analysts, who may
request overrides);	The Firm’s Proxy Voting Rules result in a voterecommendation not in support of management, to factor
in additional information such as company specific andengagement information to avoid the vote against, without
specific socialisation with PMs and Analysts;
	ISS is unable to discern how to apply the Firm’s Proxy
Voting Rules, to analyse the proposal and where theresultant recommendation, from the RI Team, is tosupport management to apply the vote without specificsocialisation with PMs and Analysts; or
The RI Team may also define additional areas of discretion, in
collaboration with PMs, Analysts and PWG members from time
to time. At all times, PMs and Analysts maintain the ability torequest an override of an RI Team decision if they believe a
different vote is in a client’s best interest.
Where the Firm’s Proxy Voting Rules result in arecommendation that is not in support of management
proposals, or a referral is made by the Proxy Administrator
to the RI Team, and the RI Team analyses the proposals andconfirms/determines that the Manual Vote Recommendation
should be against management, the RI Team will:

7

Responsible Investment – Active Ownership	Consult with PMs and Analysts providing the specific rationale
for the vote against management and aim to reach consensus
for the vote instruction across all PMs and Analysts, unlessthe issue has been previously covered and documented on
the list of voting exceptions for which the RI team can use“positive discretion”;
	Put forward to the PWG for their review and consultation wherea consensus cannot be achieved with PMs and Analysts on
how to vote a specific meeting or proposal, to gain consensus
or permission on how such vote should be exercised which
may include splitting the voting outcomes (including but notlimited to for reasons such as differing investment mandates
from clients);– The RI representative states the voting recommendation
arrived at and makes the case to the PWG as to therationale behind it. The representatives of the PWG aregiven an opportunity to respond to the assertions madeby the RI Team in terms of the rationale behind the voterecommendation. Each PWG consultation must include theRegional Representatives of the Firm for which votes may
be exercised at a meeting;	Execute the vote in accordance with the wishes of a specificPM, either immediately or as per the consensus achieved
during the socialisation of the vote between the RI Team, PMs
and Analysts or pursuant to the PWG escalation process; and	For avoidance of doubt, the RI Team reserves the right to split
votes, as per the PMs wishes, where escalation to the PWG
would lead to the untimely execution of votes.
Some PMs may want the RI Team to manually vote all thecompanies held in their accounts to ensure that a closer look
is taken at company resolutions, and where applicable, consult
the PM for their opinion on how to vote the resolution. Wherean all-fund review is requested by a particular PM, this will beincorporated into the vote categorisation process, such that all
meetings for that fund will be flagged as a Priority Meeting.
As part of the foregoing, the scope for conflicts and abuse in related
party transactions is a potentially significant issue. Such concerns
can arise in relation to individual transactions or from the number,nature or pattern of them. Alongside appropriate procedures to
identify and manage conflicts of interest, the Firm seeks to maintaina robust, independent process for reviewing, approving andmonitoring related party transactions (both individual transactions
and in aggregate), as described in section 5.2 above.

5.7. Regional authority for manual vote recommendations
Where upon the RI Team’s analysis, a vote instruction that isagainst management recommendations prevails, a Manual Vote
Recommendation will be initially proposed to PMs and Analysts by the
RI Team. Where PMs and Analysts agree with the RI Team’s Manual
Vote Recommendations, the RI Team will execute the votes as such.
Where PMs and Analysts disagree with the Manual Vote

8

Recommendations and make assertions as to why the vote against
management should not hold, the RI Team will review the assertions
made and if they agree with them then the vote will be executed as
such.
Where the RI Team disagrees with the assertions made by thePMs and Analysts or there is a difference of opinion/instruction
from two or more PMs and analysts, the RI Team will escalate
the vote to the PWG for review and to determine the final voting
outcome for specific funds.
For any voting decision or action to apply to legal entities within an
operating region the majority in favour of that decision or action
must include that region’s representative on the PWG; in whichcase the PWG’s decision or action in respect of the operating
region shall constitute the decision or action of the representativeof that region. Where consensus still cannot be achieved, the PWG
will decide if escalation to the Chair is necessary.
For votes escalated to the Chair, the Chair will consider all
relevant information and assertions made by the RI Team, PMs,
Analysts and PWG members and recommend a voting outcome.
This will be socialised amongst the parties raising the vote. If aconsensus cannot be reached and the PWG members cannot
agree on a a split in vote, such vote will be escalated to therelevant Governance Committee. The Chair does not havethe authority to enforce a vote recommendation on the PWG
members, who are not permitted to delegate discretion overvotes to the Chair.
Where the Chair deems a vote to be particularly sensitive, suchthat to split the vote may have broader impacts e.g., on the
reputation of the Firm, the Chair can escalate the vote to theGovernance Committees for further input.

5.8. Independent proxy voting administration
The Proxy Administrator applies the Firm’s Proxy Voting Rules,
which reflect our Corporate Governance Guidelines. The Voting
Rules are hard coded into its system to enable the execution of
votes through its platform. Consequently, this execution process
is independent of the RI Team other than, where the Proxy Voting
Administrator is unable to discern how to apply our policy andrefers a vote to the RI Team for instructions.
When the Proxy Administrator requires guidance in executing
our voting directions or in certain other situations in which wewould like to further consider how to vote on a matter, the Proxy
Administrator consults with the RI Team and obtains instructions
on how to proceed. For expediency, this is usually in the form of a‘refer’ recommendation from the Proxy Administrator on a specificproposal or proposals on an individual company ballot.
The RI Team is independent from any individual investment
team within the investment function, reporting directly to the
Global CIO. The RI Team documents a rationale for Manual Vote
Recommendations that are proposed to PMs, Analysts and the
PWG for review and approval as set out above.

Responsible Investment – Active Ownership5.9. Disclosures – client, public and regulatory
Our regular reporting to clients includes the publication of ourvote record and an annual responsible investment report on the
Firm’s voting activities with companies and public policy makers.
The Firm’s client, public and regulatory proxy voting disclosures
are sourced from information maintained by our Proxy
Administrator.

5.10. Record keeping
The Proxy Administrator holds the official book of record for the
Firm’s proxy voting (default executed and manual voting).
The Proxy Administrator maintains records in compliance withdata retention requirements.
The RI Team maintains a log of those exceptions to default logic
voting that includes a rationale for votes against management
recommendations and in some other instances.

9

Responsible Investment – Active Ownership

6. Monitoring and reporting
Reporting is provided at the request of Investment Operations
Teams or counterparts. Reports are automatable and deliverable
directly from the Proxy Administrator’s system. Client specificvote reporting can also be provided. All reporting requests

should be sent to riquant@columbiathreadneedle.com with48 hours' notice. Requests of more than 5 reports should be
discussed separately, urgent requests will be accommodated
on a best endeavours basis.

7. Exceptions/Escalations
Any exception to this Policy must be approved by theGovernance Committees prior to executing the exception.
Any unapproved exceptions to this Policy should be escalated
immediately to the Governance Committees. If there is noconsensus among all members of PWG (who have been

consulted), including pursuant to the escalation to the Chair
and the Governance Committees, on how to vote then the RITeam will instruct the exercise of the votes as directed by the
Regional Representative of the Operating Region related tothose votes.

8. Cross-references
8.1. Conflicts of Interest Policy – Proxy Voting
8.2. Global Corporate Governance Guidelines
8.3. Corporate Governance and Responsible Investment Guidelines for Debt
8.4. Stewardship Report
8.5. RI Engagement Policy
8.6. Environmental and Social Practices Statement
8.7. Conflicts of Interest Policy – Engagement10Responsible Investment – Active OwnershipAppendix
1. Definitions
Corporate Governance Guidelines (“Guidelines”)

The Firm’s publicly disclosed corporate governance guidelines.

Global Proxy Voting Framework (the “Framework”)

The global proxy voting framework outlined in section 5 of this document.

Governance Committees

the IMC- Investment Management Committee (EMEA), IOC- Investment
Oversight Committee (NA), EIC – European Investment Committee (EMEA).

Investment Operations Teams

Any business unit outside of the RI Team that has direct or indirect links toproxy voting requirements e.g., fund accounting teams.

Manual Vote Recommendations

A proxy vote instruction that is against management, as recommended toPMs, Analysts and PWG members, by the RI Team as appropriate.

Proxy Administrator

The proxy voting service provider appointed to provide proxy voting
administrator services to the Firm.

Proxy Voting Rules

The specific voting rule developed by the RI Team, derived from the Corporate
Governance Guidelines, and coded into the Proxy Administrator’s system forexecution purposes.

Proxy Working Group (PWG)

The group of individuals from the Firm, including Regional Representatives
whose responsibilities are set out in the PWG Mandate.

Regional Representative

Individual(s) authorized by all Operating Regions to act as the legal entities’
representative on the PWG.

11

Contact us
columbiathreadneedle.com
Follow us on LinkedIn

To find out more visit columbiathreadneedle.com© 2023 Columbia Threadneedle Investments is the global brand name of the Columbia and Threadneedle group of companies.
Important Information: This communication is valid at the date of publication and may be subject to change without notice. WF546575 (01/24)