Stewardship Activities Report
2019-2020
March 2020

For increasing long-term investment returns, GPIF will
fulfill its stewardship responsibilities by promoting
various activities to encourage long-term perspectives
and the sustainable growth of investee companies andthe whole capital market.

1. Stewardship & ESG Activities of GPIF

3

1. Stewardship Activities for GPIF
GPIF is a universal owner with a very large fund size and a widely diversified portfolio, and a cross-generational investor designed
as a part of a 100-year sustainable pension scheme. Given such features, prevention of activities that impede corporates’ long-term
growth as well as sustainability of the overall capital market is essential for us to secure our long-term investment returns. GPIF
contributes towards the sustainable growth of the capital market through the following activities.
As GPIF invests in equities and exercises voting rights through its external asset managers, we promote constructive dialogues(engagement) between asset managers and investee companies, taking into consideration ESG factors that contributes tosustainable growth. Improvement of long-term corporate value will lead to growth of the overall economy, which will
eventually enhance our investment returns. GPIF shall fulfill our stewardship responsibilities by promoting engagement andbuilding a win-win environment in the investment chain.

Government Pension Investment Fund, Japan (GPIF)
Fiduciary duty
Stewardship responsibility

Entrust funds

Contribute premiums(via Pension Special Account)

Fiduciary duty
Stewardship responsibility

Company

Stewardship code

External asset
managerEngagement

IR（Investor Relations）
Improve long-term returns

Employer
InsuredCorporate governance code
※listed companies

Stewardship activities

Enhance long-term corporate value

Sustainable growth of the economy
Copyright © 2020 Government Pension Investment Fund All rights reserved.

4

2. History of GPIF’s Stewardship Activities

2014
May 2014
Accepted Japan’s
Stewardship Code.
Established “Policy
to Fulfill
StewardshipResponsibilities.”

2015-162017-18

March 2015
Established “Investment
Principles.”June 2017
Established “Stewardship
Principles” and “Proxy Voting▶ “Stewardship activities in equity Principles.”investment.”▶ Requested compliance from asset
managers for equity investment.

September 2015
Signed “Principles forAugust 2017
Responsible Investment (PRI). Agreed to the revised Japan’s▶ Enhanced initiatives for ESG.
Stewardship Code.

July 2016
October 2017
Established “Business andPartial revision to “Investment
Asset Owner’s Forum” andPrinciples.”“Global Asset Owners’ Forum.” ▶ Stewardship activities including▶ Exchange of opinions on
stewardship, ESG, etc.

ESG-oriented initiatives wereexpanded to all assets.

2019-20
November 2019
Partial revision to “Policy to Fulfill
Stewardship Responsibilities.”▶ Focused on prevention of activities
that impede long-term corporate
growth to achieve sustainablegrowth of the overall markets.
▶Contribute to sustainable growth ofmarkets.

February 2020
Partial revisions to “Stewardship
Principles” and “Proxy Voting
Principles.”▶ Requested compliance frommanagers of all domestic andforeign assets.

Copyright © 2020 Government Pension Investment Fund All rights reserved.

5

2. History of GPIF’s Stewardship Activities■ Status of participation in global initiatives

Signed in September 2015

Joined in October 2018
A five-year initiative led by investors, established in
September 2017. Via dialogues with companies that are
significantly influential in formulating possible solutions to
global environmental issues, it focuses on the improvementof climate change-related governance, initiatives for the
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the enhancementof information disclosure, etc.
GPIF, as an asset owner, has also joined its Asia
Advisory Group, which provides the steeringcommittee with advice on the characteristics of the
Asian region.

Six principles advocated in 2006 by Mr. Annan, then
Secretary General of the United Nations, which demand
institutional investors to include ESG in the investment
process.
In January 2020, GPIF’s Executive Managing Director
and CIO, Hiro Mizuno was reappointed as Managing
Director of the PRI Association, and joined the Asset
Owner Advisory Committee, the SDGs Advisory
Committee, Japan Networking Advisory Committee, etc.

Joined the 30% Club in the U.K., and theThirty Percent Coalition of the U.S. in
November 2016. Joined the 30% Club inJapan in December 2019.
Established to seek diversity in boards of directors,
with the aim of achieving 30% female directors.

Joined in August 2019

Supported in December 2018
Established by the FSB (Financial Stability Board) at the requestof the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors
Meeting. In June 2017, the TCFD published voluntary
recommendations to encourage information disclosure on thefinancial impact of climate-related risks and opportunities toenable appropriate investment decisions by investors.

An industry association established by institutional investors, focusing on
improvement of corporate governance and encouragement of stewardship
activities with the aim of promoting efficient markets and sustainableeconomy.

Joined August 2019

Established by a U.S. public pension fund with the aim of promoting
shareholders’ rights and corporate governance and collaborating in
the U.S.
Copyright © 2020 Government Pension Investment Fund All rights reserved.

6

3. Revisions to Policy and Principles
As a universal owner and super long-term investor, GPIF has clarified its long-term perspectives in its policy andseveral principles by expressing once more that it will promote stewardship activities including ESG integration into all
assets.
■ Partial revision to the Policy to Fulfill Stewardship Responsibilities
ￚ In November 2019, GPIF made a partial revision to the Policy to Fulfill Stewardship Responsibilities.
ￚ The Policy makes it clear that for the purpose of gaining investment returns over a long period, it is essential for GPIF as a universal owner andcross-generational investor to prevent activities that impede corporates’ long-term growth so that the whole capital market will be sustainable. To
this end, we contribute toward the sustainable growth of the capital market.
https://www.gpif.go.jp/en/investment/Policy_to_Fulfill_Stewardship_Responsibilities_201911.pdf■ Partial revisions to the Stewardship Principles and Proxy Voting Principles
ￚ In February 2020, the Stewardship Principles and the Proxy Voting Principles were partially revised (See pages 8 and 9 herein).
ￚ The major revisions are listed below:
 The scope of assets is expanded from equity to all assets. We require our external managers to comply with the Stewardship Principles. Should
an asset manager decide not to comply with any of the principles in light of respective situations such as the characteristics and investment
styles of their assets under management, it is required to explain their rationale for the non-compliance to GPIF.
 Some statements were added to the Policy for Stewardship Activities and ESG Integration. The revisions require them to integrate stewardship
activities and investment, to proactively engage with not only investee companies but also various stakeholders including index providers, andto participate in other industry ESG initiatives.
 It also states that GPIF’s external asset managers should exercise voting rights in a manner consistent with their corporate engagements
throughout the year, and mentions agenda to protect minority shareholders’ interests. Furthermore, based on a comment in our survey that
there were some cases where an investee company did not receive answers from an asset manager when they asked for voting rationale, astatement is added that asset managers should explain the rationales for their voting decisions in detail to investee companies upon request.

Copyright © 2020 Government Pension Investment Fund All rights reserved.

7

3. Revisions to Policy and Principles- Stewardship Principles Stewardship Principles
Established on June 1, 2017
Partially revised on February 6, 2020
Government Pension Investment Fund (GPIF) requires its external asset managers (“asset
managers”) to comply with the following principles. If an asset manager should decide not to comply
with any of the principles due to the characteristics of the asset in which it invests and/or its
investment style, it is required to explain the rationale for its non-compliance to GPIF.
In order to fulfill its own stewardship responsibilities, GPIF continuously monitors the stewardship
activities of its asset managers, including their exercise of any voting rights, and proactively conducts
dialogue (engagement) with them.
(1) Corporate Governance Structure of Asset Managers• Asset managers should adopt Japan’s Stewardship Code.
• Asset managers should have a strong corporate governance structure. In particular, asset
managers should develop a supervisory system through such measures as appointing outside
directors with a high degree of independence in order to enhance their independence andtransparency.
• Asset managers should commit sufficient internal resources to fulfill stewardship responsibilities
effectively.
• Asset managers should explain how their remuneration and incentive systems for their executives
and employees are aligned with the interests of GPIF.
(2) Management of Conflicts of Interest by Asset Managers• Asset managers should appropriately manage conflicts of interest (if the asset manager belongs toa corporate group, not only within asset manager but also within the group) in order to put thebeneficiaries’ interests first. Asset managers should classify the types of conflicts of interest into
those related to financial/capital relationships and those related to business relationships. Assetmanagers should also develop and publicly disclose a policy for the management of conflicts ofinterest.
• Asset managers should manage conflicts of interest through measures such as establishing athird party committee with a high degree of independence and disclosing information on such.
When selecting committee members, asset managers should consider the candidates’
independence, experience, and skill sets, among other factors.
• When exercising voting rights for companies with which they have a potential conflicts of interest,
such as their own company, their parent company, or other group companies, asset managers
should develop and disclose a process that removes arbitrariness and is in line with best practices
in corporate governance and conflict of interest management, such as letting their third-party
committee make voting decisions or examine the validity of their own decision, or following therecommendations by a proxy voting advisor.
(3) Policy for Stewardship Activities, including Engagement• Asset managers should develop and publicly disclose a stewardship policy, which should include
their approach to engagement.
• Asset managers should ensure that their stewardship policy and activities contribute to long-termrisk-adjusted returns rather than short-term outcomes. In addition, to support more effective
stewardship activities, asset managers should consider formulating engagement objectives andplans.

•

•
•
•

•
•

Asset managers should integrate stewardship and investment.
Asset managers should proactively engage with index providers to promote the interests ofbeneficiaries. Such engagements should include participating in index providers consultations
regarding the constituent stocks of indices, as these have a material impact on GPIF’s investment
performance.
Asset managers should engage with various stakeholders including regulators, stock exchanges,
investee companies and index vendors, so as to improve the sustainability of the markets in which theyand GPIF invest.
Asset managers should take non-financial information into consideration when engaging with investee
companies. Non-financial information should include (but not limited to) information contained withcompanies’ corporate governance reports and integrated reporting.
If a company should decide not to comply with any of the principles established by relevant corporate
governance codes of individual countries or equivalents but to explain their reasons for non-compliance,
asset managers should seek engage with the company to understand their thought process andaddress the quality and detail of these explanations as necessary.
GPIF expects asset managers of passive equity investment mandates to develop and effectively
implement a corporate engagement strategy to promote the sustainable growth of the market.
When using an engagement agency or third-party engagement service provider, asset managers
should conduct proper due diligence prior to their selection and undertake continuous monitoring after
selection.

(4) ESG Integration into the Investment Process• GPIF believes that it is vital to integrate environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors into theinvestment process to increase corporate value and promote the sustainable growth of investee
companies and the capital market on the whole, thereby contributing to long-term investment returns.
• Asset managers should consider the materiality of ESG issues in relevant sectors and circumstancesof individual investees and deal with those issues accordingly.
• Asset managers should determine which ESG issues they deem to critical, specify goals that theywould like to achieve as a long-term investor, and proactively engage with investee companies on
critical ESG issues.
• Asset managers should become a signatory of the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI), andparticipate in other industry ESG initiatives.
(5) Exercise of Voting Rights• Asset managers should exercise voting rights exclusively in the best interests of GPIF and its
beneficiaries.
• In order to increase corporate value at investee companies, asset managers should exercise voting
rights in accordance with the GPIF Proxy Voting Principles as attached.
• When using a proxy advisor, asset managers should conduct proper due diligence on the organizations
and personnel, etc. prior to selection. After selection, asset managers should continuously monitor andevaluate service quality and engage with the proxy advisor, as necessary (excluding cases where theobjective is managing conflicts of interest).

Copyright © 2020 Government Pension Investment Fund All rights reserved.

8

3. Revisions to Policy and Principles- Proxy Voting Principles Proxy Voting Principles
Established on June 1, 2017
Partially revised on February 6, 2020
•
•
•
•
•
•

•

•
•
•
•

In accordance with the GPIF’s Stewardship Principles, GPIF’s external asset managers (“asset
managers”) should exercise any and all voting rights in a manner consistent with their ongoing
corporate engagements and other stewardship activities.
Asset managers should develop a proxy voting policy and guidelines that will contribute to the
maximization of shareholders’ long-term interests. Asset managers should publicly disclose their proxyvoting policy and guidelines in order to make the basis of their voting decisions clear.
Asset managers should have sufficient communication with investee companies to inform their voting
decisions and to ensure that all voting rights are exercised with thoughtful consideration.
Asset managers should give careful consideration to environmental, social and governance (ESG)
issues when exercising voting rights, with the objective of enhancing investee companies’ corporate
value over the medium- to long-term.
Asset managers should apply careful due diligence when exercising voting rights on proposals that
could undermine minority shareholders’ interests as well as those that could protect minority
shareholders’ interests.
Asset managers should generally exercise voting rights in support of the Corporate Governance Codes
established by individual countries in which their investee companies are domiciled. When there is nosuch code or equivalent, asset managers should appropriately exercise voting rights in support of theinternationally recognized standards that they require investee companies to follow.
If asset managers use a proxy advisory service to exercise voting rights, they should not mechanicallyfollow the advisor’s recommendations (excluding cases in which the objective is to manage their own
conflicts of interest). In all cases, it will remain the sole responsibility of asset managers to exercise
voting rights in the best interests of GPIF and its beneficiaries.
Asset managers should publicly disclose their entire voting records on an individual company andindividual agenda item basis.
Asset managers should publicly disclose the rationale for their voting decisions based on necessity
and/or importance as appropriate.
Asset managers should explain the rationale for their voting decisions in detail to the investee company
upon request.
Asset managers should periodically review their voting records, and conduct self-assessments.
Based on their self-assessments, asset managers should update their policies for the following year asnecessary.

* The revised parts in both the Stewardship Principles and the Proxy Voting Principles
are highlighted in red.
https://www.gpif.go.jp/en/investment/pdf/stewardship_principles_and_proxy_voting_principles.pdf
Copyright © 2020 Government Pension Investment Fund All rights reserved.

9

4. Initiatives for the Sustainable Growth of the whole Capital Market
For a pension fund like GPIF, long-term perspectives and sustainability of investee companies and the overall market are critical inorder to increase long-term investment returns. From such a standpoint, GPIF has promoted ESG activities. In the past several years,
industry groups and asset managers have made statements concerning “the significance of ESG” as well as “sustainability.”
As an asset owner, GPIF decided anew that it was necessary to clarify our stance concerning long-term perspectives and ESG, andjointly issued a statement with CalSTRS (US) and USS Investment (UK), which share the same perspectives as GPIF and members of
the Global Asset Owners’ Forum.

■ Announcement of Joint Statement by Asset Owners:“Our Partnership for Sustainable Capital Markets”
ￚ This statement summarizes the concept of how an asset owner, like GPIF, shall fulfill its
stewardship responsibilities. While many corporate groups and asset managers haveannounced various messages to date, asset owners had not. As a beneficiary of themarket by participating in the investment chain, and also as a pension fund responsible for
future generations, we addressed this message to the whole market from the perspectiveof how asset owners can contribute to sustainability.
ￚ Specifically, the statement includes our commitment to companies that create long-term
corporate value, and underlines great significance of long-termism and ESG. We issued
this joint statement with CalSTRS (US) and USS Investment (UK) which share the same
perspectives, as a message to the entire investment chain, including asset managers as
our partners. To highlight the message to the whole market, the Chief Investment Officer of
each organization signed the statement.
ￚ After the release of the statement, we have called for asset owners mainly among themembers of the Global Asset Owners’ Forum to become supporters with the aim ofenhancing the message to the global markets and its actors. At present, beside the initial
three signatories, an additional seven organizations signed the statement as follows:
Railpen, Nest Corporation and Environment Agency Pension Fund from the UK; BC
Investment Management from Canada; FRR from France, ABP from the Netherlands; andH.E.S.T. from Australia.

https://www.gpif.go.jp/en/investment/Our_Partnership_for_Sustainable_Capital_Markets_Signatories.pdf
Copyright © 2020 Government Pension Investment Fund All rights reserved.

10

4. Initiatives for the Sustainable Growth of the whole Capital Market
To achieve investment returns over a long period, it is essential for GPIF to prevent activities that impede corporates’
long-term growth and the sustainable growth of capital market. With such a perspective, GPIF repeatedly conductedinternal discussions on the issue of stock lending, and decided to suspend stock lending for equities.
■ Suspension of stock lendingￚ As a part of its stewardship responsibilities, GPIF requires its asset managers to enhance the long-term value of investee companies by
conscientiously exercising voting rights for all the shares they hold, in addition to engaging in constructive dialogues with investee companies(engagement) - not only during the annual shareholder meeting season but throughout the year.
ￚ Through internal discussions, we identified several issues, such as an inconsistency between long-term perspective of GPIF and the concept ofstock lending, or the fact that GPIF’s stock lending is conducted only for foreign equities and not domestic equities.
ￚ Stock lending results in a temporary transfer of ownership rights to the borrower, which effectively creates a gap in the period in which the stock isheld by GPIF. It caused concern over inconsistency with our stewardship responsibilities.
ￚ Moreover, the current stock lending scheme lacks transparency in terms of who is the ultimate borrower and for what purpose they are borrowing
the stock.
ￚ In light of this situation, we have decided to suspend stock lending after multiple discussions at the Board of Governors.
ￚ The stock lending scheme may be reconsidered in the future if improvements are made to enhance transparency and address the inconsistencies
cited above.
ￚ Before and after our announcement, the transparency of stock lending has been discussed overseas, and some of these discussion led to a press
release published by a stock lending association.

Copyright © 2020 Government Pension Investment Fund All rights reserved.

115. Measures to Enhance Long-term Alignment
with External Asset Managers
Due to increased awareness that the achievement of stable excess returns in active investment requires theenhancement of alignment with external asset managers and GPIF’s long-term commitment, GPIF introduced new
performance-based fee structures for active managers in 2018. Concurrently, GPIF also introduced multi-year contracts
for the purpose of achieving excess return in the medium- to long-term goal. At present, multi-year contracts have beenconcluded with only a few active managers, although we plan to shift to multi-year contracts, in principle, going forward.
■ Performance-based fee structure and multi-year contracts in active investment<Performance-based fee structure in active investment>(1) With the aim of enhancing alignment of interests between GPIFand external asset managers, the base fee rate is reduced to therate of passive fund, whereas the maximum fee rate is scrapped
to further link the performance to fees.
(2) A portion of the fees is carried over to level the fluctuation of theexcess return ratio in order to ensure that the amount of fees islinked with medium- to long-term performance.
<Introduction of multi-year contracts>
ￚ In order to introduce the performance-based fee structure, in
principle, a multi year contract (commitment) with external asset
managers is concluded to enable the achievement of medium- tolong-term goals.
ￚ GPIF expects that introducing a performance-based fee structure
and multi-year contracts can ensure the achievement of stableexcess returns from active investment.

Copyright © 2020 Government Pension Investment Fund All rights reserved.

125. Measures to Enhance Long-term Alignment
with External Asset Managers
GPIF considers that a suitable compensation scheme is one of the most effective measures to secure alignment inseeking long term-oriented partnerships with asset managers.
■ Survey on compensation structure (incentive scheme) of GPIF asset managers<Purpose of the survey>
Alignment of interests with external asset managers is critical for GPIF. This survey aimed at examining the alignment between asset managers
and GPIF from the viewpoint of compensation—specifically focusing on the following two points.
(1) Whether the compensation scheme for executives and employees at external asset managers is designed to contribute to the improvement oflong-term returns as expected by long-term asset owners such as GPIF; and(2) Whether the incentive scheme is designed to not encourage short-termism.
<Subject of the survey>
External asset managers entrusted with domestic and foreign equity and fixed income investment<Methodology>
ￚ Commissioned Mercer Japan Ltd. Questionnaire was sent to GPIF’s external asset managers to confirm their compensation scheme. As part offollow-up measures, interviews with individual asset managers were conducted. At the interview, the concept, policy and systems of compensation
were directly asked to the executives of asset managers including the CEO, CIO, Director in charge of human resources, etc.
<Results> https://www.gpif.go.jp/en/investment/stewardship/survey.html
See pages 14 and 15 for the summary of the results. We provided feedback to all external asset managers which had requested feedback andconducted again an exchange of opinions with them.
<Effective use of the results>－ The compensation schemes of asset managers reflect their investment philosophy and basic beliefs such as corporate culture.
We will continue to use the compensation schemes as the theme of engagement with asset managers considering that dialogues
with the management level such as executives of asset managers, including those in charge of human resources and persons in chargeof stewardship and asset management, will be highly effective in understanding the relevant companies. In particular, we consider that a suitablecompensation scheme is one of the most effective measures to secure alignment in seeking long term-oriented partnerships with asset
managers with which we propose to enter into multi-year contracts.
ￚ Since the comprehensive assessment conducted in 2019, the questionnaire on compensation schemes for the survey has been used forevaluation and selection of external asset managers. Going forward, GPIF plans to outsource the survey once every few years to conduct fullscale surveys like this year aiming at understanding the whole picture and maintaining and improving knowledge about compensation schemes.
Copyright © 2020 Government Pension Investment Fund All rights reserved.

13

Summary of the Survey Results of Compensation Schemes (Incentive Structure) A review was conducted on the compensation schemes (incentive structure) for executives and employees of the ultimate asset
managers from the viewpoints of whether the schemes are designed to not encourage short-termism and whether they willcontribute to the improvement of long-term investment returns.
 As a result, with respect to encouraging short-termism, we found very few cases in which quantitative indicators including asingle-year performance are mechanically evaluated to excessively reflect on the bonus of individuals. This is partly due to the
movements of establishing guidelines designed from the viewpoint of management soundness particularly in the EU and the UK.
 With respect to whether the compensation schemes contribute to the improvement of long-term investment returns, we foundthat leading companies, in particular, had established their own measures based on the history and characteristics of theirorganizations as follows.
 Their concept of promoting long-term investment returns was clearly stated, and they have established compensation
schemes and communication to fully implement such concept.
 The ratio of variable compensation and its fluctuations are set appropriately.
 An emphasis is placed on investment performance rather than AUM.
 Investment performance is considered for the past one, three and five years (eight or 10 years in some asset managers).
 Evaluations are conducted based on not only the capability of an individual but also the collaboration of entire teams as wellas medium- to long-term development of capability and contributions.
 As to the compensation scheme, contributions of an individual to be evaluated are rewarded by mechanically calculating
KPIs and their weight to a certain degree, and appropriately eliminating environmental factors with discretion.
 Deferral systems for payment and fixing of amounts (in some cases, there are requirements for being enrolled at the time of
payment, or requirements for investment performance/business results).
 They have requirements of investment in their own funds.
 With respect to ESG Head, on the back of insufficient information sources, the number of asset managers which haveestablished compensation schemes in line with such positioning was limited.
 We classified the compensation schemes (incentive structure) of the executives and employees of the ultimate asset managers
into three categories* by assessing them from the viewpoints of whether they discourage short-termism and whether they
contribute to the long-term growth of investment returns. The brief characteristics are stated on the next page.
* On the back of the movement that guidelines will be established from the viewpoint of sound management mainly in the EU and the UK, we foundfew compensation schemes that encourage short-termism. Most of the asset managers which fell under the category of “Lagging” do not position
the compensation schemes strategically.
0
Excerpts from the disclosure report “Surveys on the Compensation Schemes (Incentive Structure) for Executives and Employees of External Asset Managers”
Copyright © 2020 Government Pension Investment Fund All rights reserved.

14

Lagging

Degree of disclosure: Low (N=5)

 While the Group aims to gradually establish asystem suitable to asset management,compensation has not been utilized as a
strategic measure yet.








Compensation is not positioned strategically.
Great importance tends to be attached to net sales,
growth rate of AUM and fees.
Bonus fund and individual bonus are decided in thesame system and levels to those of parent companies
such as banks, securities firms and insurancecompanies (evaluated by setting goals and the degreeof achievement)
The ratio of bonus to base salary (in some companies,
seniority is reflected rather than expertise) is low andthe gap from the performance is also small.
The bonus fund and the evaluation for investment
performance are not decided on a medium- to longterm basis (single-year basis).
Payment and fixing of amounts are not decided on a
medium- to long-term basis, either.

Intermediate positioning (N=10)

Compensation is used strategically(N=20)

Similarly to “Leading,” Being used strategically, the compensation
scheme has deferral of payment and fixing ofamounts.
Meanwhile, It does not fully reflect the investment
performance.

 The compensation scheme is designed to
reward the contributions of teams and individuals
as follows: the KPIs and their weight aremechanically calculated to a certain degree
based mainly on the investment performance,and environmental factors are appropriately
eliminated with discretions.

Intermediate positioning (N=2)

The bonus for an individual is fixed based on
the investment performance for the past five
years or more, and the ratio of variable
compensation to fixed compensation as well as
the degree of such fluctuation is relatively high.
The compensation scheme also includes“Deferral of payment” and investment in thefunds of own company.

Similar characteristics to the “Leading”:
 Compensation is used strategically.
 The variable compensation ratio and the range offluctuation are set appropriately.
 The deferral system is applied to payment and fixing ofamounts.
Characteristics slightly different from the “Leading”:
 The investment performance is not reflectedsufficiently.
 The evaluation period for investment performance is
not long enough (three years or shorter, etc.)
 No system for investment in their own funds exists.

Domestic

Compensation is not positioned as a
strategy (N=7)

Leading

International

Specific way of thinking about
compensation (N=1)

AverageCompensation is used strategically.



The variable compensation ratio and the range offluctuation are set appropriately.

Great importance is attached to investment
performance.

Individual performance is evaluated by mechanicallycalculating to a certain degree, and appropriately
eliminating environmental factors.

The evaluation period for investment performance ismedium- to long-term (five years or longer).



The deferral system is applied to payment and fixing ofamounts.



A system for investment in their own funds exists.

Prepared by GPIF based on the disclosure report “Surveys on the Compensation Schemes (Incentive Structure) for Executives and Employees of External Asset Managers”
Copyright © 2020 Government Pension Investment Fund All rights reserved.

15

6. Promotion of ESG Activities
Based on the concept that the sustainable growth of investee companies and the whole capital market will be required
for the improvement of investment returns, GPIF promotes ESG activities. On the assumption that ESG activities will
reduce risks, GPIF believes that the longer the investment horizon is, the greater the risk-adjusted return becomes
improving.
■ Revisions to the Basic Policy of Reserves
ￚ The Basic Policy of Reserves was revised on February 27, 2020 as follows, and it was announced that the Policy would be effective from April 1,
2020.
ￚ Based on the concept that the sustainability of investee companies and the whole capital market will be critical for the expansion of long-term
investment returns in the management of pension reserves, the reserve funds shall implement necessary initiatives by individually examining thepromotion of investments that consider ESG (environmental, social and governance) as non-financial factors in addition to financial factors, fromthe viewpoint of securing long-term returns for the interest of beneficiaries.

■ Critical ESG issues listed by asset managers
ￚ In the Stewardship Principles, GPIF states “ESG integration into the investment process.” Accordingly, GPIF continued from the previous year to
conduct a questionnaire survey and interviews concerning “Critical ESG issues” selected by each external asset manager.
ￚ Please refer to pages 35 and 36 for “Critical ESG Issues” chosen by asset managers entrusted with equity investment.
ￚ Based on the results, GPIF ascertains why they highlighted such issues and how they engage with investee companies regarding these topics.
ￚ In order to promote constructive dialogue between investee companies and investors, GPIF also asked investee companies their principle ESG
themes in the “5th Questionnaire Survey on Stewardship Activities by Institutional Investors” conducted in January 2020.

Copyright © 2020 Government Pension Investment Fund All rights reserved.

16

6. Promotion of ESG Activities■ ESG integration
ￚ As mentioned on the previous page, GPIF is committed to “ESG integration into the investment process” in the Stewardship Principles. In the
Stewardship Activities Report 2018, GPIF stated “ESG integration across different investment styles” under the section of “Expectations andChallenges for External Asset Managers”.
ￚ As a signatory to PRI, GPIF defines ESG integration in accordance with PRI’s definition as follows.

“ESG should be expressly and systematically incorporated ininvestment analysis and investment decisions.”<Assessment of ESG Integration>
ￚ Following the comprehensive assessment conducted in 2019, GPIF includes the assessment of ESG Integration as part of “Investment policy,
investment process.” The assets subject to the assessment are equities and bonds.
ￚ ESG-related engagement and exercise of voting rights are assessed as part of the “Stewardship Activities” as have been conducted to date.
(Example) Assessment of equity management process in ESG integration
WeightEquity active

10%

100％

Qualitative
assessment

90%

Equity passive

30%

Stewardship activities

Responses to ESG issues, engagement, andexercise of voting rights, etc. will be assessed.

70%

Investment policy,
investment process,organization, humanresources, etc.

ESG integration will be assessed as part ofinvestment process.
(Examples of key assessment points)
ESG policy, Gathering ESG-related information and analysis
of materiality, changes in impact on companies/industry
sectors, effective use for investment decisions, etc.

Copyright © 2020 Government Pension Investment Fund All rights reserved.

17

7. Reinforcement of Engagement with Relevant Organizations■ Engagement with external asset managers
ￚ Regarding communication with external asset managers, GPIF has shifted from a one-way annual monitoring model to an “engagement” model,
focusing on two-way communication and exchanging views on stewardship responsibilities, as stated in the “Summary Report of GPIF's
Stewardship Activities in 2016.”
ￚ Accordingly, GPIF has called meetings and conducted surveys on particular themes or as required, in the form of stewardship meetings, etc., inaddition to holding an annual assessment meeting. Particularly, as GPIF conducted a compensation survey for executives and employees ofasset managers for equity and fixed income investments in 2019, the dialogues were focused on “Compensation” through the year from theinterview to the feedback of the results of the survey.
ￚ It was extremely useful for us to set specific themes for dialogues with the management levels and related sections of asset managers covering
topics including their corporate philosophy and concept, beyond their investment and stewardship, which enabled us to further understand asset
managers. Going forward, we will enhance our understanding of asset managers by exchanging opinions on specific themes.
ￚ GPIF also holds briefings for external asset managers in addition to individual meetings when we establish new policies and implement significant
changes. We focus on two-way communication by exchanging opinions and providing feedback in order to fully explain the background andconcepts of these policies and changes, through Q&A sessions and follow-up questionnaires.
ￚ In 2019, GPIF conducted individual engagement concerning the inclusion of ESG integration in the assessment, and gave a briefing following
significant changes including revisions to the Stewardship Principles.

<Briefing for external asset managers>

・ Briefing for external asset managers (February 2020)
Explained and exchanged opinions on the following topics: Process for selecting external asset managers; Subject asset managers ofassessment meeting; Assessment of ESG integration; Meaning of multi-year contracts; Changes in the guidelines; Revisions to the Stewardship
Principles and the Proxy Voting Principles; Schedules for assessment of stewardship activities of asset managers for fixed income investment;
Feedback of the executives’ compensation survey for asset managers; and the effective use of AI, etc.

Copyright © 2020 Government Pension Investment Fund All rights reserved.

18

7. Reinforcement of Engagement with Relevant Organizations■ Engagement with external asset managers (continued)<Request for disclosure of the details of proxy voting records>
In the Proxy Voting Principles, GPIF asks its external asset managers to publicly disclose proxy voting records for each investee company.
The following are asset managers for domestic equities who have already disclosed them publicly. It should be noted, however, that the frequency
and details of the disclosure vary depending on each asset manager, and GPIF will continue to conduct engagement for the improvement of
disclosure.
[Asset managers that have publicly disclosed the details of proxy voting records (GPIF’s external asset managers for domestic equities)] Asset Management One
http://www.am-one.co.jp/company/voting/ Eastspring Investments(Eastspring Investments (Singapore) Limited)https://www.eastspring.co.jp/about-us/our-policy/voting-rights
 Invesco Asset Management (Japan)
http://www.invesco.co.jp/footer/proxy.html
 Capital International (Capital International, Inc.)https://www.capitalgroup.com/advisor/jp/ja/proxy-voting.html
 Goldman Sachs Asset Management(Goldman Sachs Asset Management, L.P., etc.)
https://www.gsam.com/content/gsam/jpn/ja/gsitm/about-gsam/stewardshipcode.html
 JPMorgan Asset Management (Japan)
https://www.jpmorganasset.co.jp/wps/portal/Policy/Guideline
 Schroders Investment Management (Japan)
http://www.schroders.com/ja-jp/jp/asset-management/about-schroders/proxyvoting/ Nikko Asset Management
http://www.nikkoam.com/about/vote/results Nomura Asset Management
http://www.nomura-am.co.jp/corporate/service/responsibility_investment/vote.html
 Nomura Asset Management (Dimensional Fund Advisors LP)
http://us.dimensional.com/about-us/corporate-governance FIL Investments (Japan)
https://www.fidelity.co.jp/about-fidelity/policies/investment/voting Black Rock Japan
https://www.blackrock.com/jp/individual/ja/about-us/important-information/voting Sumitomo Mitsui DS Asset Management
https://www.smd-am.co.jp/corporate/responsible_investment/voting/report/
 Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Asset Management
http://www.smtam.jp/company/policy/voting/result/ Mitsubishi UFJ Trust and Banking
https://www.tr.mufg.jp/houjin/jutaku/about_stewardship.html
 Russell Investments Japan(Russell Investments Implementation Services, LLC.)
https://russellinvestments.com/jp/legal/proxy Resona Asset Management
https://www.resona-am.co.jp/investors/giketuken.html
Note: Names in parentheses indicate subcontractors.
URLs are based on information as of March 1, 2020.
Copyright © 2020 Government Pension Investment Fund All rights reserved.

19

7. Reinforcement of Engagement with Relevant Organizations■ Assessment of “Stewardship Activities” by asset managers for equity investment–

A comprehensive assessment of asset managers is conducted through qualitative assessment while taking into consideration quantitative
achievements.
– Approximately 90% of GPIF’s equity is passively managed, and GPIF invests in a
WeightEquity passive Equity active
wide rage of listed companies. For the improvement of returns for GPIF, thesustainability of the entire market is crucial. Therefore, GPIF believes that it is10%30%
critical for passive managers to implement engagement activities, which would
100％
encourage investee companies to increase their corporate value and thesustainable growth of the entire market from the long-term perspectives.
Qualitative90%– In Japan’s Stewardship Code revised in May 2017, the importance of dialogue inassessment
70%
passive investment is clarified. Furthermore, the possibility of collaborative
engagement is also referred to as a means of dialogue. In addition, ESG has been
newly mentioned to in the definition of stewardship responsibilities in the renewed
Stewardship Activities
proposal of revision currently presented in the public comments, which indicates theincreasing significance of ESG. The revision clarifies expectations for Stewardship
Investment policy, investment process, organization,
activities, particularly its significance in passive investment. GPIF highly evaluates
human resources, etc.
asset managers who fulfill stewardship responsibilities better if the preconditions are
similar.
– With respect to Stewardship activities, passive managers are assessed in terms of their contribution to the sustainability of the market, whereas
active managers are assessed in terms of their contribution to increasing shareholder value of the investee companies in the long run.
– Specifically, we focus on the following points, and exchanged opinions on how they are working on stewardship activities. We also refer toinformation obtained from external providers.
 Frameworks (organizations, management of conflicts of interest)
 Endorsement status of Japan’s Stewardship Code and the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) Stewardship activities (policy, current actions, implementation of engagement)
 ESG activities including responses to their critical ESG issues selected by asset managers
 Exercise of voting rights (topics, cases where judgments are divided among external asset managers, process of judgments on exercising
shareholder proposals, etc.)
 Responses to the GPIF’s Stewardship Principles and Proxy Voting Principles in disclosing the details of proxy voting records, etc.
– In cases we acknowledge concerns about governance of external asset managers, such as conflicts of interest, through reports and interviews,
GPIF communicates its concerns and engages in various opportunities, aiming to alleviate such concerns.
Copyright © 2020 Government Pension Investment Fund All rights reserved.

20

7. Reinforcement of Engagement with Relevant Organizations■ Assessment of “Stewardship Activities” for Other Assets<Fixed income investment>ￚ More and more Japanese and foreign asset managers for fixed income investment have expanded the scope of their ESG integration andstewardship activities including ESG engagement.
ￚ Our joint-study, “Environmental, Social, and Governance Factors can be Material Risks for Fixed Income Investors,” with the World Bank, also points
out the significance of engagement by fixed income investors. Considering that the revised UK Stewardship Code 2020 which took effect in January
2020 designates all assets as being subject to stewardship responsibilities, it is likely that the stewardship activities of fixed income investors will befurther promoted going forward. We plan to conduct interviews about the progress of such activities in 2020, and include fixed income investment in
our assessment in 2021 and thereafter.
<Alternative assets>
ￚ Alternative assets (infrastructure, real estate, private equity) are an asset class in which asset managers may have an impact directly on the ESG
activities of investee companies. As a result, investors focusing on ESG when selecting investment managers are increasing mainly outside Japan.
GPIF has placed an emphasis on stewardship responsibilities and the initiatives for ESG as critical points of evaluation since it started called for
application of investment managers in April 2017.
ￚ After selecting investment managers, GPIF requests them to submit “ESG Report” on a regular basis, based on which GPIF assesses in thecomprehensive assessment their initiatives for stewardship responsibilities including the factors mentioned below. As the fund of funds type
investment has been currently adopted in alternative investment, GPIF exchanges of opinions concerning how the gatekeepers and managers offund of funds implement stewardship activities. Going forward, we will refer to information on ESG assessment from external resources (such as
GRESB) .
 Frameworks (organizations, management of conflicts of interest, etc.)
 Endorsement status of the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) Stewardship activities including ESG (policy, current actions, implementation of engagement, and response to ESG issues according to thecharacteristics of the assets)
ￚ While all investment managers are signatories to the PRI at the level of gatekeepers or fund of funds managers, not all managers at the level ofinvestee funds are necessarily so.
ￚ Both gatekeepers and fund of funds managers confirm their ESG activities when they select investee companies. After selecting, they conductengagement with investee companies, including encouragement of the establishment of ESG policies.
Copyright © 2020 Government Pension Investment Fund All rights reserved.

21

7. Reinforcement of Engagement with Relevant Organizations
Approximately
80% of GPIF’s assets are passively managed. Although indices function as critical factors directly linked
GPIFは、投資先及び市場全体の持続的成長が、運用資産の長期的な投資収益の拡大に必要であると
toperformance, GPIF and other participants of the investment chain have failed to allocate sufficient resources toの考え方を踏まえ、ESGを考慮した取り組みを進めています。それにより期待されるリスク低減効果につ
selectindices. Based on the awareness of such problem, GPIF promotes initiatives for the improvement of governance
いては、投資期間が長期であればあるほど、リスク調整後のリターンを改善する効果が期待されます。
systems of the index providers through engagement and direct contract of indices.
■ Engagement with index providers
ￚ In passive investment, the important factor of success is the selection of benchmarks, rather than the degree of investment skill. However, asset
owners including GPIF have not exerted more efforts for selecting benchmarks than understanding the importance of benchmarks. In theinvestment chain, it is asset owners who have the most significant impacts on the investment performance and evaluations by selecting
benchmarks and improving quality. On the back of the awareness of the above-mentioned problem, GPIF partially introduced the “Index Posting
System” in fiscal 2019 with the aim of effectively gathering information on various indices in order to enhance our overall fund management.
ￚ GPIF has implemented due diligence and engagement, since we acknowledged the significance of assessment of index providers’ organization
structure as well as governance system, while working in selecting benchmarks such as ESG index. Specifically, GPIF strictly examines therelationships between stakeholders (shareholders and major customers) and rating agencies/index providers, their decision-making processes(whether they have independent committees, what they discussed), and whether they engage in any businesses that are likely to fall underconflicts of interest, such as consulting services for companies. GPIF believes index providers should be responsible for establishing solid
governance systems and implementing decision-making from the investor-oriented point of view, according to their increasing presence year afteryear.
ￚ Furthermore, GPIF, as an asset owner, has proactively participated and provided opinions in the consultation meetings held by index providers and
ESG rating agencies when they consider changes in the index methodologies and ESG assessment methodologies. GPIF encourages external
asset managers to similarly participate and express opinions.
ￚ GPIF has been considering reviewing its style of contract with index providers while enhancing our commitment to indices. We believe that thealignment with not only index providers but also passive managers would be reinforced if the index license fee is directly borne by GPIF.

Copyright © 2020 Government Pension Investment Fund All rights reserved.

22

8. Initiatives for Promoting Dialogues
between Asset Managers and Investee Companies■ Survey of companies listed on the 1st Section of the Tokyo Stock Exchange
ￚ GPIF conducted our first survey of JPX-Nikkei Index 400 companies in January 2016 with the aim of assessing the stewardship activities ofexternal asset managers and understanding the actual situations of “constructive dialogue” (engagement). Since the third survey in 2018, we
expanded the subjects to companies listed on the TSE’s first section, in order to gain direct feedback from a wide range of companies. In January
2020, we conducted the fifth survey.
ￚ In the fourth survey in January 2019, 604 companies responded (accounting for 28.4%). The survey questions were as follows:(1) Evaluation concerning stewardship activities of GPIF’s asset managers; (2) Actual status concerning “constructive dialogue” (engagement);(3) Changes in the past one year; (4) IR and ESG activities of investee companies; and (5) GPIF’s initiatives.
The results of the survey are available here: https://www.gpif.go.jp/investment/stewardship_questionnaire_04.pdf■ Business and Asset Owners’ Forumￚ The forum was established based on a proposal to establish a “platform for continuous and constructive dialogue between GPIF, an asset owner,and companies,” which we received from several companies including OMRON Corporation, Eisai Co., Ltd., and Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. The firstforum was held in September 2016.
ￚ Participated by 10 companies including three lead organizer companies and five asset owners.
[Participating companies]<Lead organizers> Eisai Co., Ltd., OMRON Corporation, Nissan Motor Corporation<Other companies> Asahi Group Holdings, Ltd., JFE Holdings, Inc., Shiseido Co., Ltd., TOTO Ltd., Nippon Telegraph and Telephone
Corporation, Hitachi, Ltd., Mitsubishi Chemical Holdings Corporation[Asset Owners]
Federation of National Public Service Personnel Mutual Aid Associations, Pension Fund Association for Local Government Officials, National
Federation of Mutual Aid Association for Municipal Personnel, Promotion and Mutual Aid Corporation for Private Schools of Japan, Government
Pension Investment Fund (GPIF).
ￚ At the sixth forum in April 2019, we discussed the initiatives for TCFD and the revised Corporate Governance Code (mainly medium- to long-term
incentives, compensation design that considers ESG measurements, and corporate pension plans), in the light of recent dialogues with investors.
ￚ An outline of the discussions is available here: https://www.gpif.go.jp/en/investment/business-asset-owner-forum.html. We provide feedback to ourexternal asset managers and overseas asset owners.
Copyright © 2020 Government Pension Investment Fund All rights reserved.

23

8. Initiatives for Promoting Dialogues
between Asset Managers and Investee Companies■ “Excellent Integrated Reports” and “Most-improved Integrated Reports” selected by GPIF’s external asset
managers entrusted with domestic equity investment
ￚ GPIF considers integrated reports to be important tools of constructive dialogue for improving corporate value, and believes they are instrumental
for interactive engagement between external asset managers and investee companies.
ￚ Therefore, since 2016 GPIF has requested external asset managers for domestic equities to nominate companies that have created excellent
integrated reports, with the aim of encouraging companies to start creating or enhancing integrated reports and encouraging investors to utilize
them. For the fourth year, GPIF requested asset managers to nominate up to 10 “excellent integrated reports” and 10 “most-improved integrated
reports” in December 2019. GPIF compiled the results and announced them in February 2020.
ￚ We received positive feedback from companies, such as “the management began to pay more attention to the integrated reports,” “more active
collaboration among relevant staff and departments has been found,” “Raised awareness of the integrated reports within the company,” “We
observed PR effects through company website and social media,” “It helps us to prepare our integrated reports,” to name a few.

○ Most-improved integrated reports○ Excellent corporate governance reports
GPIF’s external asset managers for domestic equities named a
total of 71 companies for their “excellent integrated reports.” Thefollowing companies were nominated by four or more
respondents as publishers of “excellent integrated reports.”










GPIF’s external asset managers for domestic equities named a total of
91 companies for their “most-improved integrated reports.” The following
two companies were nominated by four or more respondents as
publishers of the “most-improved integrated reports.”

Hitachi, Ltd.
Nominated by seven asset managers
Kirin Holdings Company, Limited
Six asset managers
ITOCHU Corporation
Six asset managers
Mitsui Chemicals, Inc.
Five asset managers
MARUI GROUP CO., LTD.
Five asset managers
SUMITOMO CHEMICAL COMPANY, LIMITED
Four asset managers
Kao Corporation
Four asset managers
Mitsui & Co., Ltd.
Four asset managers
MS&AD Insurance Group Holdings, Inc.
Four asset managers



MinebeaMitsumi Inc.
Fuji Oil Holdings Inc.

Nominated by six asset managers
Five asset managers*Please visit following website for the details including principal comments of the asset managers.
https://www.gpif.go.jp/en/investment/20200319_excellent_and_most-improved_integrated_reports_2019.pdf
Copyright © 2020 Government Pension Investment Fund All rights reserved.

24

9. Enhancing Collaboration
with Stakeholders and Relevant Organizations■ Enhancing collaboration with stakeholders and relevant organizations<Collaboration with stakeholders>June 2019: Presentation and discussion on the “Report of the Survey Regarding Institutional Investors’ Stewardship” (The Japan Business
Federation (Keidanren))March 2020: Publication of “Joint Research Report towards the “Society 5.0 for SDGs” by the Japan Business Federation (Keidanren), the Universityof Tokyo, and GPIF
<Participation in meetings organized by ministries><Ministry of Foreign Affairs>
The Round Table for Promoting Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – Council member: President, Norihiro Takahashi<Cabinet Secretariat, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, and Ministry of the Environment>
Meeting on a Long-Term Strategy under the Paris Agreement as a Growth Strategy－Council member: Executive Managing Director and CIO,
Hiro Mizuno (up to April 2019)<Ministry of the Environment>
ESG Finance High Level Panel (1st Meeting) – Presentation by GPIF’s Executive Managing Director and CIO, Hiro Mizuno<Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry>
TCFD Summit (1st Meeting) – Executive Managing Director and CIO, Hiro Mizuno, gave a speech and participated in a panel session<Financial Services Agency>
The Council of Experts on the Stewardship Code (The 2nd Council, FY2019) – Executive Managing Director and CIO, Hiro Mizuno, gave aspeech as a guest speaker<Presentations at various seminars and international conferences (since last reported)>
April 2019: IMF World Bank Spring Meeting
May 2019: Milken Institute Global Conference 2019
June 2019: G20/OECD Corporate Governance Seminar
July 2019: SDG Corporate Strategy Forum
September 2019: PRI in Person 2019
January 2020: World Economic Forum Annual Meeting
Copyright © 2020 Government Pension Investment Fund All rights reserved.

25

(Reference) PRI and SDGs
Increase in investment
opportunities

Addressing social issues will lead to the creation ofbusiness opportunities andinvestment opportunities.
ESG Investments

GPIF
Promotion of ESG

Signed in September 2015

Increase in business
opportunities

Investment
managementcompanies

Companies

Investment returns

Consent

Creating Shared Value (CSV)

Sustainable Society

Principle 1: We will incorporate ESG issues into investment analysis anddecision-making processes.
Principle 2: We will be active owners and incorporate ESG issues into ourownership policies and practices.
Principle 3: We will seek appropriate disclosure on ESG issues by the entities inwhich we invest. (Principles 4 through 6 are omitted.)

GPIF’s initiative:
Executive Managing Director and CIO, Hiro Mizuno was appointed as amember of the Asset Owner Advisory Committee (January 2016).
Hiro Mizuno reassumed the position of PRI board member (January2020).

GPIF’s initiative:
President, Norihiro Takahashi attended the meeting of the governmentorganized round table for promoting implementation of the SDGs.
(September 2016)(Source: Created by GPIF based on information from the United Nations, etc.)
Copyright © 2020 Government Pension Investment Fund All rights reserved.

26

2. Stewardship Activities by GPIF’s External AssetManagers, and Issues to be AddressedGPIF’s View on Current Status of External Asset Managers<Stewardship Activities on Equity Investment> The overall quality has been improved as observed in both the activities and speed of actions of each asset manager compared withseveral years earlier. In addition to their company-wide commitments, in the case where an asset manager belongs to a financialgroup, the group as a whole has further committed itself to stewardship and ESG, which implies that such commitment has become
a focal point of business.
 More and more external asset managers, both passive and active investment, have developed new policies on engagement and
ESG, for which asset managers now implement organizational initiatives.
 In stewardship reports, some asset managers established and disclosed plans for stewardship activities from medium- to long-term
perspectives, including specific priority actions and other activities planned for several years ahead. Meanwhile, other external asset
managers sent a letter to investees as a tool to communicate their views. It is critical to make sure how they will implement theseplans in the engagement platforms.
 Despite these initiatives which are put into practice, there are still some asset managers which do not fully understand the GPIF’s
Stewardship Principles and the Proxy Voting Principles.
 In the past a few years, some passive and active managers have established and enhanced a designated department in charge of
stewardship activities. Full-fledged efforts toward stewardship activities and more organized efforts throughout the year can beobserved.
 As mentioned above, while active managers also implement engagement activities, their definitions of engagement and their action
vary depending on organizational structures and investment styles. Some managers have a designated department in charge of the
stewardship activities including engagement, while others do not. Particularly, for the former case, it is necessary to confirm how
stewardship activities and investment are linked to each other. For the latter case, the focus should be the commitment of fundmanager, who takes leadership initiatives and how they are taken in order to make it more organized activities.
 All asset managers for domestic and foreign equities answered that they have taken measures for ESG issues. With respect tomanagers for domestic equities, some have taken further measures for “E (environment)” and “S (social)” issues, compared to thepast. Some active managers for domestic equities have also taken further measures for “E (environment)” and “S (social)” issues, inaddition to proactive engagement concerning “G (governance)” issues.
 We believe that integrated reports and corporate governance reports are primary tools for interactive communication in implementing
engagement and measures for ESG issues. While we are fully aware that asset managers have been moving forward on their use of
those tools, we expect that analysts and fund managers, in addition to specialists in stewardship and ESG, will also further deploy
these reports.

Copyright © 2020 Government Pension Investment Fund All rights reserved.

28

GPIF’s View on Current Status of External Asset Managers<Stewardship Activities on Equity Investment (continued)> Some managers are promoting reform measures of not only investee companies but also the whole investment chain, by ways ofsubmission of public comments on the stewardship code and proactive engagement with stock exchanges and index providers.
 Japanese asset managers have participated in the joint initiatives such as CA100+ more proactively than foreign asset managers.
As a whole, more and more asset managers have joined global initiatives, using them as platforms to gain expertise and conduct
joint engagements.

<Exercise of Voting Rights>
 Depending on the cases, we positively assess asset managers when they exercised their voting rights in a way that it is notnecessarily pursuant to voting policies but in line with their activities or actual situations as a result in engagement. As we consider
voting along with engagement, we expect them to take measures that would contribute to enhancing long-term corporate value.
 In the announcement of the results of exercising individual voting rights by asset managers for domestic equities, there were obvious
differences in timing, frequency and items of disclosure. We also found some asset managers’ disclosure inappropriate for dialogues
with companies towards next year’s general meeting of shareholders. Many asset managers, however, made quarterly disclosures
so that the announced results would be of use in the dialogue after the general meeting of shareholders. Some stated the reasonsfor objection, attached flags to investees that may cause conflicts of interest (for example they are business partners within theGroup), or provided more details than usual. Some asset managers for foreign equities disclosed the results of individual voting on
a voluntary basis.
 When required their investees an increase in independent external directors, some asset managers for domestic equities allowed
almost one-year grace period from the announcement of change in voting policy before taking effect, in order to let them know thechange and implement engagement. Similarly, when some asset managers for foreign equities began including Diversity in theirvoting policy, each of them elaborated their own methods of engagement and exercising voting rights, for example by setting a grace
period until the implementation.
 Both asset managers for domestic and foreign equities use proxy advisory firms. The majority of them use these firms in order tocollect information, outsource administrative services concerning exercising of voting rights, and manage conflicts of interest in
exercising voting rights for their own company, parent company and the Group companies. Only a small number of cases deployed
the recommendations of advisory firms for the exercise of voting rights of the investees other than those required management ofconflict of interest. GPIF uses the results of recommendations provided by ISS and Glass Lewis for analysis after the General
Meeting of Shareholders.
 Regarding voting instruction errors and administrative errors made by custodians, we have requested asset managers andcustodians to take appropriate measures, considering the importance of exercising voting rights. We requested asset managers to
conduct explanations and engagement.
Copyright © 2020 Government Pension Investment Fund All rights reserved.

29

External Asset Managers’ Governance Structures and Managementof Conflicts of Interest with their Parent Companies, etc.
[Issues carried over from the previous year] While third-party committees are established in all Japanese asset managers for equity investment, there are some cases in which the status ofholding committee meetings are hardly visible from outside, and where the targets subject to the management of conflicts of interest are
extremely limited. The involvement in voting also varies largely depending on external asset managers. Given changes in some organizations,
it may be necessary to verify the facts and conduct a review in order to make it more effective in the future.
 Since there has been progress in the management of conflicts of interest and the development of voting guidelines, we believe that it isimportant to make revisions according to the actual situation and utilize them appropriately for practical purposes.
 As for the compensation scheme for executives and employees of external asset managers, it is important to check whether such scheme
prevents the short-termism and aims to establish an alignment with asset owners in the long run.


At Japanese asset managers for equities, the organizational segregation aimed at preventing conflicts of interest between the investment
division and other divisions has been promoted, including by way of company split and integration of the investment division. In addition, allJapanese asset managers for equities have already organized proper governance structures, including the election of outside directors andthe establishment of a third-party committee comprised mainly of outside directors. The focus has now shifted to their effectiveness andimprovement if necessary.

We found some Japanese asset managers having challenges in identifying investees to be managed in terms of conflicts of interest, and in
responding to misconducts when they occurred in parent company and the group companies, and also in responding to exercise of voting
rights. We will continue to implement engagement on them going forward.

Meanwhile, it was revealed that some foreign asset managers have no organizational segregation or no visible scheme to prevent conflicts ofinterest, indicating that the predominance of external foreign asset managers has no solid basis as expected.



It is confirmed that management of conflicts of interest in voting and voting guidelines are formalistically well organized.

However, given an increase in the number of shareholder proposals to both Japanese and foreign asset managers, their parent company andthe group companies, it was confirmed that the current rules for decision processes of shareholder proposals is unable to function to the fullest.
We will request improvement on this issue as a future challenge.

The compensation schemes for executives and employees of external asset managers ultimately reflect their position within the Group, therelationship with a parent company, and corporate culture, which suggests the importance of the compensation scheme and the incentive
system. The most recent survey on the compensation schemes for executives and employees of external asset managers revealed no casesof encouraging the short-termism. However, “whether or not the compensation is utilized as a strategy” ultimately makes the most significant
difference among asset managers in terms of whether such scheme contributes to the improvement of long-term. We found very few asset
managers which have established compensation schemes for the Heads of ESG and stewardship in line with their position within theorganization.
Copyright © 2020 Government Pension Investment Fund All rights reserved.

30

Engagement by Passive Managers
and Proper Exercise of Voting Rights[Issues carried over from the previous year] Establishment of new business models proposed by passive managers in accordance with the needs of asset owners who are focused on
stewardship activities, and the verification of its effectiveness of the appointed fund.
 New proposals including ESG integration in the passive investment.
 Exercise of voting rights and its disclosure in accordance with the purpose of the GPIF’s Proxy Voting Principles.
 Implementation of engagement in an effective manner of the passive investment in foreign equities.


As for passive investment models focusing on stewardship activities, we have received no proposals after the two funds we adopted in theprevious fiscal year (see pages 32 to 34 for details). We look forward to positive proposals.

All passive managers for equities have established a designated department in charge of engagement with investee companies from theperspective of enhancing long-term corporate value, and are developing and reinforcing necessary systems. In some cases, departments incharge of stewardship activities and ESG collaborate with sector analysts and fund managers in engagement.

Some passive managers for domestic equities have been conducting dialogues in accordance with the engagement enhancement plan andpolicies. They addressed on a wide range of themes in engagement by utilizing external and/or proprietary data on ESG and creating ESG
rating by their own criteria.



While small number of passive managers for domestic equities have already begun investment in accordance with proposals for ESG
integration, they are still very few at this point.

Even in the case of using a proxy advisory firm for an engagement purpose, we require such asset managers to establish a system to make a
final decision by itself considering the status of engagement and the content of the agenda.



Meanwhile, when asset managers use proxy advisory firm for the purpose of managing conflicts of interests, we seek improvements in theirusage if they need reconsideration of their utilization to achieve the intended goals.

In the passive investment of foreign equities, some asset managers conduct engagement efficiently and effectively by using frameworks ofjoint engagement such as PRI and Climate Action 100+ in addition to their internal resources. Some managers also proactively participate in
the joint engagement by serving the role of lead manager, etc.
課題

Copyright © 2020 Government Pension Investment Fund All rights reserved.

31

Engagement by Passive Managers
and Proper Exercise of Voting Rights
 Overview and Points for Selection of Passive Investment Models Focused on
Stewardship Activities<Purpose of Selection>(1)Reinforcing management of diversified benchmark indices(2)Improving the overall market through stewardship activities. Diversifying and enhancing how to approachstewardship activities.
<Evaluation Method>
Reviewing their investment process and stewardship policies, as well as the entire business model includingorganizational systems and fee levels in order to implement such process and policies.
<Results of selection>
We received applications from new and existing asset managers. As a result of our examination, we selected two asset
managers: Asset Management One and FIL Investments (Japan) in 2018.

Key Points for selection

Evaluation method after selection<Setting of appropriate KPI> Medium- to long-term goals for engagement activities
 Annual plan for the achievement (Milestone)

For evaluation going forward, thestatus of achievement of the KPI as
indicated on the left and the milestones
for the following fiscal year will be
evaluated.
GPIF will renew the contract based on
this result.

<Engagement system and method> Organizations and persons in charge of stewardship
課題
activities Methods of engagement

Copyright © 2020 Government Pension Investment Fund All rights reserved.

32

Engagement by Passive Managers
and Proper Exercise of Voting Rights
 Characteristics of the two funds adopted as stewardship-focused passive
investment models<Asset Management One>

Establish 19 ESG themes, and clarify the direction of engagement by showing the Challenges (locating problems),
Goals (building models to be realized) and Action (company’s activities). Implement engagement based on each themeat target companies.

Establish 8-level milestones, and periodically report GPIF the progress of engagement from the establishment of
themes to their solutions.



Steadily advancing the steps of specific actions from establishing and sharing themes to starting themes, formulatingplans and implementing measures.



Most of the engagement agenda of which the challenges were solved in the past one year were governance-related
issues.
19 ESG Issues

On Engagement Milestones (8 steps)

Engagement Progress
At the beginning of FY2019

E1：Climate Change

At the end of Q3, FY2019

E2：Deforestation
E

E3: Water Resource Management
E4: Biodiversity
E5: Waste & Pollution
E6: Resource & Energy Management
S0：Diversity
S1：Human Rights

S

S2：Labor Practices/Health & Safety
S3：Product Liability & Safety
S4：Local Community
G0：Board Governance & Accountability

G

G1：Capital Efficiency
G2：Takeover Defense Measures
課題
G3：Risk Management
ESG1：CSR/ ESG Management

ESG

ESG2：Corporate Misconduct
ESG3：Regional Revitalization
ESG4：CSR Supply Chain Management

Source: “19 ESG Themes,” “Eight-level Milestone,” and “Progress of Engagement” are excerpts from the Engagement Report of Asset Management One.
Copyright © 2020 Government Pension Investment Fund All rights reserved.

33

Engagement by Passive Managers
and Proper Exercise of Voting Rights
 Characteristics of the two funds adopted as passive investment models focusing on
stewardship activities<FIL Investments (Japan)>With the expertise of analysts of active investment, efficiently increase β by encouraging large-cap companies to reformtheir mindset. In order to improve corporate value, identify the agenda of engagement and engage with companies, bywhich profitability and growth capability will be improved caused by strong competitiveness.

Specifically, narrow the subject companies for engagement by such conditions as (1) market capitalization of one trillion
yen or more; and (2) corporate value is expected to improve by 50% or more, to implement engagement with large caps
which are likely to have significant impacts on market capitalization.



The status of progress is managed using three indicators of input, output and outcome, and is periodically reported to
GPIF.



Progress was observed in 70% of the subject companies, which established new challenges, etc. At present, the progressis advancing from “Input” to “Output.”

Most of the engagement agenda of which the challenges were solved in the past one year were governance-related
issues.
Four Steps of Engagement

Engagement Counterpart

課題

Source: “Four Steps of Engagement” and “The other party of dialogue” are from Fidelity’s Report on Investment Trusts.
Copyright © 2020 Government Pension Investment Fund All rights reserved.

34

Critical ESG Issues[Issues carried over from the previous year] Critical ESG issues are recognized by asset managers, and the status of implementation of engagement should be surveyed.
 Disclosure by investors on critical ESG issues.
In the Stewardship Principles, GPIF stipulates that asset managers should consider ESG factors and that they should proactively engage
with investee companies on critical ESG issues. Accordingly, the following issues were identified as material ESG issues among asset
managers for equities. (The table below represents the issues pointed out by all asset managers (the underlined issues represent thosepointed out for the second year straight) whereas the table in the following page shows the issues pointed out by more than 50% of asset
managers.)With regard to passive managers that hold investees’ stocks as long as they are included in indices, we have found that all asset managers
for domestic and foreign equities recognized that “Climate Change” was a material ESG issue, and considered the long-term issues such as
E (environmental) and S (social) including diversity as extremely critical ESG issues.

Among active managers whose primary holding periods are approximately several months to a few years, the material ESG issues fordomestic equity managers were different from those for foreign equity managers. All of those for foreign equities considered climate change
as material, and each of the issues of E, S and G followed. Meanwhile, it was revealed that managers for domestic equities recognized that
G (governance) was more material among the ESG issues, as “Board Structure and Self-evaluation” and “Minority Shareholder Rights”
followed by “Capital Efficiency” were pointed out by all of those asset managers. It should be noted, however, in addition to “Supply Chain”
that was ranked high in the previous year, “Environment Opportunities” is also ranked high this year, which shows that environment isdeemed as opportunities rather than risks in the domestic equity investment.

Given that many asset managers focused on Climate Change, we checked the status of action for the TCFD. It was found that almost threequarters of asset managers on equity investment expressed their support to the TCFD recommendations. (Support from their parent
company or Group companies were included.)<Critical ESG issues in passive/active investments as listed by all asset managers>
Passive

ActiveDomestic
equities

2019

Climate Change, Misconduct, Disclosure

Board Structure & Self-evaluation、Minority Shareholder
Rights2018

Climate Change, Misconduct, Supply Chain

Board Structure & Self-evaluation

Foreignequities

2019

Climate Change, Diversity, Others (social), Disclosure

Climate Change

2018

Climate Change, Diversity, Others (social), Water
Stress & Water Security

Climate Change
Copyright © 2020 Government Pension Investment Fund All rights reserved.

35

Critical ESG Issues“Critical ESG Issues” as pointed out by more than 50% of passive/active asset managers(*) are listed below.
If an asset manager for Japanese equities is entrusted to both active and passive mandates, it is counted as the one with larger
amount of mandate entrusted by GPIF.
(*) The percentage shown below represents the ratio of the number of managers which selected the relevant issue to the number ofactive/passive asset managers.
<Passive managers of domestic equities>
Climate Change

100%

Disclosure

100%<Active managers of domestic equities>
Board Structure & Self100%
evaluation
Minority Shareholder Rights
100%<Passive managers of foreign equities><Active managers of foreign equities>

Misconduct
Board Structure & Selfevaluation
Minority Shareholder Rights
Capital Efficiency

100%

Capital Efficiency

89%

Others (social)

100%

Others (social)

75%

86%

Disclosure

78%

Disclosure

100%

Disclosure

75%

86%
86%

Misconduct
Supply Chain

78%
78%

75%
75%

86%

Environment Opportunities

78%

Corporate Governance86%

Labor Standards

67%

75%

Corporate GovernanceSupply Chain
Board Structure & Selfevaluation
Human Rights & Community

75%
75%

Supply Chain

Corporate GovernanceSupply Chain
Board Structure & Selfevaluation
Water Stress & Water Security

Diversity

86%

Climate Change

56%

Others (Governance)

75%

Labor Standards

75%

Human Rights & Community

86%

Corporate Governance

56%

Environment Opportunities

63%

Environment Opportunities

71%

Diversity

56%

Health & safety

63%

Others (social)

71%

Human Rights & Community

56%

Anti-corruption

71%

Waste Management

56%

Waste Management

57%

Pollution & Resources

56%

Others (ESG)57%

Social Opportunities

56%…

E (Environmental)

Other (Governance)

57%

Product Liability

56%…

S (Social)

Health and safety

57%…

G (Governance)

Water Stress & Water Security

57%

Biodiversity

57%

Deforestation

57%

Climate Change

100%

Climate Change

100%

Diversity

100%

Diversity

88%

75%

75%
75%

… A multiple themes of ESG
The items in red represent the issues pointed out by
all active/passive asset managers.
Copyright © 2020 Government Pension Investment Fund All rights reserved.

36

3. Expectations & Challenges for External AssetManagers and GPIF’s Action Plans Going Forward

Expectations and Challenges
for External Asset Managers
 Integrate GPIF’s Stewardship Principles andProxy Voting Principles in their operations at alllevels throughout their organizations
 Enhance the governance. Formulate and review
effective measures to prevent conflicts ofinterest
 Arrange suitable compensation scheme for
executives and employees
・ Whether the scheme has long-term alignment ofinterest with asset owners
 Collaborate between investment andstewardship activities
 Propose and establish models for passive
investment focusing on stewardship activities Practice ESG integration across different
investment styles
 Reflect ESG issues on the voting principles
 Initiate stewardship activities in fixed income
investments
 Act in line with the messages to investees
 Improve the quality of disclosure
・ Disclosure of voting principles and the results ofexercise of voting rights
・ Disclosure in line with TCFD Recommendation
・ Disclosure of critical ESG issues (materiality)

GPIF’s Action Plans Going Forward
 “Enhance engagement” with external asset managers
focusing on two-way communication
・ Assessing the compliance status of GPIF’s Stewardship
Principles
・ Confirming asset managers’ governance structure,compensation schemes for executives and employees,
and alignment of interest with asset owners
・ Conducting dialogues with each position from top
management to persons in charge, according to themes
・ Recognizing challenges relating to engagement subject
companies. Sharing their evaluation among theinvestment team and stewardship team
 Increase the adoption of passive investment models
focusing on stewardship activities
 Take further consideration on the evaluation methodof ESG integration
・ Seeking investment methods including ESG integrationin the passive investment
 Examine evaluation criteria and methods ofstewardship responsibilities in fixed income
investment
・ Examining the status of engagement of external asset
managers in fixed income investment
 Share the awareness of problems among asset
owners and increase supporters through “Joint
Statement by Asset Owners.”
 Conduct joint researches with external organizations
on the measurement of achievement and effects ofengagement including ESG
Copyright © 2020 Government Pension Investment Fund All rights reserved.

38

Status of Exercise of Shareholders’ Voting Rights(from April 2019 to June 2019)

Status of Exercise of Shareholder Voting Rights in FY2019(April to June 2019)
1. Domestic Equities(1) Exercise of voting rights by external asset managers
All external asset managers (31 funds) exercised their voting rights.
(2) Exercise of voting rights by type of proposal
Proposals pertaining to company organization
Proposals

Total number of voting
rights exercised
TotalManagement
Approved
proposals
Opposed

Total
Shareholder
proposals

Approved

Opposed(Total number of proposals)
Proposals pertaining to capital policy(excluding items pertaining to changes tothe articles of incorporation)

Proposals pertaining to Director remuneration, etc.

Appointment Of which, Appointment
Appointment Of which,Directorof Statutory appointment of Accounting
appointment
remunerationof Directorsof Outside
Auditors
Auditorsof Outside
Statutory
Directors
Auditors

Poison Pill (Rights Plan)
Proposals
pertaining toMergers,changes to
Acquisition of transfer of
Director
the articles ofGranting ofbusiness,retirement
Dividends
treasury
Warning type Trust type
incorporation
stock options
bonusesstock
company split,
etc.

Director
bonuses

Other
proposals

Total

152,443

46,72823,141

15,365

335

4,779

1,517

1,182

806

12,471

27

324

4,932

667

0

173

202,797

151,968

46,56323,132

15,365

335

4,766

1,517

1,182

806

12,422

0

324

3,721

667

0

163

201,003(100.0%)(100.0%)(100.0%)(100.0%)(100.0%)(100.0%)(100.0%)(100.0%)(100.0%)(100.0%)(0.0%)(100.0%)(100.0%)(100.0%)(0.0%)(100.0%)(100.0%)136,045

40,524

19,553

11,891

335

4,448

1,256

266

640

11,998

0

318

3,633

102

0

159

178,753(89.5%)(87.0%)(84.5%)(77.4%)(100.0%)(93.3%)(82.8%)(22.5%)(79.4%)(96.6%)(0.0%)(98.1%)(97.6%)(15.3%)(0.0%)(97.5%)(88.9%)

15,923

6,039

3,579

3,474

0

318

261

916

166

424

0

6

88

565

0

4

22,250(10.5%)(13.0%)(15.5%)(22.6%)(0.0%)(6.7%)(17.2%)(77.5%)(20.6%)(3.4%)(0.0%)(1.9%)(2.4%)(84.7%)(0.0%)(2.5%)(11.1%)

475

165

9

0

0

13

0

0

0

49

27

0

1,211

0

0

10

1,794

(100.0%)(100.0%)(100.0%)(0.0%)(0.0%)(100.0%)(0.0%)(0.0%)(0.0%)(100.0%)(100.0%)(0.0%)(100.0%)(0.0%)(0.0%)(100.0%)(100.0%)

91

32

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

10

2

0

102

0

0

10

215

(19.2%)(19.4%)(0.0%)(0.0%)(0.0%)(0.0%)(0.0%)(0.0%)(0.0%)(20.4%)(7.4%)(0.0%)(8.4%)(0.0%)(0.0%)(100.0%)(12.0%)

384

133

9

0

0

13

0

0

0

39

25

0

1,109

0

0

0

1,579

(80.8%)(80.6%)(100.0%)(0.0%)(0.0%)(100.0%)(0.0%)(0.0%)(0.0%)(79.6%)(92.6%)(0.0%)(91.6%)(0.0%)(0.0%)(0.0%)(88.0%)

Notes:* Figures in parentheses represent percentages for each proposal. The total percentage may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
* There were no cases of non-exercise. The four cases of abstention are included in “Opposed.”* Resolutions of J-REIT general meetings of investors are included above.
Copyright © 2020 Government Pension Investment Fund All rights reserved.

40

Status of Exercise of Shareholder Voting Rights in FY2019(April to June 2019)
2. Foreign Equities(1) Exercise of voting rights by external asset managers
All external asset managers (17 funds) exercised their voting rights.
(In some cases, voting rights were not exercised in the subject countries for institutional reasons, etc.)(2) Exercise of voting rights by type of proposal

Proposals pertaining to company
organization
Proposals

Total number of voting
rights exercised
TotalManagement
proposals

Approved
Opposed
Total

Shareholder
proposals

Approved
Opposed

Appointment Appointment
Appointment
Directorof Statutory of Accountingof Directors
remuneration
Auditors
Auditors
67,226

3,610

Proposals pertaining to capital policy(excluding items pertaining to changes tothe articles of incorporation)

Proposals pertaining to Director remuneration, etc.

8,304

12,389Director
retirement
bonuses

Director
bonuses

135

Granting ofstock options

219

2,804

（単位：延べ議案件数）

Other proposals
Proposals
pertaining toWarning-type Approval of
Mergers,changes topoison pillfinancialtransfer of
the articles of
Other
Acquisition ofbusiness,statements
treasury stockincorporation
proposals
company split,
and statutoryetc.
reports

Dividends

5,848

3,082

6,508

4,665

176

8,111

22,726

Total

145,803

66,274

3,299

8,251

11,996

135

218

2,754

5,835

3,082

6,502

4,314

164

8,111

20,118141,053(100.0%)(100.0%)(100.0%)(100.0%)(100.0%)(100.0%)(100.0%)(100.0%)(100.0%)(100.0%)(100.0%)(100.0%)(100.0%)(100.0%)(100.0%)58,083

2,858

7,930

10,250

116

179

2,079

5,794

2,919

4,774

3,877

112

8,012

16,560123,543(87.6%)(86.6%)(96.1%)(85.4%)(85.9%)(82.1%)(75.5%)(99.3%)(94.7%)(73.4%)(89.9%)(68.3%)(98.8%)(82.3%)(87.6%)

8,191

441

321

1,746

19

39

675

41

163

1,728

437

52

99

3,558

17,510(12.4%)(13.4%)(3.9%)(14.6%)(14.1%)(17.9%)(24.5%)(0.7%)(5.3%)(26.6%)(10.1%)(31.7%)(1.2%)(17.7%)(12.4%)

952

311

53

393

0

1

50

13

0

6

351

12

0

2,608

4,750

(100.0%)(100.0%)(100.0%)(100.0%)(0.0%)(100.0%)(100.0%)(100.0%)(0.0%)(100.0%)(100.0%)(100.0%)(0.0%)(100.0%)(100.0%)

669

275

48

153

0

0

40

7

0

6

159

12

0

1,135

2,504

(70.3%)(88.4%)(90.6%)(38.9%)(0.0%)(0.0%)(80.0%)(53.8%)(0.0%)(100.0%)(45.3%)(100.0%)(0.0%)(43.5%)(52.7%)

283

36

5

240

0

1

10

6

0

0

192

0

0

1,473

2,246

(29.7%)(11.6%)(9.4%)(61.1%)(0.0%)(100.0%)(20.0%)(46.2%)(0.0%)(0.0%)(54.7%)(0.0%)(0.0%)(56.5%)(47.3%)

Notes:* Figures in parentheses represent percentages for each proposal. The total percentage may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
* “Opposed” figures include 1,087 abstentions.
Copyright © 2020 Government Pension Investment Fund All rights reserved.

41

Status of Exercise of Shareholder Voting Rights in FY2019(April 2019 to June 2019)
Comparison of the number of exercises of voting rights by fiscal year (Period from April to June)＊ Comparison of the number of opposition to management proposals, etc., and the number of approvals of shareholder
proposals by fiscal year

Domestic
equityOpposition to the
management proposals orabstention from voting
Approval of shareholder
proposals

ForeignequityOpposition to the
management proposals orabstention from voting
Approval of shareholder
proposals

FY2001

FY2002

FY2003

FY2004

FY2005

FY2006

FY2007

FY2008FY2009FY2010FY2011FY2012FY2013

FY2014FY2015FY2016FY2017FY2018FY2019

132

1,872

2,594

5,377

12,917

16,84016,907

14,00915,472

17,67422,07418,044

16,191

12,911

14,266

13,40812,491

15,061

22,250

0.5%

2.2%

2.8%

3.6%

8.1%

12.1%

10.3%

10.2%

8.7%

11.6%

13.3%

11.6%

11.5%

9.5%

8.4%

7.9%

8.5%

10.3%

11.1%

15

38

48

89

57

41

76

37

42

47

34

58

34

56

55

65

167

129

215

2.2%

3.7%

5.8%

8.0%

6.9%

6.3%

7.0%

3.5%

3.1%

2.6%

1.9%

2.7%

2.3%

2.9%

2.8%

4.7%

7.8%

8.8%

12.0%

412

2,336

1,513

2,453

3,571

4,299

5,770

6,427

8,849

7,293

6,087

5,422

7,161

7,269

10,778

11,162

13,076

17,061

17,510

5.8%

9.9%

4.6%

5.0%

5.7%

5.4%

6.2%

6.5%

8.1%

6.9%

5.3%

4.9%

6.0%

6.7%

7.5%

7.7%

8.7%

10.3%

12.4%

123

381

999

907

1,074

1,724

1,669

1,745

2,821

2,085

1,486

1,655

1,503

1,483

2,650

2,630

3,295

2,849

2,504

25.8%

15.2%

28.0%

14.4%

24.7%

31.7%

29.5%

29.7%

44.2%

38.9%

32.9%

35.2%

32.0%

40.3%

47.4%

43.0%

50.5%

53.3%

52.7%

(cases)Copyright © 2020 Government Pension Investment Fund All rights reserved.

42

GPIF Homepage
https://www.gpif.go.jp/
GPIF YouTube channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWpjyPh1kw0VyfIPpcVMIXwGPIF twitter
https://twitter.com/gpiftweets