Taylor & Francis Group Pension and Life
Assurance Scheme
Implementation Statement, covering the Scheme
Year from 1 October 2021 to 30 September 2022
The Trustees of the Taylor & Francis Group Pension and Life Assurance Scheme (the “Scheme”) are required to
produce a yearly statement to set out how, and the extent to which, the Trustees have followed the voting andengagement policies in their Statement of Investment Principles (“SIP”) during the Scheme Year. This is provided
in Section 1 below.
The Statement is also required to include a description of the voting behaviour during the Scheme Year by, and on
behalf of, trustees. This includes the most significant votes cast by trustees or votes cast on their behalf, andstates any use of the services of a proxy voter during that year. This is provided in Section 3 below.

1. Introduction
The Trustees have, in their opinion, followed the Scheme’s voting and engagement policies during the Scheme
Year, by continuing to delegate to their investment managers the exercise of rights and engagement activities inrelation to investments, as well as seeking to appoint managers that have strong stewardship policies andprocesses. Actions taken by the Trustee in relation to the Scheme’s existing managers and funds over the period
are described in Section 2 below.

2. Voting and engagement
As part of its advice on the selection and ongoing review of the investment managers, the Scheme's investment
adviser, LCP, incorporates its assessment of the nature and effectiveness of managers’ approaches to voting andengagement.
In March 2022, the Trustees reviewed LCP’s responsible investment (RI) scores for the Scheme’s existing
managers and funds, along with LCP’s qualitative RI assessments for each fund and red flags for any managers ofconcern. These scores cover the approach to ESG factors, voting and engagement. The fund scores andassessments are based on LCP’s ongoing manager research programme and it is these that directly affect LCP’s
manager and fund recommendations. The manager scores and red flags are based on LCP’s Responsible
Investment Survey 2022. The Trustees were satisfied with the results of the RI review and no further action was
taken as a direct result of the review. Additionally, the Trustees receive quarterly updates on ESG and Stewardshiprelated issues from its investment advisers.
In March 2022, following a review of the Scheme’s investment strategy, the Trustees decided to switch the
Scheme’s equity allocation to the LGIM Global Low Carbon Transition Funds, which have a tilt towards companies
with lower carbon emissions. The Trustee believed that switching the equity allocation to these funds would benefit
the Scheme by reducing its exposure to climate-related risks. The Trustee invested in two pooled funds, the LGIM
Low Carbon Transition Fund and its GBP hedged equivalent, in July 2022.

3. Description of voting behaviour during the Scheme YearAll of the Trustees’ holdings in listed equities are held within pooled funds and the Trustees have delegated to theirinvestment managers the exercise of voting rights. Therefore, the Trustees are not able to direct how votes are
exercised and the Trustees themselves have not used proxy voting services over the Scheme Year.
In this section we have sought to include voting data in line with the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association(PLSA) guidance, on the Scheme’s funds that held equities during the Scheme Year as follows:•

Legal & General Investment Management (“LGIM”)▪

Low Carbon Transition Global Equity Index Fund▪

Low Carbon Transition Global Equity Index Fund – GBP Hedged▪

North America Equity Index Fund▪

Japan Equity Index Fund1

▪

Europe (ex UK) Equity Index Fund▪

Asia Pacific (ex-Japan) Developed Equity Index Fund▪

World Emerging Market Equity Index Fund•

Baillie Gifford Multi-Asset Growth Fund•BlackRock Dynamic Diversified Growth Fund

In addition to the above, the Trustees contacted the Scheme’s other asset managers that don’t hold listed equities,
to ask if any of the assets held by the Scheme had voting opportunities over the Scheme Year. None of the otherpooled funds that the Scheme invested in over the Scheme Year held any assets with voting opportunities.

3.1 Description of the voting processes
3.1.1

LGIM (relevant to all funds the Scheme invests in)

LGIM’s voting and engagement activities are driven by ESG professionals and its assessment of the requirementsin these areas seeks to achieve the best outcome for all its clients. LGIM’s voting policies are reviewed annuallyand take into account feedback from its clients.
Every year, LGIM holds a stakeholder roundtable event where clients and other stakeholders (civil society,academia, the private sector and fellow investors) are invited to express its views directly to the members of theInvestment Stewardship team. The views expressed by attendees during this event form a key consideration as
LGIM continue to develop its voting and engagement policies and define strategic priorities in the years ahead.
LGIM also take into account client feedback received at regular meetings and/ or ad-hoc comments or enquiries.
All decisions are made by LGIM’s Investment Stewardship team and in accordance with its relevant Corporate
Governance & Responsible Investment and Conflicts of Interest policy documents, which are reviewed annually.
Each member of the team is allocated a specific sector globally so that the voting is undertaken by the same
individuals who engage with the relevant company, with the aim of ensuring that its stewardship approach flows
smoothly throughout the engagement and voting process and that engagement is fully integrated into the votedecision process, therefore sending consistent messaging to companies.
LGIM’s Investment Stewardship team uses ISS’s ‘ProxyExchange’ electronic voting platform to electronically voteclients’ shares. All voting decisions are made by LGIM and LGIM do not outsource any part of the strategic
decisions. LGIM’s use of ISS recommendations is purely to augment its own research and proprietary ESG
assessment tools. The Investment Stewardship team also uses the research reports of Institutional Voting
Information Services (“IVIS”) to supplement the research reports that LGIM receives from ISS for UK companies
when making specific voting decisions
To ensure LGIM’s proxy provider votes in accordance with its position on ESG, LGIM have put in place a custom
voting policy with specific voting instructions. These instructions apply to all markets globally and seek to uphold
what LGIM consider are minimum best practice standards which LGIM believe all companies globally shouldobserve, irrespective of local regulation or practice.
LGIM retains the ability in all markets to override any vote decisions, which are based on its custom voting policy.
This may happen where engagement with a specific company has provided additional information (for example
from direct engagement, or explanation in the annual report) that allows LGIM to apply a qualitative overlay to its
voting judgement. LGIM has strict monitoring controls to ensure its votes are fully and effectively executed inaccordance with its voting policies by its service provider. This includes a regular manual check of the votes input
into the platform, and an electronic alert service to inform LGIM of rejected votes which require further action.
3.1.2

Baillie Gifford Multi-Asset Growth FundAll voting decisions are made by Baillie Gifford’s Governance & Sustainability team in conjunction with investment
managers. Baillie Gifford does not regularly engage with clients prior to submitting votes, however if a segregatedclient has a specific view on a vote, then it will engage with them on this. If a vote is particularly contentious, Baillie
Gifford may reach out to clients prior to voting to advise them of this or request them to recall any stock on loan.
Thoughtful voting of Baillie Gifford’s clients’ holdings is an integral part of its commitment to stewardship. Baillie
Gifford believe that voting should be investment led, because how it votes is an important part of the long-term
investment process, which is why its strong preference is to be given this responsibility by its clients. The ability tovote its clients’ shares also strengthens its position when engaging with investee companies. Baillie Gifford’s
2

Governance and Sustainability team oversees its voting analysis and execution in conjunction with its investment
managers. Baillie Gifford analyses all meetings in-house in line with its Governance & Sustainability Principles andGuidelines and it endeavours to vote every one of its clients’ holdings in all markets.
Whilst Baillie Gifford is cognisant of proxy advisers’ voting recommendations (ISS and Glass Lewis), it does notdelegate or outsource any of its stewardship activities or follow or rely upon recommendations when deciding how
to vote on its clients’ shares. All client voting decisions are made in-house, in line with its in-house policy and notwith the proxy voting providers’ policies.
3.1.3BlackRock Dynamic Diversified Growth FundBlackRock’s approach to corporate governance and stewardship is explained in its Global Principles. These highlevel Principles are the framework for its more detailed, market-specific voting guidelines, all of which are publishedon the BlackRock website. The Principles describe its philosophy on stewardship (including how it monitors andengage with companies), its policy on voting, its integrated approach to stewardship matters and how it deals withconflicts of interest. These apply across relevant asset classes and products as permitted by investment strategies.
BlackRock reviews its Global Principles annually and updates them as necessary to reflect in market standards,
evolving governance practice and insights gained from engagement over the prior year.
The team and its voting and engagement work continuously evolves in response to changing governance related
developments and expectations. BlackRock’s voting guidelines are market-specific to ensure it takes into account acompany's unique circumstances by market, where relevant. BlackRock informs its vote decisions throughresearch and engage as necessary. BlackRock’s engagement priorities are global in nature and are informed by its
observations of governance related and market developments, as well as through dialogue with multiple
stakeholders, including clients.
BlackRock may also update regional engagement priorities based on issues that it believes could impact the longterm sustainable financial performance of companies in those markets. BlackRock welcomes discussions with its
clients on engagement and voting topics and priorities to get their perspective and better understand which issues
are important to them. As outlined in its Global Principles, BlackRock determines which companies to engage
directly based on its assessment of the materiality of the issue for sustainable long-term financial returns and thelikelihood of engagement being productive.
BlackRock’s voting guidelines are intended to help clients and companies understand its thinking on key
governance matters. They are the benchmark against which BlackRock assesses a company’s approach tocorporate governance and the items on the agenda to be voted on at the shareholder meeting. BlackRock apply
guidelines pragmatically, taking into account a company’s unique circumstances where relevant. BlackRock
informs its vote decisions through research and engage as necessary. If a client wants to implement their own
voting policy, they will need to be in a segregated account. BlackRock’s Investment Stewardship team would not
implement the policy itself, but the client would engage a third-party voting execution platform to cast the votes.
BlackRock’s proxy voting process is led by the BlackRock Investment Stewardship team (BIS), which consists ofthree regional teams – Americas (“AMRS”), Asia-Pacific (“APAC”), and Europe, Middle East and Africa (“EMEA”) located in seven offices around the world. The analysts with each team will generally determine how to vote at themeetings of the companies they cover. Voting decisions are made by members of the BlackRock Investment
Stewardship team with input from investment colleagues as required, in each case, in accordance with BlackRock’s
Global Principles and custom market-specific voting guidelines.

3

3.2 Summary of voting behaviour over the Scheme YearA summary of voting behaviour over the Scheme Year is provided in the tables below.
LGIM Regional Equity Index Funds – no longer held by the Scheme at end of period
The Scheme fully disinvested from LGIM’s standard regional equity index funds on 15 July 2022. LGIM was unable to provide data for the partial period during which the
Scheme was invested within the reporting period (ie 1 October 2021 to 15 July 2022). Therefore, the summary data provided below reflects voting behaviour for the
relevant LGIM funds across the full Scheme Year.
LGIM Asia Pacific (exJapan) Developed
Equity Index Fund

LGIM World Emerging
Markets Equity Index
Fund£4,273.3m£3,273.9m£4,973.5m

-

-

-

-

510

649

514

399

1,703

765

613

670

511

504

4,178

Number of resolutions eligible to vote10,884

10,371

8,407

6,327

3,573

35,288% of resolutions voted

>99%

>99%

>99%

100%

>99%

>99%

Of the resolutions on which voted, % voted
with management

94%

82%

65%

88%

72%

79%

Of the resolutions on which voted, % voted
against management

6%

18%

35%

12%

28%

19%

Of the resolutions on which voted, %abstained from voting

0%

<1%

<1%

<1%

<1%

2%

Of the meetings in which the manager voted,% with at least one vote against management

38%

79%

98%

72%

75%

53%

Of the resolutions on which the manager
voted, % voted contrary to recommendation ofproxy advisor

5%

9%

26%

9%

17%

7%

LGIM UK Equity Index
Fund

LGIM Europe (ex UK)
Equity Index Fund

LGIM North America
Equity Index Fund

Total size of fund at end of the Scheme Year(£m)

£14,108.9m£7,481.7m£23,557.2m

Value of Scheme assets at end of reporting
period (£m / % of total Scheme assets)--

Number of holdings at end of reporting period

564

Number of meetings eligible to vote

LGIM Japan Equity
Index Fund

1

Invested equity funds as at 30 September 2022
The Scheme was invested in the LGIM Low Carbon Transition Funds from 15 July 2022. LGIM was unable to provide summary data for the partial period during which the
Scheme was invested during the reporting period (ie 15 July 2022 to 30 September 2022). Therefore, the summary data provided below reflects voting behaviour for the
LGIM Low carbon Transition Funds across the full Scheme Year.

LGIM Low Carbon Transition
Global Equity Index Fund GBP Hedged

LGIM Low Carbon Transition
Global Equity Index Fund

Baillie Gifford Multi Asset Growth
FundBlackRock Dynamic Diversified
Growth Fund

Total size of fund at end of the Scheme Year(£m)

£2,746.7m£826.5m£1,627.6m£2,308.7m

Value of Scheme assets at end of reporting
period (£m / % of total Scheme assets)£2.4m / 11%£2.3m / 11%£2.3m / 11%£2.4m / 12%

Number of holdings at end of reporting period

2,904

41

2,664

Number of meetings eligible to vote

4,693

96

904

Number of resolutions eligible to vote48,903

1,009

11,965% of resolutions voted

>99%

96%

94%

Of the resolutions on which voted, % voted withmanagement

79%

96%

94%

Of the resolutions on which voted, % voted
against management

20%

3%

5%

Of the resolutions on which voted, % abstained
from voting

1%

1%

1%

Of the meetings in which the manager voted, %with at least one vote against management

66%

21%

31%

Of the resolutions on which the manager voted,% voted contrary to recommendation of proxyadvisor

11%

N/A

0%

1

3.3 Most significant votes over the Scheme Year
Information regarding the most significant votes over the period, from the Scheme’s asset managers who holdlisted equities, is set out below.
We have asked the managers to comment on votes that they believe to be significant. We have selected a subset
provided by the managers for each fund based on a combination of factors, including the amount the Scheme has
invested in the fund, the potential financial impact of the vote, the potential stewardship impact of the vote, andwhether the vote was particularly controversial (for example, if it was high profile).
We have only included votes that fell within the periods during which the Scheme was invested in the respective
pooled funds. Additional votes are available upon request.
LGIM UK Equity Index Fund
Company nameSage

BP PlcRoyal Dutch Shell Plc

Date of vote

3 February 2022

5 May 2022

24 May 2022

Summary of theresolution(s)Resolution 11 - Re-electDrummond Hall as
Director

Resolution 3 - Approve
Net Zero - From Ambition
to Action Report

How the manager voted

AgainstFor

Resolution 20 - Approve
the Shell Energy
Transition Progress
UpdateAgainstRationale of voting
decision

Lack of sufficient gender
diversity at Board level.

LGIM believes theCompany has taken
significant steps toprogress towards a net
zero pathway.

Outcome of the vote

94.4% of shareholders
supported the resolution.

88.5% of shareholders
supported the resolution.

LGIM’s Climate Impact
Pledge, in particularconcerns regarding theCompany’s disclosed
plans for oil and gas
production.
79.9% of shareholders
supported the resolution.

Manager criteria for
selecting this vote as“most significant”

LGIM views gender
diversity as a financiallymaterial issue for its
clients, with implications
for the assets it manages
on their behalf.

The vote is linked to
LGIM’s strategy on
climate change and calls
for high quality, credible
transition plans.

The vote is linked to
LGIM’s strategy on
climate change and calls
for high quality, credible
transition plans.

LGIM North America Equity Index Fund
Company nameAmazon.com, Inc.

Apple

Microsoft Corporation

Date of vote

25 May 2022

4 March 2022

30 November 2021

Summary of theresolution(s)Resolution 1f - Elect
Director Daniel P.
Huttenlocher
AgainstResolution 9 - Report on
Civil Rights Audit

Elect Director Satya
NadellaFor

AgainstRationale of voting
decision

The director is a longstanding member of the
Leadership Development& Compensation
Committee which isaccountable for humancapital management
failings.

A vote in favour wasapplied as LGIM
supported proposals
related to diversity andinclusion policies.

LGIM expects the roles of
Chair and CEO to be
separate to ensure aproper balance ofoversight andresponsibility on theboard.

Outcome of the vote

93.3% of shareholders
supported the resolution.

53.6% of shareholders
supported the resolution.

94.7% of shareholders
supported the resolution.

Manager criteria for
selecting this vote as“most significant”

LGIM pre-declared its
vote intention for thisresolution, demonstrating
its significance.

LGIM considers diversity
and inclusion issues to bea material risk tocompanies.

This vote is linked to
LGIM’s application of an
escalation of its votepolicy on the topic of the

How the manager voted

1

combination of the board
chair and CEO.

LGIM Japan Equity Index Fund
Company name

Mitsubishi

Shin-Etsu Chemical Co.

Sumitomo Mitsui
Financial Group, Inc.

Date of vote

24 June 2022

29 June 2022

29 June 2022

Summary of theresolution(s)Resolution 5 - Amend
Articles to Disclose
Greenhouse Gas
Emission Reduction
Targets Aligned with
Goals of Paris Agreement

Resolution 3.1 - Elect
Director Kanagawa,
ChihiroHow the manager voted

For

AgainstResolution 5 - Amend
Articles to Disclose
Measures to be Taken to
Make Sure that theCompany's Lending andUnderwriting are not Used
for Expansion of Fossil
Fuel Supply or AssociatedInfrastructure
For

Rationale of voting
decision

LGIM expects companies
to be taking sufficientaction on the key issue ofclimate change.

A vote against is applied
due to the lack ofmeaningful diversity on
the board. LGIM would
also like to see allcompanies have a third of
the board comprising truly
independent outside
directors.

A vote in support of this
proposal is warranted as
LGIM expects company
boards to devise astrategy and 1.5C-aligned
pathway.

Outcome of the vote20.2% of shareholders
supported the resolution.

N/A

10% of shareholders
supported the resolution.

Manager criteria for
selecting this vote as“most significant”

The vote is linked to
LGIM’s strategy on
climate change.

LGIM views diversity as afinancially material issue
for our clients, with
implications for the assets
we manage on theirbehalf.

The vote is linked to
LGIM’s strategy on
climate change.

LVMH Moet Hennessy
Louis Vuitton SE
21 April 2022

TotalEnergies SE

LGIM Europe (ex UK) Equity Index Fund
Company nameVolkswagen

Date of vote

22 July 2022

Summary of theresolution(s)Resolutions 3.1 to 4.21 –Approve Discharge ofManagement Board andSupervisory Board
members

Resolution 5 - ReelectBernard Arnault as
Director

Resolution 16 - Approve
Company's Sustainability
and Climate Transition
Plan

How the manager voted

AgainstAgainstAgainstRationale of voting
decision

LGIM remained
concerned regarding thehandling of the diesel
emissions scandal of2015 by the management
and supervisory boards
and the overall
governance structure of
the company.

A vote against is applied
as LGIM expects the rolesof Chair and CEO to be
separate to ensure aproper balance ofauthority andresponsibility on theboard.

A vote against is applied
under LGIM’s Climate
Impact Pledge. LGIM
remain concerned about
the company’s planned
upstream production
growth in the short term,
and the absence of further
details on how such plans
are consistent with the
1.5C trajectory.

25 May 20222

Outcome of the vote

99.5% of shareholders
supported the resolution.

92% of shareholders
supported the resolution.

88.9% of shareholders
supported the resolution.

Manager criteria for
selecting this vote as“most significant”

A vote against thedischarge of responsibilityof both the management
and supervisory boards
was a rare step in LGIM's
escalation policy.

This vote is linked to
LGIM’s application of an
escalation of its votepolicy on the topic of the
combination of the board
chair and CEO.

The vote is linked to
LGIM’s strategy on
climate change.

LGIM Asia Pacific (ex-Japan) Developed Equity Index Fund
Company nameGoodman Group

Oversea-Chinese
Banking Corporation
Limited

Rio Tinto Limited

Date of vote18 November 2021

22 April 2022

5 May 2022

Summary of theresolution(s)Elect Rebecca McGrathas Director of Goodman
LimitedResolution 2a - Elect Ooi
Sang Kuang as Director

Resolution 17 - Approve
Climate Action Plan

How the manager voted

AgainstAgainstAgainstRationale of voting
decision

Lack of sufficient gender
diversity at Board level –expect at least 25% ofboard members to be
women.

A vote against is applied
for multiple reasons
including LGIM’s Climate
Impact Pledge (minimum
standards on climate risk
management), a broadlack of independence of
directors in key roles.

A vote against is applied
under LGIM’s Climate
Impact Pledge. LGIM
remain concerned withthe absence ofquantifiable Scope 3
emissions targets (evenacknowledging thechallenges aroundaccountability for this
sector).

Outcome of the vote

79.2% of shareholders
supported the resolution.

74.8% of shareholders
supported the resolution.

84.3% of shareholders
supported the resolution.

Manager criteria for
selecting this vote as“most significant”

LGIM views gender
diversity as a financiallymaterial issue for its
clients, with implications
for the assets it manages
on their behalf.

The vote is linked to
LGIM’s strategy to tackle
climate change.

The vote is linked to
LGIM’s strategy on
climate change.

LGIM World Emerging Market Equity Index Fund
Company name

MeituanIndustrial & Commercial
Bank of China

China Construction
Bank Corporation

Date of vote

18 May 2022

23 June 2022

23 June 2022

Summary of theresolution(s)Resolution 2 - Elect Wang
Xing as Director

Resolution 7 - Elect Chen
Siqing as Director

Resolution 10: Elect
Graeme Wheeler as
Director

How the manager voted

AgainstAgainstAgainstRationale of voting
decision

A vote against is applied
as LGIM expects acompany to have at least
one female on the board
and also expects the rolesof Chair and CEO to be
separate.

A vote against is applied
under LGIM’s Climate
Impact Pledge. LGIM
continue to note concern
with the lack of a clear
thermal coal policy inplace and lack ofdisclosure of scope 3

A vote against is applied
under LGIM’s Climate
Impact Pledge as theCompany has not
published a clear thermal
coal policy and has nodisclosure of scope 3
emissions associated withinvestments.
3Outcome of the vote

91.8% of shareholders
supported the resolution.

Manager criteria for
selecting this vote as“most significant”

LGIM views gender
diversity as a financiallymaterial issue for its
clients, with implications
for the assets it manages
on their behalf. Also
LGIM has a longstanding
policy advocating for the
separation of CEO andboard chair roles.

emissions associated withinvestments.
99% of shareholders
supported the resolution.

95.5% of shareholders
supported the resolution.

The vote is linked to
LGIM’s strategy on
climate change.

The vote is linked to
LGIM’s strategy on
climate change.

Baillie Gifford Multi-Asset Growth Fund
Company name

BHP Group PLC

JC Decaux SA

Galaxy Entertainment
Group LTD

Date of vote

14 October 2021

11 May 2022

12 May 2022

Summary of theresolution(s)Shareholder Resolution Climate

Remuneration

Amendment of Share
Capital

How the manager voted

For

AgainstAgainstRationale of voting
decision

Baillie Gifford supported aresolution requesting thecompany strengthen its
review of industry
associations to ensurethat it identifies areas ofinconsistency with theParis Agreement. Thiswas in line withmanagement's
recommendation.

Baillie Gifford opposed
five resolutions toapprove executive
compensation due toconcerns over the lack ofa clear link between pay
and performance.

Baillie Gifford opposed
two resolutions whichsought authority to issue
equity because thepotential dilution levels
are not in the interests ofshareholders.

Outcome of the vote

Not applicable

Pass

Pass

Manager criteria for
selecting this vote as“most significant”

This resolution issignificant because it was
submitted byshareholders andreceived greater than
20% support.

This resolution issignificant because Baillie
Gifford opposed
remuneration.

This resolution issignificant because it
received greater than
20% opposition.

BlackRock Dynamic Diversified Growth Fund
Company nameCostco Wholesale
Corporation

Samsung Electronics

Rio Tinto

Date of vote20 Jan 2022

16 March 2022

8 April 2022

Summary of theresolution(s)Item 5: Report on GHG
Emissions Reduction
Targets

Item 2: Election of
Directors (multiple
resolutions)

Item 17: Approve Climate
Action Plan

How the manager voted

AgainstFor

For

Rationale of voting
decision

BlackRock believes thisshareholder proposal,
which included arequirement to adopt
reduction targets acrossthe “full value chain” (ieincluding scope 3

BlackRock voted for the
proposed director
elections as proposed
candidates were expected
to improve the company’s

BlackRock voted for the
management proposal
seeking shareholders’approval of the Rio Tinto
Group’s Climate Action
Plan as the action plan,targets and disclosures4

emissions) by July 2022,
is beyond its current
expectations for Costco
given its business modeland emissions profile.

expertise on climate andenvironmental issues.

were consistent withBlackRock’s expectations

Outcome of the vote

Pass. 67% ofshareholders voted for the
resolution.

All resolutions passed.

Pass. 846% ofshareholders supported
the resolution.

Manager criteria for
selecting this vote as“most significant”

This vote fell under one ofBlackRock’s key
engagement priorities(climate and natural
capital).

This vote fell under one ofBlackRock’s key
engagement priorities(climate and natural
capital).

This vote fell under one ofBlackRock’s key
engagement priorities(climate and natural
capital).

LGIM Low Carbon Transition Global Equity Index FundNo significant votes were provided for the following funds during the period of the Scheme Year in which the
Scheme was invested (ie 15 July 2022 to 30 September 2022).
LGIM Low Carbon Transition Global Equity Index Fund – GBP Hedged
No significant votes were provided for the following funds during the period of the Scheme Year in which the
Scheme was invested (ie 15 July 2022 to 30 September 2022).

5