skip to Main Content

1. Background

The Trustees of the Travel Automation Services Limited Benefits Scheme (the “Scheme”) are required to produce a yearly statement to set out how, and the extent to which, the Trustees have followed the Scheme’s Statement of Investment Principles (“SIP”) during the previous Scheme year, in relation to engagement and voting behaviour, either by or on behalf of the Trustees, or if a proxy voter was used.

This statement should be read in conjunction with the SIP and has been produced in accordance with The Pension Protection Fund (Pensionable Service) and Occupational Pension Schemes (Investment and Disclosure) (Amendment and Modification) Regulations 2018 and the subsequent amendment in The Occupational Pension Schemes (Investment and Disclosure) (Amendment) Regulations 2019.

A copy of the most recent SIP can be found online at:

2. Voting and Engagement

The Trustees are keen that their managers are signatories to the UK Stewardship Code, which they are.

All the Trustees’ holdings are within pooled funds and the Trustees have delegated to their investment managers the exercise of voting rights. Therefore, the Trustees are not able to direct how votes are exercised and the Trustees have not used proxy voting services over the year.
The Scheme invested in the following funds over the year:


  • BlackRock BIJF Dynamic Diversified Growth Fund


  • Insight Broad Opportunities Fund

Legal & General Investment Management (LGIM):

  • LGIM All World Equity Index Fund
  • LGIM Active Corporate Bond – Over 10 Year Fund
  • LGIM Over 15 Year Gilts Index Fund
  • LGIM LDI Matching Core Long Fund – Nominal
  • LGIM LDI Matching Core Short Fund – Real
  • LGIM LDI Matching Core Long Fund – Real
  • LGIM Over 5 Year Index-Linked Gilts Index Fund

The underlined funds are predominantly fixed income and do not hold physical equities and hence there are no voting rights and voting data for the Trustees to report on.

a. Description of Investment Manager’s voting processes


“Proxy voting at BlackRock is centralized within the Investment Stewardship team of over 70 specialists. The team is globally coordinated but regionally focused and based as this allows us to take local market norms into consideration in our voting process. The analysts in each regional team generally take responsibility for specific sectors. They are responsible for voting analysis, voting-related engagement and the vote determination and instruction. In each region, an advisory committee of representatives of different BlackRock investment teams receives periodic reports on voting but it does not determine how to vote.

As a fiduciary to our clients, our firm is built to support the long-term value of assets our clients are invested in. From BlackRock’s perspective, sound management of business-relevant sustainability issues can contribute to a company’s sustainable long-term financial performance. Incorporating these considerations into the investment research, portfolio construction, and stewardship process can enhance long-term risk adjusted returns for our clients.

Voting is the most broad-based form of engagement we have with companies, providing a channel for feedback to the board and management about investor perceptions of their performance and governance practices. BlackRock votes annually at more than 18,000 shareholder meetings, taking a case-by-case approach to the items put to a shareholder vote. Our analysis is informed by our internally developed proxy voting guidelines, our pre-vote engagements, research, and the situational factors at a particular company.

We aim to vote at all shareholder meetings of companies in which our clients are invested. In cases where there are significant obstacles to voting, such as share blocking or requirements for a power of attorney, we will review the resolutions to assess the extent of the restrictions on voting against the potential benefits. We generally prefer to engage with the company in the first instance where we have concerns and give management time to address the issue. We will vote in favor of proposals where we support the approach taken by a company’s management or where we have engaged on matters of concern and anticipate management will address them. BlackRock will not support management proposals where we believe the board or management may not have adequately acted to advance the interests of long-term investors. We ordinarily refrain from abstaining from both management and shareholder proposals, unless abstaining is the valid vote option (in accordance with company by-laws) for not supporting management, there is a lack of disclosure regarding the proposal to be voted, or an abstention is the only way to implement our voting intention. In all situations the economic interests of our clients will be paramount.

Our voting guidelines are intended to help clients and companies understand our thinking on key governance matters. They are the benchmark against which we assess a company’s approach to corporate governance and the items on the agenda to be voted on at the shareholder meeting. We apply our guidelines pragmatically, taking into account a company’s unique circumstances where relevant. We inform voting decisions through research and engage as necessary. We review our voting guidelines annually and update them as necessary to reflect changes in market standards, evolving governance practice and insights gained from engagement over the prior year.

BlackRock voting guidelines:

  • Australian securities
  • Hong Kong securities
  • Asia ex Japan and Hong Kong securities
  • Latin America securities (in English and Spanish)
  • Canadian securities
  • Europe, Middle Eastern and African (EMEA) securities
  • US securities
  • Chinese securities (in English and Simplified Chinese)
  • Japanese securities (in English and Japanese)

Our market-specific voting guidelines are available on our website at


Insight describes their voting process as follows:

“Insight retains the services of Minerva Analytics (Minerva) for the provision of proxy voting services and votes at meetings where it is deemed appropriate and responsible to do so. Minerva provides research expertise and voting tools through sophisticated proprietary IT systems allowing Insight to take and demonstrate responsibility for voting decisions. Independent corporate governance analysis is drawn from thousands of market, national and international legal and best practice provisions from jurisdictions around the world. Independent and impartial research provides advance notice of voting events and rules-based analysis to ensure contentious issues are identified. Minerva Analytics analyses any resolution against Insight-specific voting policy templates which will determine the direction of the vote.”

Legal & General Investment Management (LGIM)

Legal & General Investment Management (LGIM) describe their processes as follows:

“All decisions are made by LGIM’s Investment Stewardship team and in accordance with their 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. This ensures their stewardship approach flows smoothly throughout the engagement and voting process and that engagement is fully integrated into the vote decision process, therefore sending consistent messaging to companies.

LGIM’s voting and engagement activities are driven by ESG professionals and their assessment of the requirements in these areas seeks to achieve the best outcome for clients. Their voting policies are reviewed annually and take into account feedback from 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 their views directly to the members of the Investment Stewardship team. The views expressed by attendees during this event form a key consideration as LGIM continue to develop their voting and engagement policies and define strategic priorities in the years ahead. They also take into account client feedback received at regular meetings and/ or ad-hoc comments or enquiries.

LGIM’s Investment Stewardship team uses ISS’s ‘Proxy Exchange’ electronic voting platform to electronically vote clients’ shares. All voting decisions are made by LGIM and they do not outsource any part of the strategic decisions. Their use of ISS recommendations is to augment their 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 they receive from ISS for UK companies when making specific voting decisions.

To ensure their proxy provider votes in accordance with their 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 they believe all companies globally should observe, irrespective of local regulation or practice.

LGIM retain the ability in all markets to override any vote decisions, which are based on LGIM’s 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 their voting judgement. LGIM have strict monitoring controls to ensure their votes are fully and effectively executed in accordance with their voting policies by their 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.
For more information on how we use the services of proxy providers, please refer to the following document available on our website:
b. Summary of voting behaviour over the year


Summary Info
Manager nameBlackRock
Fund nameDynamic Diversified Growth Fund
Approximate value of Trustees’ assets£5.5M as at 31 March 2023
Number of meetings eligible to vote893
Number of resolutions eligible to vote11775
% of resolutions voted10948 votes | 92.98%
% of resolutions for votes9965 votes | 84.63%
% of resolutions against votes758 votes | 6.44 %
% of resolutions voted with management10378 votes | 88.14%
% of resolutions voted against management570 votes | 4.84 %
% of resolutions abstained155 votes| 1.32%
% of resolutions withheld38 votes | 0.32%



Summary Info
Manager nameInsight
Fund nameBroad Opportunities Fund
Approximate value of Trustees’ assets£7.3m as at 31 March 2023
Number of equity holdings in the fund11
Number of meetings eligible to vote11
Number of resolutions eligible to vote152
% of resolutions voted100%
% of resolutions voted with management100%
% of resolutions voted against management0%
% of resolutions abstained0.0%
% of resolutions voted, for which at least one vote was against management0%



A summary of voting behaviour over the period is provided in the tables below.

Summary Info
Manager nameLGIM
Fund nameAll World Equity Index Fund
Approximate value of Trustees’ assets£ 5.3m as at 31 March 2023
Number of equity holdings in the fund4560
Number of meetings eligible to vote6728
Number of resolutions eligible to vote68320
% of resolutions voted99.88%
% of resolutions voted with management79.13%
% of resolutions voted against management19.68%
% of resolutions abstained1.18%
% of resolutions voted, for which at least one vote was against management63.38%


c. Most significant votes over the year

Legal & General Investment Management (LGIM)

Legal & General Investment management (LGIM) describes its process for determining the ‘most significant’ votes as follows:

“As regulation on vote reporting has recently evolved with the introduction of the concept of ‘significant vote’ by the EU Shareholder Rights Directive II, LGIM wants to ensure they continue to help their clients in fulfilling their reporting obligations. LGIM also believe public transparency of their vote activity is critical for their clients and interested parties to hold LGIM to account.

For many years, LGIM has regularly produced case studies and/or summaries of LGIM’s vote positions to clients for what they deemed were ‘material votes’. LGIM are evolving their approach in line with the new regulation and are committed to provide their clients access to ‘significant vote’ information.

In determining significant votes, LGIM’s Investment Stewardship team takes into account the criteria provided by the Pensions & Lifetime Savings Association consultation (PLSA). This includes but is not limited to:

  • High profile vote which has such a degree of controversy that there is high client and/or public scrutiny;
  • Significant client interest for a vote: directly communicated by clients to the Investment Stewardship team at LGIM’s annual Stakeholder roundtable event, or where LGIM note a significant increase in requests from clients on a particular vote;
  • Sanction vote as a result of a direct or collaborative engagement;
  • Vote linked to an LGIM engagement campaign, in line with LGIM Investment Stewardship’s 5-year ESG priority engagement themes.

LGIM provide information on significant votes in the format of detailed case studies in our quarterly ESG impact report and annual active ownership publications.
The vote information is updated on a daily basis and with a lag of one day after a shareholder meeting is held. We also provide the rationale for all votes cast against management, including votes of support to shareholder resolutions.
If you have any additional questions on specific votes, please note that LGIM publicly discloses its vote instructions on our website at:


Insight describes its process for determining the ‘most significant’ votes as follows:

“The strategy invests in listed closed-end investment companies with a focus on cash-generative investments in social and public, renewable energy and economic infrastructure sectors. The corporate structure of closed-end investment companies held in the strategy includes an independent board which is responsible for providing an overall oversight function on behalf of all shareholders. This governance framework includes a range of aspects including setting out investment objectives, and on an ongoing basis ensuring that the underlying strategy and portfolio activities within it remain within the agreed framework. This governance framework, that is with an independent board acting on behalf of shareholders, generally limits contentious issues that can arise with other listed entities. As a result, examples of significant votes cast that may be comparable to other listed entities are not applicable to the strategy’s exposures.”


BlackRock describes its process for determining the ‘most significant’ votes as follows:

“BIS prioritizes its work around themes that we believe will encourage sound governance practices and deliver sustainable long-term financial performance at the companies in which we invest on behalf of our clients. BIS’ year-round engagements with clients to understand their focus areas and expectations, as well as our active participation in market-wide policy debates, help inform these priorities. The themes we have identified are reflected and updated annually in our Global Principles, market-specific voting guidelines and engagement priorities; these public documents underpin our stewardship activities and form the benchmark against which we look at the sustainable long-term financial performance of investee companies.

BIS periodically published “Vote Bulletins” on key votes at shareholder meetings to provide insight into details on certain vote decisions we expect will be of particular interest to clients. These bulletins are intended to explain our vote decisions relating to a range of business issues including ESG matters that we consider, based on our global Principles and engagement priorities, potentially material to a company’s sustainable long-term financial performance. Other factors we may consider in deciding to publish a vote bulletin include the profile of the issue in question, the level of interest we expect in the vote decision and the extent of engagement we have had with the company. The bulletins include relevant company-specific background, sector or local market context, and engagement history when applicable. BIS publishes vote bulletins after the shareholder meeting to provide transparency for clients and other stakeholders on our approach to the votes that we consider to be most significant and thus require more detailed explanation.

BIS publishes vote bulletins after the shareholder meeting to provide transparency for clients and other stakeholders on our approach to the votes that we consider to be most significant and thus require more detailed explanation. We publish details of other significant votes (including vote rationales, where applicable) quarterly on the BIS website.
Our vote bulletins can be found here


d. Most significant votes over the year by Fund

Most Significant votes for BlackRock:

BlackRock – Dynamic Growth Fund

Below are some examples of significant votes over the period, more information is available on request:

Vote 1:

Vote 2:

Most Significant Votes for Insight

Insight – Broad Opportunities Fund

Insight do not provide significant votes for their funds, see above, therefore there are no examples to show.

Most Significant votes for LGIM

LGIM – All World Equity Index Fund

Below are some examples of significant votes over the period, more information is available on request:

Vote 1Vote 2
Company, Inc.Alphabet Inc.
Date of vote2022-05-252022-06-01
Approximate size of fund’s holding as at the date of the vote (as % of portfolio)1.7085021.107098
Summary of the resolutionResolution 1f – Elect Director Daniel P. HuttenlocherResolution 7 – Report on Physical Risks of Climate Change
How you votedAgainstFor
Where you voted against management, did you communicate your intent to the company ahead of the vote?LGIM publicly communicates its vote instructions on its website with the rationale for all votes against management. It is our policy not to engage with our investee companies in the three weeks prior to an AGM as our engagement is not limited to shareholder meeting topics.LGIM publicly communicates its vote instructions on its website with the rationale for all votes against management. It is our policy not to engage with our investee companies in the three weeks prior to an AGM as our engagement is not limited to shareholder meeting topics.
Rationale for the voting decisionHuman rights: A vote against is applied as the director is a long-standing member of the Leadership Development & Compensation Committee which is accountable for human capital management failings.Shareholder Resolution – Climate change: A vote in favour is applied as LGIM expects companies to be taking sufficient action on the key issue of climate change.
Outcome of the vote93.3%17.7%
Implications of the outcome eg were there any lessons learned and what likely future steps will you take in response to the outcome?LGIM will continue to engage with our investee companies, publicly advocate our position on this issue and monitor company and market-level progress.LGIM will continue to engage with our investee companies, publicly advocate our position on this issue and monitor company and market-level progress.
On which criteria (as explained in the cover email) have you assessed this vote to be “most significant”?LGIM pre-declared its vote intention for this resolution, demonstrating its significance.LGIM considers this vote significant as it is an escalation of our climate-related engagement activity and our public call for high quality and credible transition plans to be subject to a shareholder vote.
Back To Top