We meet with the CEO to discuss the company's strategy, including decarbonisation and its role in the energy transition.

We meet with the climate team to discuss the CAP.

We supported the revised CAP at the 2025 AGM, recognising specific improvements, including clearer Scope 3 decarbonisation milestones and signposting of climate-related matters as notes to the financial accounts. This supports our assessment of whether the company is making value-accretive investments that preserve competitiveness and avoid value-destructive outcomes such as stranded assets, unexpected capital expenditure or higher operating costs linked to evolving policy and customer requirements.

We continue to monitor progress and how the company is influencing capital allocation in relation to the decarbonisation of downstream emissions. This is particularly relevant for the company's iron ore franchise due to the challenging nature of carbon abatement in the steel value chain and the risk that future pricing and demand for the company's output could be materially impacted by regulation of, and customer sensitivity to, such emissions. We meet with the CFO to discuss company strategy, including capital allocation and decarbonisation.

We meet with the CFO to discuss company strategy, including capital allocation and decarbonisation.

We meet with IR to discuss the Palliser campaign.

At the 2025 AGM, we oppose Palliser’s proposal and support the CAP.

We meet with the decarbonisation manager and IR to discuss our support for the CAP and the company, emphasising the long-term economic rationale for decarbonisation.

We follow up with the decarbonisation manager on physical climate risk, workforce wellbeing and value chain decarbonisation.

We voted against the shareholder proposal at the 2025 AGM, aligning with management's view that the costs and risks outweigh the potential benefits. The board and management disagreed with Palliser's claims that the dual-class structure, where some shareholders have more voting powers than others, blocks share-based mergers, and we learnt that the tax costs of unification would be much higher than Palliser had estimated. We were unconvinced that an independent review would add value to long-term shareholders, given that an internal review had been conducted in 2024.

Following the improvements seen in the CAP, we are assessing the company's physical risk adaptation and resilience measures. Through our initial engagements, we have learnt that the company has made progress in integrating physical climate risk into business planning and in conducting more detailed scenario analysis. Adaptation planning can reduce the risk of sudden cost shocks or asset impairments over the life of operations, supporting more stable, predictable cash flows. Our engagement is ongoing as we seek to understand the company's actions and progress towards quantifying adaptation costs and sharing best practices across sites better.