The Director provided the Board with an update on decisions made by the Authority and its Committees, and any decisions taken under the urgency procedure between meetings of the Authority.

The Independent Advisor asked the Director to further expand on item 15 around the Border to Coast Responsible Investments and a councillor’s dissent to this item. The Independent Advisor advised the Board that they should be aware of increasing discussion and debate on responsible investment and divesting to ensure that Board discussions are held in an informed way and that the decisions made by the Authority are in line with the interests of the members and employers whilst taking the risks and issues into account.

Members requested further insight into the dissent which was noted in the December Authority meeting and more context around some of the decisions that were made.

The Director responded that Border to Coast have three policies which are collectively endorsed.

These are reviewed annually and come through to partner funds for endorsement. In line with the consensus view across the partnership, the broad policy framework favours engagement with companies over divestment.

There are certain types of company that Border to Coast won’t invest in and are excluded such as Coal and Tar sands producers. The number of companies excluded is gradually increasing to support the climate objectives, however there are no blanket exclusions.

The view of the Councillor concerned is that the Authority should not invest in companies operating in the fossil fuel sector, however this is not the view across the partnership, and it is legitimate that they ask for their dissent to be noted.

This is an area of increasing debate and something the Authority is regularly lobbied on. Many of these things pose risk to the Fund’s investment so if a company does not have a clear plan to transition away from carbon etc then investment managers will make decisions around this.

Members further probed around whether there had been similar discussions and dissent at other authorities and what the risk of getting this consensus was at the Border to Coast level.

The Director responded that similar dissent has been made in other funds but equally they have come from the opposing view also. It was difficult for Border to Coast to achieve consensus however they have successfully done so as every partner fund has endorsed the policy framework.

Member expressed interest in the Staff Survey and asked whether there was anything they should be aware of that stood out in the results.

The Director responded that the results were very positive, and the net promoter score had moved from a minus number into a positive. The survey did highlight areas for improvement, one being the perceived lack of progression opportunities amongst some groups of staff, however the SMT were already aware of this, and work is in hand to deal with this.

Overall, the survey didn’t flag anything SMT were not already aware of, but reinforced the direction of travel.

RESOLVED: Members noted and commented upon the decisions included in the report.