Responsible Investment
Annual Report 2012

Contents

Foreword
About us
Our approach to Responsible Investment
Integration team highlights
First State Stewart
Global Listed Infrastructure Securities

1
2
3
5
6
8

Global Equities
Global Listed Property Securities
Australian Equities Growth
Australian Equities Core
Global Resources
Direct Property

10
12
14
16
18
20

Colonial First State Global Asset Management (CFSGAM)
operates as First State Investments (FSI) outside ofAustralia. The entire company is collectively referred toas FSI in this report.

The opinions expressed are as of 28 February 2013and may change as subsequent conditions vary. The
information and opinions contained in this material
are derived from proprietary and non-proprietary
sources deemed to be reliable, are not necessarily
all inclusive and are not guaranteed as to accuracy.
There is no guarantee that any forecasts made will
come to pass. Any investments named within thismaterial may not necessarily be held in any accounts
managed by First State Investments. Reliance upon
information in this material is at the sole discretionof the reader. No part of this material may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by anymeans without prior written consent. The copyrightin this document is vested in Commonwealth Bank
of Australia
This document contains general information only
and is not intended to be relied upon as a forecast,research, investment advice, or a recommendation,offer or solicitation to buy or sell any securities or to
adopt any investment strategy. The information does
not take into account your financial circumstances.
An assessment should be made as to whether the
information is appropriate for you having regard to
your objectives, financial situation and needs. Past
performance is no guarantee of future results.

Colonial First State Global Asset Management(CFSGAM) is the consolidated asset management
division of Commonwealth Bank of Australia.
It includes a number of entities in different
jurisdictions, operating in Australia as CFSGAM, andoffshore as First State Investments in the UK, Europe,Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Indonesia,
Japan and the United States of America.
First State Stewart is a trading name of First State
Investment Management (UK) Limited, First State
Investments International Limited and First State
Investments (UK) Limited (“First State Stewart”).
The First State Stewart team manages a range of
Asia Pacific, global emerging market equity andworldwide equity funds.
The value of investments and any income from them
may go down as well as up. Investors may get backless than the original amount invested and past
performance information is not a guide to
future performance.
Reference to the names of each company mentioned
in this communication is merely for explaining theinvestment strategy, and should not be construed as
investment advice or a recommendation to invest in
those companies.

Direct Infrastructure
Global Fixed Interest and Credit
Case study
Industry collaboration
Our team
Appendices

22
24
26
27
28
29

Responsible Investment Annual Report 2012

Foreword

Welcome to our
Responsible Investment(RI) Report for the 2012
calendar year. This is our
sixth report demonstrating
our commitment to
responsible investment
and to the continual
improvement of ourinternal practices.
2012 heralded a significant change for our
RI team, with two new senior appointments
being made by the business. In the September
quarter we welcomed Will Oulton and Pablo
Berrutti to the team. Based in London, Will is
our new Global Head of RI. Pablo is our Headof RI in the Asia Pacific region and is based in
Sydney. Both Will and Pablo bring a wealthof experience to the business. Further, their
appointments reinforce our commitment toembed responsible investment practices into
the core of our investment activities globally.
We firmly believe that doing so is in the best
long-term interests of our clients.
Our main RI benchmark continues to be our
performance relative to peers against each of
the United Nations Principles for Responsible
Investment (PRI). In 2012, the PRI began aprocess of reviewing and redefining thereporting requirements for signatories. We wereactive participants in this process through ourmembership of the PRI’s Technical Committee,
which had the role of advising the PRI team in
its ambition to develop a stronger reporting
framework for signatories. In addition, we also
participated in the Pilot programme which
provided valuable feedback to the PRI on the
proposed reporting requirements. This process
has our full support and will add further credibility
to the PRI’s reporting and disclosure agenda.
Maintaining the trust and confidence of ourclients is critical to our long-term success as aleading world class responsible asset manager.
The financial services sector continues toattract criticism from many quarters and themost recent Edelman Trust Barometer showed

the financial services sector in a poor light.
Maintaining our licence to operate is therefore
critical to the long-term success of our businessand our approach to RI plays a major part inachieving this.
In the UK, Professor John Kay’s ‘UK Equity
Markets and Long-Term Decision Making’review was published and raised a numberof key issues for the industry. Among theseissues is the role of investor engagementwith companies. This is an area of continuing
focus for us and one which is important tostrengthen, both by our own direct activities
and by collaborating with other investors
where appropriate and where we can add
influence and add value.
The UK’s Financial Reporting Council (FRC)
revised the UK Stewardship Code in 2012.
Additional information is now being asked ofasset managers in terms of disclosing theirpolicies on managing conflicts of interest andfor stock lending. Of course both are importantstewardship issues for asset managers and we
maintain an active dialogue with the FRC andsupport its work in encouraging greater levelsof disclosure from asset managers.
This report provides a number of examples ofthe stewardship activities of our investment
teams. Engagement is central to our RI
approach; as active owners of hundreds ofcompanies in our portfolios we voted on morethan 16,000 resolutions in 2012. Our ongoing
communication with companies is somethingthat we value greatly. Accordingly a significant
amount of emphasis is put on ensuring thatany concerns we might have are clearly
articulated to company management teams tomaintain the highest standards of governanceand sustainability practices are maintained.
The past 12 months once again provided us witha reminder as to how our climate can impact
our lives and economies. Around the globe
there were many examples of extreme weather
including heat waves, extensive flooding andpowerful destructive storms which caused
widespread damage to property and loss of life.
Climate policy is a key issue for investors andour participation in climate related debates isconducted via our membership and support of
the Investor Group on Climate Change. Indeed,
we will look to expand our participation further
in the year ahead.

Looking forward, it is our intention to increase
our thought leadership work and participation
in industry debates. An example of this is
our involvement in the University ofCambridge Programme for Sustainability
Leadership, in their newly formed ‘Investment
Leaders Group’.
We will also continue to seek to work with likeminded investors to promote higher standardsof practice in the markets where our clients’money is invested. Industry collaborations are
an important part of our work and a report ofour key collaborations and activities is included
in section 4 of this report.
The year ahead will see further evolution andenhancement of our global RI strategy, as wellas embedding RI considerations more deeply
into our business globally. Our focus will be on anumber of areas including:–– Investment and product development
processes–– Client relationships and management,
communications and reporting practices–– The skills of our people and our influence androle in developing high quality markets where
we invest our clients’ money.
I look forward to providing an update on our
progress in the 2013 report.

Mark Lazberger
Chief Executive Officer1About us

CFSGAM and First
State Investments
collectively manage
over US$167 billion1 onbehalf of institutional
investors, pension funds,
wholesale distributors
and platforms, financial
planners and theirclient’s worldwide.

We are one of the largest managers ofAustralian sourced funds with offices locatedin Sydney and Melbourne. In Asia we provide
asset management services to wholesale andinstitutional investors across a diverse rangeof domestic and global asset classes with
offices in Hong Kong, Singapore, Jakarta andTokyo. Our European, Middle East and African
exposure is gained through our offices in
London, Paris, Frankfurt and Edinburgh. With
additional offices in New York and Auckland
and represented in Beijing and Shenzhen
through the First State Cinda joint venture,
we have aspirations to be a world-class asset
management business with a global footprint.
Our parent company, the CommonwealthBank, is rated AA– by S&P1 and is the largest
Australian bank by market capitalisation (ASX
code CBA). The Bank is one of Australia’s
leading providers of integrated financial
services, including retail banking, premiumbanking, business banking, institutionalbanking, wealth management, andsharebroking products and services.
We are distinguished from our peers by
our specialist investment teams. Althougheach team might have its own philosophy orinvestment processes, there’s one thing allteams share: a commitment to acting in ourclients’ best interests and maximise portfolio
performance.
Indeed our particular advantage rests inthe quality of our professional teams, in ourinnovative solutions, and in the rigour of ourinvestment processes.
Our ability to meet our clients’ expectations
while managing risk has been an importantreason why we have not just survived indifficult market conditions but grown.
By adopting the United Nations Principles
of Responsible Investment (UNPRI) our
approach to risk management and corporate
governance has evolved to the point where it
now impacts positively on the companies inwhich we invest.

2

1. FUM and Ratings data is shown as at 31 December 2012.

Responsible Investment Annual Report 2012

our approach to Responsible Investment

Progress to dateSince becoming a signatory of the United
Nations PRI in 2007, FSI has made steadyprogress in integrating the consideration ofenvironmental, social and corporate governance(ESG) factors into the investment processes
and ownership practices in our diverse rangeof asset classes.
This progress has been evidenced by our
improvement in the PRI’s annual benchmarking
results from 2008 to 2011. In 2011, we ranked
among the top 25% of fund managers globallyin five of the six principles. While the PRI did
not release a benchmarking report for 2012,
we have continued to refine our approachand practices.
As well as remaining focused on improving
our RI practices throughout 2012, we also
recognised a need to both deepen and globalise
our responsible investment capabilities. As partof this commitment we welcomed Will Oulton
to lead our global RI efforts from our London
office and sought to retain our strong presencein Australia by appointing Pablo Berrutti to lead
RI in the Asia Pacific region.

our strategy
In the latter part of 2012 we took the opportunity
to re-examine our existing approaches, introduce
new ideas and fresh perspectives. As result of
this work we have broadened the scope of ourexisting RI strategy.
One of the goals of our business is “to be recognised
as a global leader in responsible investment by
our clients, stakeholders, peers and industry”.
We seek to achieve this by building upon the six
principles of the PRI, ensuring we employ themindset, thinking and actions of a responsible
asset manager at all levels and in
all areas of our business.
In order to ensure that we focus on conducting
our business in this way our strategy focuses on
the following three key pillars shown in thechart below:

Principle 3
We will seek appropriate disclosure
on ESG issues by the entities in which
we invest
Principle 4
We will promote acceptance andimplementation of the Principles
within the investment industry– The formation of a new committee, tosupport and inform company engagement
and to promote collaboration acrossinvestment teams– The creation of an ESG risks committee,
which will assess the exposure to ESG risks
across asset classes– Reviewing and updating our RI, proxy voting
and other policies to ensure they reflect our
global RI strategy.

QualityHigh quality
investment practices
and processes

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

RI Governance
Our RI governance structure will bestrengthened in 2013 by:– The creation of a Global Responsible
Investment Committee (GRIC), chairedby CEO Mark Lazberger with members
drawn from across the business

Stronggovernanceframework

GlobalResponsible
Investment
Leadership

EngagedStewardship
Strong client focus andlong-term relationships.
Global and local
industry voice

Stronggovernanceframework

Stronggovernanceframework

Culture which supports
principles of stewardshipand responsibility.
Strong RI knowledge
and skills

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

3

our approach to Responsible Investment

Engaging our people
The FSI Global Culture Council (GCC) formed
in 2009 is a non-hierarchical group with staff
representatives from many business units
across the globe. GCC members are focused on
improving and enhancing our business culture,with the objective of making FSI a positive placein which to work. The GCC is also designed
to support the leadership and growth of ourbusiness globally.
The GCC has a number of current focus areas
including Employee Engagement, Diversity andInclusion, and Community. The work of the
GCC and our leadership in driving responsible
investment practices are intrinsically linked andmutually reinforcing.
Our RI strategy includes closer collaboration
between the GCC and our RI team to promote
behaviours consistent with our goal of being aleading global responsible asset manager.
In addition, our human resources team will
work to ensure that employees and prospective
employees are fully versed in our commitment
and approach to RI. This will include:– Clearly articulating our commitment to RI
to prospective employees and recruitment
agents– Incorporating candidate interest andalignment to our RI goals as part of ourassessment and requirements.
Quality of investment practices
and processes
Since becoming a signatory to the PRI, we havemaintained a strong focus on incorporating ESG
factors into our investment processes. We haveensured that each investment team has accessto value-adding ESG data and research. We also
continue to be active stewards of our clients’capital, engaging with companies on their ESG
performance and practices, and related risks
and opportunities.

We are active investors. As such we believethat the incorporation of ESG factors into ourinvestment processes will deliver long-term
benefits to our clients.
Our goal is to seek to understand and measure
the corporate governance quality and theenvironmental and social efficiency of ourportfolios so that our investment managers andour clients can understand the extra-financial
drivers of portfolio performance. We will be
striving to achieve this goal during 2013 and beyond.
Stewardship
Our main areas of focus going forward will
include participating to a greater degree inindustry debates regarding the sustainabilityof financial markets and the investor role in
improving the governance of markets. In addition
to individual efforts to raise and debate issuesof significance to our clients and our industry
by researching, writing, and participating ina variety of forums and projects, we will also
be working with the University of Cambridge
Programme for Sustainability Leadership andtheir new Investment Leadership Group. This
relationship will allow us to contribute to, andlearn from, other leading institutional investors
and academics on a range of important market
issues and how future ESG issues may impact andinfluence our investment performance.
We will continue to actively support a range ofindustry and other initiatives related to RI, as well as
focus on greater collaboration between industry
groups. This work should help identify gaps inaddressing key issues and support other industry
groups in the pursuit of common interests.
Our approach to RI will also influence our productdevelopment and management processes.
As our clients increasingly take an interest in
our approach to RI and our assessment andevaluation of ESG factors, we will aim to consider
the effect of these factors when assessing theperformance of existing products and in thedevelopment of new products.

We will aim to adopt the highest standards ofstewardship on behalf of our clients’ interests
globally and be at the forefront of emerging
best practice in this area.
our goals for 2013
In order to measure our progress towards
implementing our strategy over the following
three years we have set ourselves a numberof goals for 2013. We will confirm ourachievements of these goals on our website
as they occur and will describe how theirimplementation has enhanced our business innext year’s RI Report.
Strategic pillars – focused on good governance,engagement, quality and stewardship – guideour goal setting and prioritisation. By building
on our existing platform we are committed todelivering changes in 2013 which will:

1

Improve our data
sources andanalysis tools

4

2

Increase
our thought
leadership

Improve our internaland external reportingand stakeholder
engagement

3

Improve our RI
governance, policies
and investment
processes

Goal

How will this contribute to our strategic priorities?

Establish the Global Responsible Investment Committee

Improve our RI governance, policies and investment processes

Review of policies and position statements

Improve our RI governance, policies and investment processes

Enhance our ESG data services and IT infrastructure

Improve our data sources and analysis tools
Improve our internal and external reporting and stakeholder engagement
Improve our RI governance, policies and investment processes

Integrate RI into product development process

Improve our RI governance, policies and investment processes

Contribute to Cambridge University Investment Leaders Group

Increase our thought leadership and RI brand4

Responsible Investment Annual Report 2012

Integration team highlights

In the following pages you will find an RI‘snapshot’ for each of our investment teams2.
While the integration of ESG factors into ourinvestment decision-making and ownership
practices is the responsibility of everyone in
the investment team, each team has an RI
Representative. These individuals act as themain contact for the RI team, representing
their team on the ESG risk committee, andcommunicating policy and other changes
within the broader business or the industry.
They are also responsible for reporting theirteam’s progress to the Global RI Committee.

Each snapshot highlights:

Our focus for the snapshots section thisyear has been to demystify RI by providing
practical, process descriptions of how eachteam considers ESG risks and opportunities.
In addition we have sought to provide
examples and describe the issues which eachteam expects to be prevalent in 2013.

The team’s approach to proxy voting (for equity teams only)–– Approach and process for proxy voting

2. R eal Index, Emerging Market Debt, Multi-Asset Solutions and Indonesian Equities haverecently been introduced to the RI process. A case study on the Emerging Market Debt
team’s progress is provided in this report.

The team–– Its size and location–– Its investment strategies–– Its investment head and RI representative
The team’s approach to integrating ESG factors–– Approach and process for considering ESG factors–– ESG integration example where an ESG issues has altereda buy/sell/hold decision
The team’s approach to company engagement–– Approach and process for engagement–– ESG engagement example–– Proxy voting example–– Team proxy voting statistics on key issues
Key Issues for 2013–– The key ESG issues the teams will focus on in 20135

First State Stewart> AuM
US$52.6bn
Strategies:
Asia Pacific ex Japan, Emerging Markets,
Frontier, Greater China, India, Latin America,
Worldwide, Worldwide Sustainability

Managing Partner – First State Stewart
Stuart Paul> Inception
Date
1988

The team’s approach to integrating
ESG factors
Since the launch of First State Stewart’s first
product in 1988, sustainable investment has
always been an integral part of the team’s
investment philosophy and stock-picking process.
Our investment process and consideration of
ESG issues continues to evolve but at its heart
includes the following components:– When assessing companies for investment theteam performs a detailed assessment of the qualityof management, financials and the franchise.
We see a company’s approach to ESG issues
as a good proxy for all of these factors.
– We also have a strong focus on thesustainable positioning of company as
we believe it plays an important role indetermining long-term shareholder returns
for all companies in emerging economies.

RI Representative
David Gait
KEy ISSuES FoR 2013
– Circular economy– New measures of growth– Tax avoidance by multi-national corporations– Supply chain exploitation
First State Stewart is a trading name of First State Investment
Management (UK) Limited, First State Investments
International Limited and First State Investments (UK)
Limited (“First State Stewart”).
The First State Stewart team manages a range of Asia Pacific,
Global Emerging Market and Worldwide Equity funds.

6– The entire First State Stewart teammeet regularly and thoroughly test eachother’s investment ideas during thesemeetings. This includes ESG issues forparticular companies.
– We also have explicit sustainability strategies
that have a greater focus on sustainable
development themes. While offering theirown discrete funds, the views and stock ideasof the Sustainability team are fully integrated
across the whole First State Stewart team.

> Team30> Location
Edinburgh,Hong Kong,
Singapore

ESG integration example: GIANT
Listing: Taiwan
Market Cap: USD 2 billion
Shareholders since: February 2012
Company description: Established in1972, Giant is one of the world’s largest bikemanufacturers in terms of revenue. The
company has the number one position in China
and is one of the top three brands in Europe andthe US. Giant operates manufacturing bases in
Taiwan, China and the Netherlands. The company
manufactures under the Giant brand but also
manufactures for Trek and Specialized.
Investment rationale: Excellent track recordof execution both in the original equipment
manufacturer (OEM) business and developmentof its own brand, there is a good history of
paying dividends and the company has thelong-term backing of the Liu family. The longterm stewardship approach of the family gives
us confidence in the quality of management.
We also see long-term sustainability tailwinds for
a company that manufactures bikes as people
opt for healthier lifestyles and commuting(Giant is also leading in the development ofElectric Bikes). This gives us confidence in the
ESG credentials of the franchise.
Risks: Raw material costs are outside thecompany’s control and these are driven bysustainability factors globally. However saying
that, Giant has done a good job of growing
operating margins over the years despite thevolatility. This gives us greater confidence inthe quality of the financials.
Engagement issues: We have asked Giant
to improve its ESG reporting and transparency.
We seek to understand the impacts ofrecyclability requirements and collaborative
consumption i.e. how people sharing and renting
bikes is likely to impact the company’s growth.

Responsible Investment Annual Report 2012

The team’s approach to company
engagement
We engage on a wide range of issues including
strategy, governance, alignment of interests andreputation. We engage for two reasons:
1. We believe that the purchase of a sharein a business comes with both rights andresponsibilities. Should one of our companies
fail to meet international best practices on theenvironment, human rights or social issues,
we believe we have a responsibility, as partowners of the business, to engage with senior
management to persuade them to address
the issue, rather than to walk away fromthe problem.
2. W
 e see ESG issues as investment issues.
Positive engagement on ESG issues becomesa powerful tool in driving shareholder value
and protecting and enhancing the value ofour portfolios.
Our engagement takes many different forms,
from face-to-face meetings to informal emails
to formal written correspondence. In total we
make direct contact with over 1,000 companies
per year.
We find it much more productive to engage
with management teams with whom wealready have a good relationship. As aresult, perhaps the most important part of ourengagement process is to establish rapport
with management teams ahead of any
engagement. One of the best ways we havefound of doing this is to write thank you lettersafter our meetings, reiterating our appreciation
for the meeting and reminding managementof our long-term approach and expectations
as shareholders.
Fundamentally the engagement always needs
to be two-way. It’s critical that we listen tocompanies and truly understand the challenges
they are facing, as well as effectively
communicating our expectations as investors.

ESG engagement example:

The team’s approach to proxy voting

An area we engaged on during the year was
the use of toxic chemicals in personal careproducts. We read some rather alarming
articles about links to all kinds of nasty healthimpacts of substances with unpronounceable
names like Diethanolamine, Imidazolidinyl,
Monoethanolamine and Triethanolamine.
We wrote to Amore Pacific (Korea), Natura(Brazil) and Beiersdorf (Germany) to try and get
a better understanding of their approach andalso encourage transparency and dialogue with
consumers. As is often the case, the qualityof the response was telling. Natura was by far
the most impressive in its demonstration of
consideration and leadership on these issues.
The company provided extensive detail, but
one specific example it outlined was in relation
to Triclosan (an antibacterial ingredient that is
widely used in personal care products). Natura
acted proactively by eliminating its use from its
new formulations since 2008 because of thepotentially harmful effects on the environmentand human health.

As long-term shareholders, we are also active
owners of the companies in which we invest on
behalf of our clients. We therefore aim to voteon all resolutions at annual and extraordinary
general meetings. The majority of resolutions
we vote against relate to management
remuneration, minority shareholder rights
and board directorships. We rarely see
environmental or social issues appear on theballot papers.
All resolutions are reviewed withrecommendations made by the relevant
analyst. Each portfolio manager has ultimate
discretion on voting decisions for theirportfolios with controversial issues discussed
at regular team meetings.
Proxy voting example:
Retrospectively shifting the goal posts
to improve the outcomes of executive
remuneration is starting to emerge as a serious
concern for the team. In 2012 we witnessed
one company change accounting treatment
and another removed the impact of a productrecall in the calculation of performance for the
purposes of remuneration payments.
In both instances we engaged the Board
but failed to convince them to change theirminds, at least this time. This then influenced
how we voted on the resolutions relating
to remuneration.
In our view it is the board’s role to ensure
there is alignment with shareholders over the
long-term and that management share in boththe up and the down times for the company.
Too often the sharing only seems to be on theway up! While it is sometimes challenging toengage companies on remuneration, given it
is potentially perceived as a personal attack
on management, we believe we need tohave these harder conversations on behalf ofour clients.

Team Proxy Voting Statistics
Total Resolutions

Voted in favour %Voted against %Votes Abstained %

All

6,030

91.7%

8.2%

0.1%

Director elections

1,996

94.5%

5.4%

0.1%

Compensation Related resolutions (executive)

139

86.3%

13.7%

0.0%

Shareholder proposals

28

35.7%

64.3%

0.0%

7

Global Listed Infrastructure Securities> AuM
US$1.5bn
Strategies
Global Listed Infrastructure Securities

Head of Global Listed Infrastructure
Securities
Peter Meany

RI Representative
Rebecca Sherlock
KEy ISSuES FoR 2013
– In a low interest rate environment there isincreased pressure on regulators to reduce
the returns provided to utilities. Companies
that can demonstrate strong customer
satisfaction and continued improvementin operating statistics are more likely
to be treated leniently than companies
requesting rate increases while delivering
inadequate service levels.
– In an environment of low organic growth,
low interest rates and deleveraged balance
sheets, we believe that capital discipline will
be a key issue to watch in 2013. We wantmanagement teams to remain disciplinedin their approach to M&A, maintaining
shareholder value as their primary focus.

8> Inception
Date
2007

The team’s approach to integrating
ESG factors
ESG analysis is integrated into our investment
process through the team’s quality ranking
model. The quality ranking model consistsof 25 criteria that influence stock returns
in general and infrastructure securities inparticular. A score is assigned to each criterion,
with ESG issues accounting for 20% of theoverall quality score. A lower quality score
makes it less likely that a stock would be
included within the overall portfolio.
When assessing ESG factors we consider awide range of information, based primarilyon the analyst’s due diligence and thenon external sources of information. In
determining the quality score, various statistics
will be considered such as independence ofthe board, executive compensation, carbon
intensity of integrated utilities etc.

> Team8> Location
SydneyESG integration example:
SP Ausnet, an Australian regulated utility, has
an external management structure between
itself and SPI Management Services. We
believe that this structure is not appropriate
since SPI Management Services is a wholly
owned subsidiary of SP Ausnet’s largest
shareholder, Singapore Power Limited.
While this structure has previously beencommon among infrastructure securities, theexternalised management structure used by
SP Ausnet has progressively been abandoned
due to the difficulty in managing inherent
conflicts of interest brought about by related
party transactions, and the structure’s poor
record of value delivery for shareholders.
We penalised the company for this structure
through the governance section of our quality
score and we have written to the board to
express our view as active shareholders.

Responsible Investment Annual Report 2012

The team’s approach to company
engagement
Company engagement on ESG issues is
primarily carried out on a direct basis withcompany management, and indirectly via
the team’s proxy voting process.
We engage companies on material issues toachieve specific outcomes; namely to ensure
good ESG practices and thereby protect
investor interests.
ESG engagement example:
Italian toll road operator Atlantia SpA has recently
announced its intention to merge with Rome
airport owner Gemina SpA. We believe thatelements of this process, notably Atlantia’s public
disclosure that it was looking at a listed company,
were not conducted with the best interests ofAtlantia’s shareholders at heart. We have decided
to take action and will be formally voicing our
objections in writing to Atlantia’s Board.

The team’s approach to proxy voting

Proxy voting examples

Proxy votes are initially assessed by therelevant analyst.
Analysts draw on their own experienceof the company along with advice fromCGI Glass Lewis.
Proxy votes are than signed off by the Head of
Global Listed Infrastructure Securities, or thesenior portfolio manager.
We log reasons for all instances where
we vote against management or against
proxy advisors, CGI Glass Lewis’recommendations.
Contentious issues are discussed within theteam and with the RI team. In some instances
we will seek to engage with clients, our proxyadvisors and other shareholders to better
inform our views.

We recently voted against the election of the
Chairman of Atmos Energy, a US regulated utility.
The Chairman is the ex CEO who, while in office,had a joint CEO/Chairman role and acquired
other regulated assets at premium valuations
which added little to shareholder value.

Team Proxy Voting Statistics
Total Resolutions

Voted in favour %Voted against %Votes Abstained %

All

627

82.3%

17.7%

0.0%

Director elections

347

80.1%

19.9%

0.0%

Compensation Related resolutions (executive)

32

75.0%

25.0%

0.0%

Shareholder proposals

33

69.7%

30.3%

0.0%

9

Global Equities> AuM
US$2.7bn
Strategies
Global Equities, Global Equities Market Neutral(long/short), Concentrated Global Equities and
EAFE Equities.

Head of Global Equities
Habib Subjally

RI Representative
Benjamin Yeoh
KEy ISSuES FoR 2013
We expect the following issues to feature andintend to focus on these in our engagement
activities:– Corporate governance, reporting on key
indicators and executive remuneration andworkforce incentives. Ensuring that senior
management’s compensation programmes
are aligned with the long-term interestsof shareholders.
– Bribery and corruption due to the UK bribery
laws and US regulations especially for companies
doing business in emerging markets.
– For many companies supply chain auditing
and concerns, especially in consumer
orientated businesses.

10> Inception
Date
2004

> Team10> Location
LondonThe team’s approach to integrating
ESG factors

The team’s approach to company
engagement

We maintain a bottom up approach
to identifying key ESG risks, primarily
using internal analysis supplemented byexternal research.
The team is made up of seven industry
specialists that have extensive expertisein their chosen fields. We believe that thismakes them better at identifying andevaluating ESG risks.
Our industry experts assess company
performance based on peer comparisonof key performance indicators for thesector, the achievement of stated targets
and an assessment of management andcorporate governance.
We rate management and ESG on a 1 to 5
scale from excellent to poor. A score of 4 or 5means the company is deemed uninvestable.
A high score adds positively to the overall
company assessment.
We both positively and negatively screen theinvestment universe for high and poor ESG
performers. This identifies companies whichmight be good investments and prompts us toengage or re-assess companies we own whichmight have concerns.
ESG integration example:

We engage with all companies we are invested
in on material ESG issues. These are identified
through our consideration of ESG risks
from our own analysis and screens using
external data.
We try to gain comfort that the company’s
senior management and board are aware of,and accountable for, material issues.
Our first port of call will generally be toraise our concerns with management and,potentially, other directors.
Where we feel material issues are not being
appropriately addressed, we will work with the
RI team to develop an engagement strategy
for the issue. This can flow into our proxyvoting and investment decisions.
ESG engagement example:

A consumer retail company with a global
footprint was assessed as having excessive andinappropriate executive remuneration. We also
held concerns over management structures andthe company’s operational execution.
Our discussions with the company andassessment of its failure to employ bestpractice management incentives andstructures (in particular there is no strong
lead independent director to challenge the
CEO/Chairman role) led us to believe thatthe company was not being managed as
effectively as it could be.
Execution failures and below average ESG
disclosures prompted us to divest theshareholding in this company.

We were concerned at merger talks between
two large, global resource companies andthe management incentive package being
proposed.
These incentives were not appropriately linked
to performance and were to be awardedin cash. We met with the CEOs of the twobusinesses and one of the Chairmen in three
separate face-to-face meetings to discuss
the merger terms and communicate ourobjections to the proposed management
remuneration/ retention package.
Ultimately, the Board partially amended thisincentive scheme. More than 78% of oneof the company’s voting shareholders voted
against the proposed retention packages.

Responsible Investment Annual Report 2012

The team’s approach to proxy voting
All proxy votes are initially assessed by therelevant industry specialist. We examine stock
option programmes and executive remunerationas part of this analysis.
Industry specialists draw on their own experience ofthe company along with advice from CGI Glass Lewis.
Votes against management or CGI Glass Lewis
are discussed with the Head of Global Equities or
the RI representative.
We log reasons for all instances where we voteagainst management or against CGI Glass Lewis’recommendations.
Contentious issues are discussed within theteam. When not readily agreed upon, we
engage with the RI team.
In some instances we will seek to engage
with clients, our proxy advisors and othershareholders to better inform our views.
Proxy voting examples
For Incyte, a pharmaceutical manufacturer, wevoted for the stock incentive programme, despite
CGI Glass Lewis advising an ‘against’ vote. We
did this because the CGI Glass Lewis calculations
were not as complete as our own and had notaccounted for relevant biotechnology peers. The
company also had been very successful in having
its lead product approved and has very low staff
turnover; the stock incentive being a key reason forthe low staff turnover rate. We did not believe theplan was excessive.
We voted against the remuneration report for
Abercrombie & Fitch. The incentive plan waspoor and we believed the CEO remuneration
was excessive, particularly considering recent
management performance.

Team Proxy Voting Statistics
Total Resolutions

Voted in favour %Voted against %Votes Abstained %

All

1,895

92.8%

7.1%

0.2%

Director elections

1,035

95.7%

4.3%

0.0%

Compensation Related resolutions (executive)

156

89.7%

10.3%

0.0%

Shareholder proposals

76

44.7%

53.9

1.3%

11

Global Listed Property Securities> AuM
US$3.6bn
Strategies
Global portfolios hedged into AUD, GBP and
USD, Asia Pacific portfolios hedged into GBP
and USD, Australian REITs, Australian REITs
Opportunities, European REITs.

Head of Global Listed Property Securities
Stephen Hayes

RI Representative
Joseph Daguio
KEy ISSuES FoR 2013
– High standards of corporate governanceare consistently important to the team andwe will maintain a disciplined and focused
approach to this issue.
– In the face of concern about climate change,
property companies are designing andconstructing increasingly environmentallyfriendly buildings; a trend which we believe
is set to continue.

12> Inception
Date
1994

> Team11> Location

Sydney, New York,
London, Hong
Kong, Amsterdam

The team’s approach to integrating
ESG factors

The team’s approach to company
engagement

The initial screening stage of the investment
process contains an ESG rating. This is wherea company’s ESG policies are considered.
Corporate governance is a particular focus,
where boards’ independence as well asshareholder rights are of paramount importance.
We also consider any specific sustainability
initiatives implemented by the company
as well as the environmental impact ofexisting assets and developments. We take
into account a company’s history as a good
corporate citizen and look for evidence of any
meaningful contributions it might have madewhich benefit society as a whole.
A low score (in combination with low scoreson other factors) can lead to a stock being
excluded from the investment universe andhence ineligible to be considered for inclusion
within our portfolios.
ESG factors are considered in the Capital Asset
Pricing Model (CAPM) in the valuation stageof the investment process. A company’s ESG
profile is included as one of the variables usedin determining its beta. This means that thehigher the team rates a company’s ESG profile,the more likely we are to invest in the stock.
ESG integration example:

The team is a firm believer in investor rights andtakes a proactive stance on ESG issues, especiallywith regard to corporate governance.
Communication with CEOs and boards of
directors are undertaken where it is deemed
appropriate in order to influence and to
enforce change.
ESG engagement example:

We have held concerns regarding poor
corporate governance at Citycon Oyj, where
there is a lack of independent directors on
the board. We believe that this issue of board
quality constitutes a significant risk for ourclients. This resulted in Citycon being awarded
the lowest possible ESG rating under our stock
screening process. The company currently fails
to meet the minimum score required to be
included in our defined screen and thus falls
outside our investable universe.

Primaris, a retail real estate investment trust,
received a C$26 per share unsolicited cash
buyout by KingSett Capital in December 2012.
The Primaris board initiated a formal saleprocess and in January 2013 entered into anagreement with another party, H&R, to sell itself
for $26.80 on a script and part cash basis. The
merger agreement included a large break fee
to H&R.
We were disappointed that the board enteredinto a merger agreement with a large break fee
and accepted an offer at such a small premium
to KingSett’s original, all cash offer.
The team engaged the Board and management,
meeting with them privately to outline ourconcerns of the merger agreement and the poor
corporate governance shown by the group.
Following this meeting we were unsatisfied withmanagement’s justification of its decision andbegan selling down our portfolios’ holdings in
the stock. Subsequently, H&R increased its bid
under the merger agreement.

Responsible Investment Annual Report 2012

The team’s approach to proxy voting

Proxy voting example:

The Global Head of Property Securities and eachanalyst are responsible for the review of proxyvotes and the decision.
Third party research providers are used to guidethe decision, but we are not obliged to follow
the underlying recommendation.
The Global Head of Property Securities and eachanalyst will base their decision on what is in thebest interest of our investors.
If the team decides to vote against third
party recommendations, a detailed
explanation of the reasons for this must be
provided and documented.
The same process is followed when dealing
with contentious issues.

We voted ‘against’ the re-election of James
MacKenzie as the Chairman of Mirvac Group,a view which was inconsistent with therecommendation of CGI Glass Lewis.
We have had concerns about Mr MacKenzie’s
independence. At times, we believe he has
exerted control over management which
was beyond the scope of his duties. This has
affected the overall independence of the Board.
In spite of our vote, the resolution was
ultimately passed and Mr MacKenzie
was re-elected as Chairman.

Team Proxy Voting Statistics
Total Resolutions

Voted in favour %Voted against %Votes Abstained %

All

1,258

87.8%

11.7%

0.5%

Director elections

546

88.8%

10.8%

0.4%

Compensation Related resolutions (executive)

76

82.9%

17.1%

0.0%

Shareholder proposals

1

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

13

Australian Equities Growth> AUM
US$11.2bn
Strategies
Australian Equities, Growth, Imputation, Long
Short, Small-mid Cap, Micro-Cap

Head of Australian Equities, Growth
Marcus Fanning

RI Representative
Sheridan Knott
Key issues for 2013–– We expect environmental issues regarding coalseam gas and liquefied natural gas projects tobe a continuing area of focus in 2013.
–– There will continue to be a broad level offocus on board governance; particularly withrespect to remuneration, environmental
scrutiny, and social issues in the area of
employment.

14> Inception
Date
1989

> Team13> Location
SydneyThe team’s approach to integrating
ESG factors

The team’s approach to company
engagement

Our process uses a fundamental, bottom-up
analytical framework, developed internallywith proprietary analysis templates to assess
the investment universe. ESG risks are usedpredominantly as factors that may placebusiness value at risk.
Companies at risk are identified using both
external providers and our own internally driven
research, which is based on a rigorous company
meeting programme.
Identified risk factors are used to assist in
developing the quantitative and qualitative
assumptions used by analysts in theirassessment of industries and stocks.
Analysis is vigorously stress tested and screened
under a peer review process. This process seeks
to highlight the analyst and team’s convictionin the target price and recommendation.
Additionally, we assess how companies aremanaging ESG issues and encourage theentities in which we invest to improve their ESG
performance and disclosure.
ESG integration example:

The Australian Equities, Growth team has
active direct dialogues with many Chairpersons
and/or company management on material
ESG issues which we identify through ourconsideration of ESG risks.
We try to gain comfort that the company’s
senior management and board are awareof, and accountable for, the management ofmaterial issues.
Where we feel material issues are not being
appropriately addressed we will work with the
RI team to develop an engagement strategy
for the issue. This can flow into our proxyvoting and investment decisions.
ESG engagement example:

Intrepid Mines is a precious metals
development and exploration company with
operations largely based in Indonesia. The
company’s main project is operated in what
we now know is a very complicated alliance.
This stock was held in one of our Small
Companies portfolios at a share price of $1.50.
Our regular company contact revealed apotential governance issue that was exposed
through separate discussions with the
Chairman and CEO. Their disparate views on
the timeframe for development and detailsof the tenements raised some red flags.
We engaged the RI team to conduct
independent research, which concluded thatthe company was likely to experience issues
with the ownership of the mining license andits alliance partner. Adjusting our valuation forthis risk, the share price exceeded the valuation
and we exited the stock. These issues continue
to pervade the stock and other governanceissues have since arisen. The stock now tradesat around $0.20.

We were concerned about the base levelof remuneration of the MD/executives at alisted media company given the size of thecompany. The team engaged the Chairman
in remuneration discussions and followed
up with a meeting with the Head of theRemuneration Committee on the Board to
discuss the establishment of new guidelines
for performance hurdles for the FY14 year.
Key issues for discussion included:–– Instigation of performance gateways for
performance–– Return On Equity/Return On Assets targets aswell as Total Shareholder Return metrics–– Greater focus on Long Term Incentives as thebusiness is being restructured.
Following this consultation the company
established a remuneration structure that
ensured a focus on long-term outcomes forshareholders.

Responsible Investment Annual Report 2012

The team’s approach to proxy voting

Proxy voting examples

The Head of Australian Equities, Growth is
responsible for ensuring that all company
resolutions are reviewed and an appropriate
recommendation is made in line with thecorporate governance guidelines and principles.
The team votes on all issues at company
meetings where we have the authority to doso. The exercising of the voting rights is always
in the best interests of our investors and clients.
Responsibility for voting rests with analysts,
who pass on the information to portfolio
managers. Where the analyst opinion
differs from that of our third party proxyvoting consultants, the analyst is required to
document their view and consult the Headof Australian Equities, Growth and the Chief
Investment Officer.
In cases where the resolution may be contentious
in nature, a more detailed explanation as
to the reasons for the voting intention is tobe outlined. Examples of contentious issues
are executive remuneration packages or theappointment of non-independent directors.

Billabong International – We voted ‘against’
the election of directors and remuneration.
We do not believe the directors in question
have acted in the best interest of shareholders
and are not independent. Poor performanceof the group and relative size of the businessdoes not reflect the size of the remuneration
being solicited.
Fairfax Media – We voted in line withCGI Glass Lewis’ ‘for’ recommendation on
remuneration, despite originally considering
the base remuneration excessive for a companyof this size. However, after discussion with the
Chairman this decision was reviewed given theturnaround the company was trying to deliverin a tough advertising environment.
Woolworths – We voted ‘against’ the shareholder
proposal regarding electronic gaming, which
was raised at the EGM. We are satisfied that thecompany has implemented certain measures
aimed at mitigating risk to problem gamblers andany further imposition would place the company
at a significant competitive disadvantage.

Team Proxy Voting Statistics
Total Resolutions

Voted in favour %Voted against %Votes Abstained %

All

959

92.1%

7.8%

0.1%

Director elections

436

93.1%

6.9%

0.0%

Compensation Related resolutions (executive)

273

91.9%

8.1%

0.0%

Shareholder proposals

5

60.0%

40.0%

0.0%

15

Australian Equities Core
> AUM
US$10.0bn
Strategies
Australian Equities, Long Short, Tax Aware,
Equity Income, Geared, Indexed, Small
Companies, Small Companies Long Short

Head of Australian Equities, Core
Matthew Reynolds

RI Representative
Jewel Bennett
Key issues for 2013
We expect the following issues to feature andintend to focus on these in our engagement
activities:–– Executive remuneration–– Corporate governance–– Issues relating to staffing and safety–– 	Supply chain as related to social andenvironmental issues.

16> Inception
Date
1993

The team’s approach to integrating
ESG factors
The Australian Equities, Core team has
adopted a bottom up approach to identifying
key ESG risks. Our own internal analysis issupplemented by company disclosures, media
and external research.
A consideration of a company’s sustainability
and governance policies and practices is an
explicit part of the stock research process.
This research feeds into the team’s overall
view of the company in a similar way to
traditional financial analysis.
Australian Equities, Core analysts consider
ESG and sustainability issues as one of the six
factors in the stock research and selection
process. The other factors are Management,
Industry Position, Valuation, Market Factors
and Financials.
Where ESG and sustainability factors are
determined to have an impact on profitability,
they are quantified and implied in all otherfactors, most directly in the valuation andfinancials of the stock.
ESG integration example:
Maintaining the right board structure andan appropriate mix of skills and experienceamong executives is crucial for a company
to achieve its strategic objectives. It istherefore imperative for boards to develop
and maintain well-considered succession plans
for key individuals to avoid disruption due to
unexpected departures of board members,
executives or employees in other senior
operational management roles.
Our ongoing dialogue with one particularcompany during 2012 suggested that theboard was not preparing thoroughly enoughfor a possible change in a key executive
position. In this case we were concerned thatchanges on the board could divert attention
from delivering on the company’s statedobjectives. Investment in this company was
subsequently reduced across our range ofAustralian Equities, Core portfolios. This movereflected concerns that the changes could
affect the company’s performance and,ultimately, impede shareholder returns.

> Team19> Location
SydneyThe team’s approach to company
engagement
Consideration of ESG issues and engagement onmaterial issues is undertaken with all companies
within the investment universe.
We typically complete more than 2,000
company visits annually. We therefore haveample opportunity to engage companies on key
issues and follow up where required.
As part of our stock research process, analysts
attempt to gain comfort in the ability of acompany’s board, as well as its executive
and operational management teams. The
company’s awareness and accountability
around ESG risks and opportunities forms a key
part of this assessment.
Where we feel material issues are not being
appropriately addressed by a company, we will
discuss these issues with management andboard members as the first element of theengagement strategy. Subsequent engagementwith companies may involve the specialist RI team.
The outcomes of our engagement withcompanies flows through to proxy voting and,ultimately, to investment decisions.
ESG engagement example:
An energy company in which Australian
Equities, Core funds invest acquired a brown
coal-fired power station during the year.
This acquisition increased the company’s
carbon intensity and resulted in some adverse
press coverage and concern among investors.
As part of our ongoing engagement withmanagement, we visited the company todiscuss and assess implications of this move.
Rather than consider the acquisition purely on
environmental grounds, we were interested inassessing whether management was fully awareof, and able to manage the associated risksof the move. Potential financial implicationsof future changes in carbon pricing were also
discussed in detail.
This particular company is aware of theimplications of a carbon pricing scheme.
The company remains committed to investingin renewable energy solutions. Open dialogue
and engagement with the company during thispotentially challenging period enabled us to fully
assess the risks associated with the acquisition.
Ultimately we were satisfied that management
would be able to appropriately manage therisks associated with the acquisition andinvestment in the company was maintained.

Responsible Investment Annual Report 2012

The team’s approach to proxy voting
The Head of Australian Equities, Core delegates
the assessment of issues surrounding thevoting of a company’s resolutions to theanalyst responsible for coverage of the stock.
In making this assessment, analysts follow
FSI’s voting guidelines, draw on their own
experience of the company and take into
consideration comments from proxy advisers
CGI Glass Lewis and Ownership Matters.
Proxy votes are approved by the Head ofAustralian Equities, Core.
All instances where we do not vote in line with
the Board’s recommendation are recorded.
We will also comment where we do not agreewith the recommendation of the proxy advisers.
Contentious issues are discussed within theteam and with the RI team. In some instances
we will seek to engage with clients, our proxyadvisors and other shareholders to better
inform our views.
Proxy voting example:
We believe boards that have a majority of
independent directors tend to act in the bestinterests of minority shareholders. As a result,
we do not favour board structures which do
not have sufficient independent representation
and will formally express our views throughproxy voting where this is not the case.
During 2012 we voted against the re-electionof three Directors at Southern Cross MediaGroup, including the Non-Executive Chairman.
These Board members are affiliated Directors
on a Board that is not majority independent.
Two of the Directors are also members of
the company’s remuneration and nominationcommittee and one served on the audit
committee. We note that neither ofthese committees are majority independent.

Team Proxy Voting Statistics
Total Resolutions

Voted in favour %Voted against %Votes Abstained %

All

398

95.2%

4.8%

0.0%

Director elections

197

96.4%

3.6%

0.0%

Compensation Related resolutions (executive)

107

95.3%

4.7%

0.0%

Shareholder proposals

5

40.0%

60.0%

0.0%

17

Global Resources> AuM
US$3.5bn
Strategies
Global Resources, Global Resources Long/
Short, Global Soft Commodities

Head of Global Resources
Dr. Joanne Warner

RI Representative
Rupert ColeKEy ISSuES FoR 2013
We will continue to focus our engagement
activities on:– Executive remuneration (ensuring it isaligned with shareholders’ interests)– Environmental practices– Safety– Corporate governance– Community engagement.

18> Inception
Date
1997

The team’s approach to integrating
ESG factors
ESG issues are particularly pertinent for natural
resources companies due to the nature of theindustry and the countries in which they operate.
We recognise that many resources companies
actively seek to deliver community benefits suchas employment, education and infrastructure
while operating to the highest environmental
standards. We expect a genuine commitment
to these high standards. We avoid investing incompanies who cannot demonstrate that theymeet these standards or who are not making
clear progress towards meeting them inthe context of their operating environment.
Site visits and management meetings are a key
component to help us understand the exposureand management of ESG risks and companies’
ESG practices. These include environmental,
safety and corporate governance practices andlocal community engagement.
The team has developed a tailored ESG
framework that is part of the company review
process. When an analyst reviews a resourcecompany, an ESG review is also completed.
We supplement the primary researchundertaken by our experienced analyst teamwith externally sourced research and data tocontinually monitor company performance.
For diversified mining companies we consider
the overall performance of the company andconsider the materiality of different issues inour overall assessment.
The Global Resources team believes theconsideration of ESG issues will lead to betterrisk/return outcomes for our funds, which
will ultimately improve long-term returns forour clients.

> Team11> Location
Sydney, London

ESG integration example:
An Australian based gold producer with a poor
safety record experienced three fatalities in
October 2010.
The deaths were not disclosed to the market.
As production guidance was not affected, thecompany asserted that the event did not qualify
as a significant event requiring disclosure.
We held a one-on-one meeting with management.
We did not consider management to beforthcoming on its safety record or on thechanges being made to improve on-site safety.
Our analyst undertook a site visit and observedlax safety standards and poor housekeeping.
Following our site visit we chose not to invest
until site safety significantly improved.

Responsible Investment Annual Report 2012

The team’s approach to company
engagement
We engage with all companies we are invested
in on material ESG issues. The team seeks tohighlight areas for potential improvement,
encourage disclosure on ESG issues, andcommend companies that are making
progress in this area.
Company engagement on ESG issues is
primarily carried out on a direct basis withcompany management and indirectly via our
proxy voting process.
Where management does not respondadequately to engagement, it may impact
negatively on our assessment of the stockand could result in the team divesting its
ownership.
ESG engagement example:
The board of a large, diversified mining
company recommended its shareholders
accept the conditions of a proposed merger
from Company B.
The merger was contingent on 50% of
shareholders voting for the Management
Incentive Arrangements (MIA) which included
cash payments to the CEO and senior employeesof the target company over three and twoyear periods respectively.
There were no performance hurdles attachedto the cash payments.
We were unhappy with the structure of the
MIA. We believe remuneration should belinked to performance and should include astock component, to align the interests ofmanagement and shareholders.
We met with the CEO of the target company
and stated our position. We considered
his response unsatisfactory and arranged ameeting with the non-executive Chairman.
As a result of our meetings we voted against
the remuneration package.

Our approach to proxy voting
All proxy votes are initially assessed by therelevant analyst.
Analysts draw on their own experience of thecompany along with advice from CGI Glass Lewis
Proxy votes are signed off by the portfolio manager.
We log reasons for all instances where we voteagainst management or against CGI Glass Lewis’recommendations.
Contentious issues are discussed within theteam and with the RI team. In some instances
we will seek to engage with external subject
matter experts, our proxy advisors and othershareholders to better inform our views.
Proxy voting example:
We voted against the Remuneration Reportfor a particular company. The MD’s highremuneration level relative to peers was aconcern for us as the company has yet toestablish cash flows. The MD also had a small
equity position in the company, which isunusual for a small cap explorer, and indicatedlimited alignment with shareholders.
We voted against the Remuneration Report foranother company. The company is still in an
exploration/development phase and we accept
that external performance measurements
are currently not appropriate. Nevertheless,the Remuneration Report failed to adequately
disclose the company’s remuneration
policies, including the relationship between
company performance and remuneration.
Additionally, the Remuneration Report failed
to provide an adequate explanation on the
short-term incentive component, including
any maximums allowed.

Team Proxy Voting Statistics
Total Resolutions

Voted in favour %Voted against %Votes Abstained %

All

2,828

94.2%

4.3%

1.4%

Director elections

1,633

85.3%

2.1%

0.9%

Compensation Related resolutions (executive)

191

85.3%

14.1%

0.5%

Shareholder proposals

40

37.5%

62.5%

0.0%

19

Direct Property> AuM
US$18.3bn
Strategies
Direct Property

Managing Director, Property
Angus McNaughton> Inception
Date
1996

The team’s approach to integrating
ESG factors
The philosophy is focused on long-term returns
and stability; hence, ESG risks and opportunities
are incorporated into all business processes andinvestment management decisions.
Full life-cycle consideration of ESG factors areincluded from asset acquisition and due
diligence through active asset management,
refurbishment, redevelopment and divestment.
Implementation is through the Direct Property
Sustainability Policy, with a focus on:– Environmental performance– Social interaction, and– Governance.

RI Representative
Rowan Griffin
KEy ISSuES FoR 2013
Short-term– The role of our assets in the community– Tenant engagement/management opportunities– Indoor environment, occupant comfort andproductivity impacts of sustainable/green
buildings.
Long-term– Moving towards integrated reporting andthe ongoing analysis and addressing ofstakeholder materiality issues– Investigation of shared value as a businessproposition.

20

Environmental performance is benchmarked
through industry tools, such as Green Star and
NABERS ratings. All assets have targets
set and are managed against these targets
and benchmarks.
Our commitment to social outcomes isrepresented by our engagement with tenants,
customers and the communities in which ourassets are located. More formally, these aremanaged through our Green Lease Scheduleand Tenant Engagement/Management Plans
and a community framework.
Our funds are managed with a foundationof robust governance which is fundamental
to protecting the long-term interests of ourunitholders. We operate in a framework ofvarious regulatory regimes which include:
Managed Investment Scheme obligations,
corporate law, stock exchange listing rules
and the Corporate Governance Council’s
principles and recommendations.
We further draw on the strength of theCommonwealth Bank of Australia’s (TheBank’s) governance practices and regimes.
Our assets are managed according to ourpolicies, and where managing agents areengaged they are trained in our policies
and procedures.

> Team950> Location
Australia

ESG integration example
Our responsible property investment
programme has resulted in real environmental
efficiencies being achieved across the property
portfolios we manage. In our Australian listed
funds, we have achieved the following to 30
June 2012:
Commonwealth Property ofﬁce Fund (CPA)– Saved enough energy to power 4,498
average Australian homes since FY07
– Saved enough water to fill 73 Olympic sizedswimming pools since FY07
– Reduced our emissions by the equivalentof 11,747 A380 passenger trips around theworld since FY07
– Diverted enough waste from landfill to fillover 865 standard metropolitan buses
since FY10.
CFS Retail Property Trust Group (CFX)– Saved enough energy to power 1,854
average Australian homes since FY08
– Reduced our emissions by the equivalentof 11,492 A380 passenger trips around theworld since FY08
– Saved enough water to fill 247 Olympicsized swimming pools since FY08
– Diverted enough waste from landfill tofill over 744 standard metropolitan busesover FY12.

Responsible Investment Annual Report 2012

The team’s approach to stakeholder
engagement
Engagement is represented in the continuous
implementation and management of ourSustainability policy and strategy.
Internally, we are particularly focused on
the environmental performance of assets
we manage for our investors. Externally,
we place significant emphasis on thesatisfaction on our tenants and customers,
ensuring that the properties we manage
provide an environment that is conducive
to undertaking business in a profitable andsustainable way. To assist we have a Green
Lease Strategy and Green Lease Schedules inall of our office leases. This is accompanied
by a Tenant Management/Engagement
plan for all tenants within the office assets
we manage.
We have a stakeholder engagement framework
to determine the materiality of ESG issues, andwe prioritise them for action. This is undertakenwith regard to the AA1000 standard.
We engage with our supply chain through a
Responsible Procurement Policy.

Stakeholder engagement example
In 2011, a pilot Green Lease Schedule (GLS)
was developed for 201 Miller Street, North
Sydney, Australia, an asset owned by the listed
Commonwealth Property Office Fund (CPA) andmanaged within CFSGAM Property.
The GLS was designed to foster tenant
engagement to improve an asset’s sustainability
performance. The 201 Miller Street asset waschosen to pilot the GLS because it had recently
undergone major building upgrade works, hada variety of tenants and a short-term weighted
average lease expiry profile.
The GLS encourages setting a NABERS Energy
target for the tenant, which can vary from theowner’s target, agreeing action items of thebuilding environment management plan, andcommits both landlord and tenant to a regulardialogue on concerns, difficulties, solutions andkey learnings on the implementation of the GLS.
As a result of the success at 201 Miller Street,the GLS has been rolled out across the entire
CPA portfolio. At 201 Miller Street, the takeup rate for the GLS by tenants in new leases
is now 85%.

21

Direct Infrastructure> AUM
US$3.3bn> Inception
Date
1994

Strategies
Unlisted Infrastructure

The team’s approach to integrating
ESG factors

Head of Global Infrastructure
Perry Clausen

Our Unlisted Infrastructure team uses a risk andopportunity identification framework to ESG risks
and opportunities in existing businesses and forpotential new acquisitions.
This framework is called the Infrastructure
Sustainability Rating (‘ISR’) Scheme, developedby the industry not-for-profit peak body – theInfrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia.
Several of our investment team members areformally trained and certified in the use of the
ISR Scheme.
The ISR scheme is focused on innovation andcontinuous improvement to ensure that ESG
risks and opportunities are managed in the mostefficient way. The rating scheme can cover all
infrastructure sectors and allows benchmarking
within and across sectors.
The issue identification tool associated with
the Scheme covers a number of themes andcategories (please refer to the table below).

RI Representative
Mark Rogers
Key issues for 2013
We believe these are likely to be:–– Social licence to operate – regulated utilities,
transportation and PFI projects are coming
under increasing pressure and scrutiny inrelation to taxation, financial structuring andthe level of returns to investors. It will be
critical for infrastructure investors to actively
participate in discussions to ensure thatthe integrity of regulatory frameworks aremaintained and that the public debate isbalanced and informed.
–– Low carbon transition – there is still considerable
regulatory and political confusion aroundcarbon schemes and carbon management inmany countries. This spills over into existing
renewable energy investment frameworks(ROCs, RETs etc.) and creates uncertainty thatcauses investors to retreat from the space.

22> Team25> Location
Sydney, London,Paris

ESG integration examples
We assess resource use in minimisation projects
to find business cases that bring benefits toindividual infrastructure businesses and theportfolio.
These benefits include cost benefits to thebusiness bottom line by decreasing energy andwater use, carbon risk reduction by lowering
the carbon footprint, and social licence benefits
associated with undertaking such initiatives.
For example, we recently brought an investment
proposal to the Board of our hospital car parking
business to reduce the carbon footprint of thebusiness via a capital expenditure programme onenergy efficiency initiatives.
This proposal was undertaken in conjunction
with Low Carbon Australia to ensure appropriate
financing was in place to make the businesscase investable.
In another case we invested in a regulated
electricity business that has launched a pilot
programme which seeks to address capacity
constraints by making better use of existing
network infrastructure. The pilot is being partly
funded by the UK energy regulator.
The project will help to keep the costs of energy
down for customers on the network, thereby
providing a broader community benefit andsome value to the company’s social licence tooperate. Another expected benefit is the savingsin embedded carbon costs of infrastructure notbeing built. This is the equivalent to the averageannual emissions of approximately 27,778
Australians (or 675,000 tCO2e).

ThemesCategories

Management and GovernanceManagement Systems
Procurement and Purchasing
Climate Change Adaption

Using Resources

Energy and Carbon
Water
Materials

Emissions, Pollution and Waste

Dischargers to Air, Land and Water
Land
Waste

Ecology

Ecology

People and Place

Community Health, Well-being and Safety
Heritage
Stakeholder Participation
Urban and Landscape Design

Innovation

Innovation

Responsible Investment Annual Report 2012

The team’s approach to company
engagement
We take direct stakes in infrastructurebusinesses seeking at least one board seat at
the holding company (controlling) level.
This allows direct governance of the business,the structure of the performance incentive
mechanisms and the creation of an appropriate
culture around each businesses approach to ESG
risks and opportunities.
ESG engagement example:
Our regulated utility businesses today operates
under performance scorecard systems that
include key performance indicators such as
gross operational carbon savings, provision ofcustomer service levels and health and safety
components. This ties executive remuneration
to key ESG metrics and allows the Board toeffectively set and monitor key ESG risk criteria
and establish appropriate ESG culture via the
remuneration structure.
Further, we actively promote that each board
meeting sets aside time to discuss and assess
ESG issues, risk and opportunities with thefocus being on value protection and value
creation within the business by better
managing ESG issues.
Water management – water (abundance andscarcity) has increasingly become an important
issue in the day to day operation of criticalinfrastructure assets. A renewed focus onwater security and flood management (related
to asset resilience) is expected in 2013 ascompanies’ thoughts on these issues mature.

23

Global Fixed Interest and Credit> AuM
US$25.2bn
Strategies
Asian Fixed Interest, Australian Credit, Global
Credit (A$ floating rate return basis), Global
Credit (benchmark return comparison), High
Yield Credit, Australian Sovereign, Diversified
Fixed Interest, Global Sovereign,
Inflation-Linked Bonds and Emerging Market
Fixed Interest

Head of Global Fixed Interest and Credit
Tony Adams

RI Representative
Yen Wong
KEy ISSuES FoR 2013
– We expect environmental issues regarding
coal seam gas and liquefied natural gas projects
to be a continuing area of focus in 2013.
– There will continue to a broad level of focus
on board governance; particularly withrespect to remuneration, environmental
scrutiny, and social issues in the area of
employment.

24> Inception
Date
1986

The team’s approach to integrating
ESG factors
For credit and fixed income investments, ESG
issues are very focused on downside risks.
Bond investors are primarily interested in
the risks of default and the ability to recoverlosses.
To identify key ESG risks we use customised
ESG rankings as a starting point forassessments. Our analysts consider thesealongside their own research with reference toa variety of other external sources.
This leads to each issuer being rated on a 1 to
5 scale, from very low to very high risks basedon the adjusted rankings. This risk is factored
into the internal credit rating (ICR) for every
security we assess.
The weighting of ESG risks in the overall ICR is
not predefined and can represent anywherefrom 0% to 100% of the reason for the ICR,
depending on the level of risk.
Our ICR can be significantly different to ratingsby the rating agencies because it reflects risks(including ESG risks) that may not be
considered by rating agencies.
The ICR is used by all portfolio managers when
making their decision to buy or sell bonds,
and to determine position size for the funds
we manage.
Additional portfolio risk constraints, including
how much of an individual security can be held,
are based off the ICR. As a result, high ESG
risks are both implicitly and explicitly managed
throughout the investment process.

> Team25> Location
Sydney,Singapore, Hong
Kong, Jakarta

ESG integration examples
We recently assessed a Chinese railway
tracks construction company as having highexposure to bribery and corruption, as well
as safety issues. Our initial research and also
discussion with one of FSI’s equity teams
indicated that the company is corrupt.
In addition, major rail projects are developedby the Ministry of Railways. This entity is also
the regulator, which we believe contributes
to the potential for corruption.
Despite the company’s very strong government
support and favourable market position, thecorruption issues as well as inherent conflict ofinterest (company and regulator) meant that
we rated the issuer substantially lower than therating agencies and chose not to invest.
Allegations of indecent assault by the
Chairman of a medium sized Chinese property
developer resulted in a review of the credit in
the last quarter of 2012.
The rating outlook was revised to negative on
the reassessment of the company’s ESG risk
because of the alleged misconduct by the
Chairman. The news of the Chairman’s plea incourt resulted in sharp drop in the company’s
share price and had the potential to disrupt
the group’s business and operations given the
dual nature of the Chairman’s role as CEO.
The ESG risk was previously assessed as ‘High’because of governance concerns and the ICR
assigned was lower than the ratings assignedby the rating agencies.

Responsible Investment Annual Report 2012

The team’s approach to engagement

ESG engagement example:

As bond investors we are lenders tocompanies, governments and otherorganisations, not owners of equity. Ourability to influence boards and management
is constrained by not having voting rights
and consequent opportunities to influencecompany behaviour.
Notwithstanding this we discuss ESG issues
with issuers of debt wherever possible. For
example:–– We conduct an annual counterparty review
where an ESG scorecard is provided to eachof our counterparties. We then follow up witha meeting to discuss the review and better
understand their approach to managing
these risks

In a recent counterparty review with Australia
and New Zealand Banking Group (ANZ), we
asked the company a variety of questions
on how it uses ESG factors in assessing newloans beyond its commitments to sustainableproject financing through the Equator
Principles. ANZ provides limited disclosureon this, but during our engagement thecompany has demonstrated some good risk
management processes which are evolving
over time.
We also had a good discussion with thecompany about how it is incorporating
sustainability and risk management principles
to build resilience into the business. The
meeting provided us with good insight into
the company’s thinking on these issues andprogress made to date.
We don’t expect companies to have all theanswers as management of ESG issues isan evolutionary process. However, we do
expect that companies consider ESG issues
and devote sufficient resources to managing
material risks.

–– We have also raised ESG concerns withsovereign and semi-sovereign issuers of debt.
For example we recently met with Queensland
Treasury and discussed the potential for
impacts of coal seam gas and the outlook forlong-term tax revenue from other sectors,
including agriculture.

25

Case study

Integrating RI into a new investment
team: Emerging Market Debt
FSI’s Emerging Market Debt (EMD) team wasestablished in August 2011. When new teams
are established or brought into the business,
it is important that they are a good cultural fit.
This extends to a consideration of responsible
investment practices.
The EMD team invests in fixed income
securities issued mostly by sovereign countries.
Fixed income investment is often considered
one of the more challenging asset classes forincorporating RI principles. This is becausebond investors are lenders to companies,
governments and other organisations, rather
than owners of equity. Indeed emerging
market debt can carry an additional layer ofcomplexity, particularly for sovereign issuers.
Again, the ability to influence sovereigns islimited due to a lack of voting rights.
At the core of the team’s investment process
is a Key Factor Model, which is comprised of26

six areas of analysis. These factors are: Politics,
Structural reform, Fiscal policy, Monetary
policy, External and Technical.
In considering how ESG factors relate to its
investment process, the team identified
three of the six factors in its model which are
relevant for the purpose of ESG analysis. These
are Fiscal policy, Politics and Structural reform.
As the team has continued to develop its
process, an assessment of environmental andsocial issues has increasingly been embedded.
Both environmental and social factors canmaterially affect an issuer’s ability or willingness
to service outstanding debt.
For example, many countries in the emerging
world rely heavily on their natural resources
to keep their finances in good condition.
Poor stewardship and decision-making in the
management of those resources could
potentially undermine a country’s export
output and, ultimately, their ability to source
the hard currency needed to service its debt.
Similarly, social risks can be reflected in thescores of the Key Factor Model’s Politics andStructural reform outputs.
Moving forward the team hopes to continue
to enhance this assessment. As Senior Portfolio
Manager, Manuel Canas says “We are actively
looking to broaden the sources we use
when conducting our investment research
process, to include dedicated providers ofindices, scores, and rankings relevant for ESG
assessment. We hope to become more explicit
and deepen our knowledge as to how ESG
factors play a key role in strengthening ourinvestment process.”

The Emerging Markets Debt Team
(from left to right) :Philip Fielding Portfolio Manager, Jan Markus May
Senior Portfolio Manager, Helene Williamson Headof Emerging Markets Debt, Manuel Canas Senior
Portfolio Manager, Mark Bodon Corporate Strategist

Responsible Investment Annual Report 2012

Industry collaboration

The PRI recognises that promotion of responsible
investment principles and collaboration
among industry participants is essential to thebroader objective of achieving sustainablefinancial markets and, indeed, a sustainableeconomy. FSI has a strong track record of
supporting a variety of initiatives both financiallyand with our people.
Our support of these initiatives has been
particularly strong in our home market ofAustralia. With the appointment of Will
Oulton in London, the transfer of Amanda
McCluskey and Nick Edgerton to Singapore
and Edinburgh and our commitment to add
additional resources in London and Sydney,
we intend to broaden this support to theseother regions. This will incorporate expanded
support of integrated reporting, the PRI and
the Cambridge University Initiative.
In Australia we will be focusing on encouraging
increased collaboration between the various
industry groups so that together we might
identify and fill gaps, eliminate overlap, support
each other in initiatives of shared interest, andoverall increase our effectiveness as a community.
Collaborative Initiatives in 2012PRI–– Infrastructure Steering Committee

Property Council of Australia (PCA)–– Member of the National Sustainability
Roundtable

NABERS (Multi-Tool) TAG–– Member–– Member of the PCA (NSW Division)
Sustainable Development committee

GBCAB Greenstar Performance Technical
Working Group–– Member

United Nations Environment Programme
Finance Initiative–– Member of the Property Working Group

UNEP FI Supply Chain Working Group.
–– Member–– Member of the Asset Management Working
Group
Financial Services Council–– Member of the Investment Committee–– Member of the ESG Working Group–– Sustainable Palm Oil–– Reporting framework advisory group
Green Building Council of Australia–– Member of the Board of Directors
Investor Group on Climate Change–– Deputy Chair–– Chair of the Research Working Group–– Chair of the Property Working Group–– Member water Working Group–– Association for Sustainable and Responsible
Investment in Asia–– Carbon Disclosure Project

Australian Green Infrastructure Council–– First Deputy Chair and Director
Responsible Investment Association
Australasia–– Chair–– Member of Governance Committee–– Member of Certification Committee–– Clearinghouse Steering Committee–– PRI Country Network Steering Committee(Australia)

Other collaborative initiatives that FSI
participated in, or continued to be amember of include:–– Asian Corporate Governance Association

Association of Superannuation Funds
of Australia–– Member of ESG Working GroupESG Research Australia–– Management Committee Member
Integrated Reporting–– Member of Pilot Program Investor group (UK)–– Water Disclosure Project–– Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative–– International Corporate Governance Network–– Forest Footprint Disclosure Project
Changes since last year’s report arereflected below and are also shown in theabove list.
–– Pablo Berrutti now Chair of RIAA–– Joined ASFA ESG Working Group–– We are no longer on IGCC Low Carbon
Finance Working Group–– Joined PRI Country Network Steering
Committee–– Mark Rogers is now on the board of theAustralian Green Infrastructure Council(AGIC).
–– Will Oulton - Vice President EUROSIF–– Business Reporting Leaders Forum (Aust)–– Board Member and Chair of Nominations
Committee UKSiF

Better Buildings Partnership–– Member of leadership panel–– Advisory Panel Member ICCSR Nottingham
University

NABERS (Shopping Centres) TechnicalAdvisory Group (TAG)–– Member–– Member FTSE4Good Policy Committee andEnvironmental Markets Committee–– Member PRI Reporting Technical Committee

27

our teamWill Oulton joined the business as Global Headof Responsible Investment, based in London in
September 2012.
Reporting to the Managing Director EMEA and
Global Head of Product, Chris Turpin, Will brings
more than 20 years’ experience to the role.
He will be responsible for our global RI strategy,
with a particular focus on investment capabilities
in EMEA. Will joined the business from Mercer
Investments, London where he was Head of
Responsible Investment for EMEA. In this role he
was responsible for leading a team that advised
global asset owners and institutional investors
on the development, implementation, monitoring
and reporting of sustainable and responsible
investment policies, approaches and strategies.
Will is also the Vice President of the European
Sustainable Investment Forum EUROSIF.
Pablo Berrutti was appointed to the newly createdrole of Head of Responsible Investment Asia
Pacific based in Sydney and joined the business
in July 2012. Pablo joined from Perpetual in
Sydney, where he was the Head of Responsible
Investment. Pablo was responsible for supporting
the Australian equities, fixed income andmulti-manager teams in the integration of
ESG considerations, research and company
engagement. Pablo is the current Chair of theInvestor Group on Climate Change ResearchWorking Group and a Director of the Responsible
Investment Association of Australasia.
These two senior appointments reflect ourcommitment to responsible asset management
as a key tenet of our stewardship responsibilities,
and an essential part of protecting and enhancing
our clients’ long-term investment interests.
With these new appointments we alsochanged the reporting line for the RI team.
The team now reports into Global Product,
which allows us to ensure that we areembedding ESG considerations across ourinvestment capabilities throughout the
product life cycle. Every investment teamcontinues to have an analyst responsible for
integrating ESG into their investment process
and we have a strong governance process
in place to ensure ongoing improvements in
our approach.
From left to right:
Will oulton,
Global Head of Responsible
Investment
Pablo Berrutti,
Head of Responsible
Investment Asia Pacific28Appendix 1 – Global Annual Proxy Voting Statistics 2011 and 2012
H1 2011

H2 2011

Total 2011

H1 2012

H2 2012

Total 2012

984
11617
8835

485
4577
3483

1469
16194
12318

977
11859
9433

485
4777
3643

1462
16636
13076

Resolutions against

976

326

1302

838

298

1136

Resolutions abstained

85

10

95

83

17

100

H1 2011

H2 2011

Total 2011

H1 2012

H2 2012

Total 2012

700

356

1056

724

384

1108

4429
93%

1547
93%

5976
93%

4719
93%

1636
93%

6355
93%

Director elections/re-elections against

6%

7%

6.5%

6%

6%

6%

Director elections/re-elections abstained

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0.5%

H1 2011

H2 2011

Total 2011

H1 2012

H2 2012

Total 2012

Number of company meetings involving remuneration reports
Number of resolutions involving remuneration reports
Remuneration reports supported

248
294
81.6%

215
309
82.2%

463
603
81.9%

294
333
85.9%

226
330
90.9%

520
663
88.4%

Remuneration reports against

18.4%

17.8%

18.1%

14.1%

8.5%

11.3%

Remuneration reports abstained

0%

0%

0%

0%

0.6%

0.3%

H1 2011

H2 2011

Total 2011

H1 2012

H2 2012

Total 2012

73

113

186

55

133

188

Company meetings (AGMs)
Resolutions voted on
Resolutions supported

Table 2: Director Elections/Re-Elections

Number of company meetings involving director elections/re-elections
Number of resolutions involving director elections/re-elections
Director elections/re-elections supported

Table 3: Remuneration Reports

Table 4: Executive Remuneration Reports

Number of company meetings involving executive
remuneration reports
Number of resolutions involving executive
remuneration reports
Executive remuneration reports supported

127

298

425

98

304

402

86.6%

92.6%

89.6%

89.8%

87.2%

88.5%

Executive remuneration reports against

13.4%

7.4%

10.4%

10.2%

12.5%

11.4%

Executive remuneration reports abstained

0%

0%

0%

0%

0.3%

0.2%

H1 2011

H2 2011

Total 2011

H1 2012

H2 2012

Total 2012

234

110

344

246

86

332

Table 5: Non-Executive Remuneration Reports

Number of company meetings involving non-executive
remuneration report
Number of resolutions involving non-executive remuneration
reports
Non-executive remuneration reports supported

316

163

479

290

138

428

95.6%

96.9%

96.3%

95.2%

96.4%

95.8%

Non-executive remuneration reports against

3.8%

3.1%

3.5%

4.1%

3.6%

3.9%

Non-executive remuneration reports abstained

0.6%

0%

0.3%

0.7%

0%

0.4%
29

Auckland
Kiwi Income Property Trust
Level 14, DLA Phillips Fox Tower
National Bank Centre
205–209 Queen Street
Auckland
New Zealand
Telephone: +64 9 359 4000
Facsimile: +64 9 359 3997
Web: www.kipt.co.nz
First State Investments
Level 3, 33–45 Hurstmere Road
Takapuna
Auckland 0622
New Zealand
Telephone: +64 9 448 4922
Facsimile: +64 9 486 7131
Edinburgh
First State Investments
23 St Andrew Square
Edinburgh EH2 1BB
United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 (0) 131 473 2200
Facsimile: +44 (0) 131 473 2222
Web: www.firststate.co.uk
FrankfurtFirst State Investments
Westhafen Tower
Westhafenplatz 1
60327 Frankfurt a.M.
Germany
Telephone: +49 (0) 69 710456 - 302
Web: www.firststateinvestments.com
Hong KongFirst State Investments
6th Floor
Three Exchange Square
8 Connaught PlaceCentralHong Kong
Telephone: +852 2846 7555
Facsimile: +852 2868 4783
Web: www.firststateasia.com

EX2134 03/13

JakartaFirst State Investments
29th Floor
Gedung Artha Graha
Sudirman Central Business District
Jl. Jend. Sudirman Kav. 52–53
Jakarta 12190
Indonesia
Telephone: +62 21 2935 3300
Facsimile: +62 21 2935 3388
Web: www.firststateasia.com

SingaporeFirst State Investments
1 Temasek Avenue#17–01 Millenia Tower
Singapore 039192
Singapore
Telephone: +65 6538 0008
Facsimile +65 6538 0800
Web: www.firststateasia.com

LondonFirst State Investments
3rd Floor
30 Cannon Street
London EC4M 6YQ
United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 (0) 20 7332 6500
Facsimile: +44 (0) 20 7332 6501
Web: www.firststate.co.uk

SydneyColonial First State Global
Asset Management
Ground Floor
Tower 1 Darling Park
201 Sussex Street
Sydney NSW 2000
Australia
Telephone: +61 2 9303 3000
Facsimile: +61 2 9303 3200
Web: www.cfsgam.com.au

Melbourne
Colonial First State Global
Asset Management
Chadstone Shopping Centre
1341 Dandenong Road
Chadstone VIC 3148
Australia
Telephone: +61 3 9936 1222
Facsimile: +61 3 9936 1333
Web: www.cfsgam.com.au/
assetmanagement

TokyoFirst State Investments
8th Floor,
Toranomon Waiko Building
12–1, Toranomon 5-chome
Minato-ku
Tokyo 105-0001
Japan
Telephone: +81 3 5402 4831
Facsimile: +81 3 5402 4839
Web: www.firststateasia.com

New York
First State Investments
599 Lexington Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, New York 10022 UnitedStates of America
Telephone: +1 212 848 9200
Facsimile: +1 212 336 7725
Web: www.firststateinvestments.
com/usParisFirst State Investments
14, avenue d'Eylau
75016 Paris
FranceTelephone: +33 1 73 02 46 74
Web: www.firststateinvestments.com