Global Trends in Investor Relations

Global Trends in Investor Relations TWELFTH EDITION — FEBRUARY 2020

INSIDE FRONT COVER

Table of Contents 3 Letter from Christopher Kearns, CEO of Depositary Receipts 5 Investor Relations Ofﬁcers Reﬁne Strategy in Challenging Times 13 Global ESG Agenda Driven by Investors 21 Investor Relations Responses to Geopolitical Change 27 Impact of Evolving Sell-Side Structure on Investor Relations Teams 35 Methodology

BNY Mellon is committed to producing and supporting this industry-wide research for the investor relations community and as a tool to assist our clients. 2

Dear Clients and Friends, Once again we are excited to share with you Global Trends in Investor Relations, our report on our biannual IR survey. This is the twelfth edition of this landmark report, based on the longest-running and most comprehensive global survey of the investor relations industry. This year we bring to you the views of 335 IR professionals from 41 countries, sharing their perspectives on how the ﬁeld of investor relations is changing to meet the evolving expectations of shareholders and other stakeholders. We highlight IR professionals’ responsiveness to challenges facing the industry, including a growing focus on Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG), the growth of passive investing, and how companies continue to reﬁne and enhance their engagement with core stakeholders to navigate challenging global markets. According to respondents to the survey, investors are driving the ESG agenda for corporate issuers, who have responded to the challenge by increasing disclosure and focusing their outreach. For example, in Western Europe a full 64.5% of companies reported that they held ESG-focused meetings with their investors. However, we did ﬁnd a mismatch in attendees at these meetings, with issuers reporting that 83.3% of investors brought an ESG specialist, while only 27.7% of companies brought someone from their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) team. BNY Mellon continues to produce and support this industry-wide research for the investor relations community and as a tool to assist our clients as they face the challenging capital markets and a changing investor landscape. Our advice to our clients is grounded on this extensive data, and our team of industry veterans builds on this analysis to deliver actionable insights. We hope that you ﬁnd this work as valuable as we do. Our Global Investor Relations Advisory team looks forward to sharing the insights we have derived from the survey as we continue to help our clients to navigate global capital markets. Regards, Christopher Kearns Chief Executive Ofﬁcer Depositary Receipts 3

Investor Relations O!cers Reifne Strategy in Challenging Times 5

Investor Relations O!cers Reifne Strategy in Challenging Times INVESTOR RELATIONS FUNCTIONS AND STRATEGY With global investoƒ sentiment affected by news from developed markets, investor relations (IR) teams have been refocusing their strategy. IR teams are emphasizing strategic engagement, 71.3% of respondents globally reported adoption of stewardship codes by investors, with a focus on existing shareholders as well as that the IR function is responsible for encouraging the IR teams to engage with new engagement. They are particularly involved communicating with investors on ESG/ investors on these topics. in communications regarding Environmental, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) issues. Social and Governance (ESG) and engagement This high proportion may be connected to Interestingly, 14.4% of the time of Corporate with their debt investors, and are also expanding the growth in recent years in ESG investing Governance Ofﬁcer/CSR teams of respondents their relationships with ratings agencies. (global sustainable investing assets grew 34% globally was spent with the ﬁnancial media, 1 more than double the 7.1% in 2017. This increase from 2016 to 2018, from $22.9 bn to $30.7bn ), Engagement with existing and prospective the push from the Sustainable Stock was driven mainly by respondents in Emerging institutional investors remain the top Exchanges Initiative and the increasing Asia (21.4%) and North America (17.1%). priorities for C-suite management and Investor Relations Ofﬁcers (IROs) of respondents globally, with 44.8% of C-suite TIME SPENT BY CORPORATE GOVERNANCE and 38.0% of IRO time devoted to existing OFFICER/CSR TEAMS WITH FINANCIAL MEDIA The goal of expanding or institutional investors in 2019 and 24.5% enhancing engagement of C-suite and 25.5% of IRO time devoted to 2017 with existing shareholders prospective institutional investors. This mirrors 7.1 % went up from 50.2% in the top IR goal selected by respondents globally: to expand or enhance engagement 2019 2017 to 61.5% in 2019. with existing shareholders, a goal chosen by 14.4% 61.5% of respondents in 2019, versus 50.2% in 2017. 1 Global Sustainable Investment Alliance. 2018 Global Sustainable Investment Review. Page 8. Retrieved January 29, 2020 from http://www.gsi-alliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/GSIR_Review2018F.pdf. 6

Breakdown of time devoted to investor relations activities C-suite Investor Relations Ofﬁcer Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility l l l 2017 2019 47.6% 44.8% EXISTING 37.9% INSTITUTIONAL 38.0% 66.8% INVESTORS 54.7% 25.0% 24.5% PROSPECTIVE 26.4% INSTITUTIONAL 25.5% 16.4% INVESTORS 16.0% 19.6% 21.0% SELL-SIDE 27.6% ANALYSTS/ 27.7% EQUITY SALES 6.2% 9.1% 2.9% 3.6% 5.0% RETAIL 5.3% INVESTORS 3.5% 5.8% 4.9% 6.1% 3.0% FINANCIAL 3.4% MEDIA 7.1 % 14.4% 7

We observed in this survey IR teams’ signiﬁcant engagement with debt investors and rating agencies, driven by respondents in Latin 62.7% America (53.3% and 62.7%, respectively) and Western Europe (51.6% and 38.7%, 53.3% RATING DEBT AGENCY respectively). By sector, Energy (both 55.0%), INVESTOR RELATIONS 51.6% Financials (52.2% and 60.9%) and Consumer RELATIONS DEBT 38.7% Staples (42.9% and 57.1%) companies showed INVESTOR RATING RELATIONS AGENCY a strong focus on communications with their RELATIONS debt investors and rating agencies, respectively. GLOBAL Which of the following are the responsibilities of the investor ASIA LATIN NORTH WESTERN relations department? PACIFIC AMERICA AMERICA EUROPE ENHANCED ESG/CSR communication with investors 71.3% 74.1% 74.7% 71.4% 67.7% Competitive analysis 63.9% 64.7% 50.7% 73.8% 35.5% Rating agency relations 40.7% 31.7% 62.7% 33.3% 38.7% Debt investor relations 38.8% 23.7% 53.3% 40.5% 51.6% Employee engagement 19.3% 23.0% 14.7% 23.8% 12.9% TRADITIONAL Financial disclosure development and reporting 75.9% 69.8% 94.7% 69.0% 77.4% Retail investor engagement 66.8% 70.5% 65.3% 59.5% 90.3% Engagement with investors and/or advisors 63.3% 55.4% 56.0% 76.2% 80.6% on proxy and voting Proxy and voting strategy 33.9% 32.4% 41.3% 26.2% 61.3% 8

ENGAGEMENT AND What is the involvement of your company’s most senior COMMUNICATION STRATEGY investor relations executive at board of directors’ meetings? Investor relations teams’ engagement GLOBAL 2015 2017 2019 with their boards of directors and key l l l shareholders has continued to grow Attends Board of Directors’ meetings in some capacity over the past ﬁve years. 55.7% In 2019, 63.5% of respondents globally 57.2% reported that their IROs attend Board of Directors’ meetings in some capacity, 63.5% compared to 57.2% in 2017 and 55.7% in 2015. Attends Board of Directors’ meetings and presents frequently 21.9% 63.5% 22.9% 28.8% IROs ATTEND BOARD OF Attends Board of Directors’ meetings and presents sometimes DIRECTORS’ MEETINGS 27.1% 2019 27.8% 29.9% Attends Board of Directors’ meetings but does not present 6.7% 6.5% 4.8% Does not attend Board of Directors’ meetings 44.3% 42.8% 36.5% 9

In line with the ongoing global trend of Has your company investment moving from active to passive communicated with asset 20.5% 15.8% styles, the percentage of respondents’ management ifrms with 33.1% companies communicating with passive 38.2% investors increased in 2019 to 38.2% from a predominantly passive 33.1% in 2017, with the largest increase in investment style in the 46.4% 46.1% Emerging Asia (33.9% vs. 20%) and North past 12 months? America (52.4% vs. 37.7%). Yes No Uncertain These meetings and communications with l l l 2017 2019 passive investors involved fully 92.6% of respondent companies’ IROs, with 15.8% involving a member of the Board. Who was involved in the meeting discussion with those ifrms? 2017 2019 l l Investor Relations 91.9% “ Since the end of 2006, Ofﬁcer 92.6% investors have withdrawn 42.8% nearly $1.2 trillion from actively CFO 37.9% managed U.S. equity mutual CEO 29.5% funds, and have allocated 22.8% roughly $1.4 trillion to U.S. Corporate Governance 21.6% equity index funds and Ofﬁcer 18.9% 2 exchange-traded funds (ETFs).” Board Members 13.5% 15.8% Other 10.2% 16.7% 2 Forbes. Passive Investing Vehicles Close the Gap with Active Management. Retrieved on January 29, 2020 from https://www.forbes.com/sites/ greatspeculations/2019/02/04/passive-investing-vehicles-close-the-gap-with-active-management. 10

GUIDANCE PRACTICES Globally, 39.5% of respondents reported providing guidance quarterly on at least some portion of their ifnancials, 33.9% reported disclosing guidance annually, and 19.1% do not report any guidance. Companies that do not give guidance were mainly from EMEA (25.3%) and Latin America (24.0%). Respondents generally reported that they do not plan to change their guidance practices (86.7%). Only 8.9% globally declared an intention to increase the frequency of their guidance. 11

Global ESG Agenda Driven by Investors 13

Global ESG Agenda Driven by Investors Since our last Survey in 2017, we have seen the number of investors incorporating ESG considerations into their investment process increase. For example, the Principles for Responsible conducting ESG-focused meetings dropped by have become more active participants. Investment (PRI) signatories grew by close approximately 9% since 2017, to 40.9%. Upon Consequently, ESG-only meetings have become 3 to 40% over the last two years. Given this further reﬂection, we believe that ESG has less commonplace and ESG issues are being increase, we were at ﬁrst surprised to see that become more ingrained into the investment discussed in concert with other aspects of the the percentage of IR teams reporting they were process, and portfolio managers and analysts company’s performance. ESG-FOCUSED INVESTOR MEETINGS ESG-FOCUSED INVESTOR MEETINGS REGIONS WITH MOST ESG-FOCUSED DECLINED INVESTORS MEETINGS 79.3% 71.6% 63.5% 64.5% 50.0% 49.6% 47.8% 40.9% 46.2% 30.7% 2017 2019 2017 2019 2017 2019 2017 2019 2017 2019 GLOBAL ASIA PACIFIC LATIN AMERICA JAPAN WESTERN EUROPE 3 Principles for Responsible Investment. Signatory Growth. Retrieved January 29, 2020 from https://www.unpri.org/pri. 14

Interestingly, the data shows a mismatch of these meetings (83.3%). On the company side, 40.1% involved a member of their C-suite attendees at ESG-focused investor meetings. however, the main attendees were IROs (91.6%), management team in these meetings, only A high proportion of respondents reported with only 27.7% of the meetings involving 16.2% included a member of their board. that investors brought an ESG specialist to someone from a company CSR team. While GLOBAL Who attended ESG-focused ASIA LATIN NORTH WESTERN investor meetings? PACIFIC AMERICA AMERICA EUROPE COMPANY SIDE Investor Relations Ofﬁcer 91.6% 82.6% 91.3% 100.0% 95.0% Management (CEO, CFO, etc.) 40.1% 34.8% 26.1% 43.8% 45.0% ESG/CSR/Sustainability team 27.7% 27.5% 34.8% 18.8% 55.0% Board of directors 16.2% 15.9% 8.7% 25.0% 10.0% Corporate/Company secretary 15.5% 8.7% 8.7% 31.3% 15.0% Legal counsel 6.3% 7.2% 0.0% 12.5% 0.0% Human resources 4.5% 5.8% 0.0% 6.3% 0.0% Other 3.1% 2.9% 4.3% 0.0% 5.0% INVESTOR SIDE ESG specialist 83.3% 85.5% 69.6% 87.5% 100.0% Portfolio manager 64.6% 49.3% 60.9% 75.0% 75.0% Equity analyst 55.2% 50.7% 78.3% 56.3% 50.0% Corporate governance/stewardship team 37.1% 34.8% 39.1% 43.8% 40.0% Other 0.6% 0.0% 4.3% 0.0% 0.0% 15

Does the Investor Relations department monitor its ESG ratings? Monitor Does not monitor l l BY YEAR GLOBAL 2015 2017 2019 41.2% 45.2% 61.7% Survey responses afﬁrmed an ongoing trend BY MARKET CAP of companies devoting more attention to their ESG scores, possibly reﬂecting increased MEGA 82.5% investor demand for this information. 61.7% of respondents said they monitor their ESG ratings, up from 45.2% in 2017 and 41.2% in LARGE 76.6% 2015. In general, the bigger the market cap, the higher the percentage of companies monitoring their ESG ratings (mega 82.5%, MID 57.7% large 76.6%, mid 57.7%, small 29.0%, micro 38.5%). This could be due to more resources; mega- and large-cap companies reported an SMALL 29.0% average of 8.9 and 4.3 IR team members, while small- and micro-cap companies reported 2.9 and 1.8 IR team members. MICRO 38.5% 16

ENGAGEMENT Only a small percentage of respondents Below are the contacts for the agree with the analysis of their top ESG rating providers as chosen company by ESG rating providers by respondents: MSCI (12.3%); engagement with these data Samantha Sue Ping Head of ESG Issuer Communications providers is one possible way to close esgissuercomm@msci.com an information gap. Sustainalytics Eric Fernald In 2019, 51.5% of respondents had Director, Sustainalytics Issuer Relations issuer.relations@sustainalytics.com communicated with an ESG rating provider in the past 12 months, an increase from 34.0% in 2017, but still, only slightly more than half. 17

4 In 2019 we asked if respondents were familiar mainstream ﬁlings. A majority of respondents With the increasing focus on investors’ ESG with the Task Force on Climate-related globally were either not familiar with (53.1%) concerns, we asked issuers what questions Financial Disclosures (TCFD), an organization or uncertain about (15.0%) the TCFD. The 31.9% they receive from investors on ESG issues. founded in 2015 but growing in prominence of respondents who reported that they are Governance questions, i.e., board composition recently. TCFD was formed to develop a set of familiar with the organization were mainly in and structure (51%), dominate the discussion recommendations for voluntary and consistent Developed Asia (71.3%), followed by Western across sectors globally. climate-related ﬁnancial risk disclosures in Europe (45.2%) and North America (38.1%). Investor relations departments monitoring ESG ratings DOES NOT GLOBAL ASIA PACIFIC LATIN AMERICA NORTH AMERICA WESTERN EUROPE MONITOR 38.3% 36.0% 44.0% 31.0% 32.3% MONITORS 61.7% 64.0% 56.0% 69.0% 67.7% ESG rating providers chosen by respondents % 1 % . 1 58 . % 57 4 . % % 50 % 2 5 0 % % . 5 5 44. 44. . . 45 % 40 40 5 % % . 5 1 35 . % . % 30 3 30 8 % . % % . 9 9 25 . 25 0 % . . 7 % 20 % 20 . 1 % 20 4 % 18 6. 7 4. 5 1 . % 1 % 13 3 11. % 5 % 9. % 2 9. % 8 % 1 7. % % 7 2 7. 1 0 2. 4. 3. 2. 0. MSCI SUSTAINALYTICS ISS VIGEO EIRIS REPRISK OTHER 4 Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB). Everything you need to know about the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure. Retrieved on January 29, 2020 from https://www.cdsb.net/task-force/639/everything-you-need-know-about-task-force-climate-related-ﬁnancial-disclosures. 18

Has there been an increase in the following ESG questions from investors in the past 12 months? RANGE: 0%–9% 10%–19% 20%–29% 30%–39% 40%– and above l l l l l CONSUMER BASIC DISCRET- CONSUMER YES GLOBAL MATERIALS IONARY STAPLES ENERGY FINANCIALS HEALTHCARE INDUSTRIALS TECHNOLOGY TELECOM UTILITIES Board composition 50.7% 55.6% 61.5% 42.9% 50.0% 47.8% 55.6% 50.0 % 47.8.% 54.5% 60.0% and structure Diversity & 41.7% 55.6% 43.6% 32.1% 50.0% 44.9% 33.3% 36.4% 30.4% 27.3% 40.0% inclusion Climate change and 34.9% 48.1% 25.6% 42.9% 55.0% 37.7% 27.8% 43.2% 17.4% 27.3% 55.0% carbon emissions Executive 34.2% 29.6% 43.6% 28.6% 35.0% 42.0% 44.4% 31.8% 23.9% 45.5% 40.0% compensation Energy efﬁciency 30.7% 51.9% 23.1% 35.7% 45.0% 31.9% 22.2% 40.9% 15.2% 31.8% 40.0% Data protection 28.3% 11.1% 28.2% 14.3% 10.0% 40.6% 16.7% 29.5% 32.6% 22.7% 25.0% and privacy Pollution and 26.8% 59.3% 20.5% 50.0% 25.0% 17.4% 16.7% 31.8% 17.4% 18.2% 40.0% waste management Labor standards 24.3% 18.5% 30.8% 42.9% 25.0% 24.6% 22.2% 34.1% 21.7% 22.7% 25.0% Issues regarding the United Nations Sustainable 23.7% 25.9% 25.6% 32.1% 30.0% 29.0% 16.7% 20.5% 19.6% 27.3% 25.0% Development Goals (SDG) Voting rights 21.3% 33.3% 30.8% 28.6% 15.0% 29.0% 11.1% 20.5% 17.4% 31.8% 15.0% Bribery & 18.9% 7.4% 17.9% 25.0% 30.0% 33.3% 16.7% 22.7% 8.7% 13.6% 20.0% corruption Political contributions 11.8% 11.1% 7.7 % 7.1 % 15.0% 14.5% 11.1% 25.0% 0.0% 9.1% 30.0% & lobbying 19

Investor Relations Responses to Geopolitical Change 21

Investor Relations Responses to Geopolitical Change Respondents expressed heightened concern about global economic turmoil, weighing both the impact of the economic environment on their companies and those issues that affect overall market conﬁdence. The percentage of respondents that chose Moreover, the global trade environment has domestic and the global economic environments risen in perceived inﬂuence, chosen by 72.8% as primary factors inﬂuencing investor demand in 2019, up from 41.4% in 2017. It ties as the for their companies decreased from 2015 to top concern with geopolitical risk, also 72.8%, 2017, but increased from 2017 to 2019. which was also the issue of top concern in 2017. Primary factor(s) inlfuencing investor demand for your company? 2015 2017 2019 GLOBAL TRADE ENVIRONMENT HAS l l l BECOME A GREATER CONCERN Domestic economic environment 55.7% 52.1% 63.4% 2019 72.8% Global economic environment 2017 41.7% 41.4% 32.5% 42.6% 22

Please indicate how important an impact you believe each of the following issues currently has on overall global market conifdence Very important or important Somewhat important Of little importance or not important at all — 2019 Lower ranking — 2019 Higher ranking l l l 2017 2019 55.7% 72.8% 20.2% GEOPOLITICAL GEOPOLITICAL 19.4% 11.7% RISK RISK 2.3% 47.1% CURRENCY 72.8% 29.9% EXCHANGE GLOBAL TRADE 16.7% 9.3% RATES ENVIRONMENT 3.4% 43.9% EMERGING 59.4% 33.2% MARKET REGULATORY 31.9% 10.0% GROWTH ENVIRONMENT 2.8% 42.5% LIQUIDITY IN 54.1% 33.2% EUROZONE THE FINANCIAL 34.0% 10.9% STABILITY MARKETS 4.3% 41.4% CURRENCY 52.4% 33.3% GLOBAL TRADE EXCHANGE 35.8% 11.5% ENVIRONMENT RATES 5.3% 40.6% 50.4% 30.0% COMMODITY COMMODITY 32.7% 12.4% PRICES PRICES 6.9% 40.5% EMERGING 50.4% 36.3% REGULATORY MARKET 36.6% 11.3% ENVIRONMENT GROWTH 5.2% 36.9% LIQUIDITY IN 48.1% 39.7% THE FINANCIAL EUROZONE 35.7% 11.4% MARKETS STABILITY 7.6% 33.1% 41.1% 45.4% INFLATION INFLATION 44.7% 8.2% 5.3% 26.4% 37.7% 45.0% TRADING TRADING 38.7% 13.7% TRANSPARENCY TRANSPARENCY 11.0% 23

Issues ranked by perceived impact on overall market conifdence 2013 2015 2017 2019 1 GEOPOLITICAL RISK GEOPOLITICAL RISK GEOPOLITICAL RISK GEOPOLITICAL RISK 2 REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT CURRENCY EXCHANGE RATES CURRENCY EXCHANGE RATES GLOBAL TRADE ENVIRONMENT* 3 EUROZONE STABILITY EUROZONE STABILITY EMERGING MARKET GROWTH REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT 4 LIQUIDITY IN THE FINANCIAL MARKETS REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT EUROZONE STABILITY LIQUIDITY IN THE FINANCIAL MARKETS 5 EMERGING MARKET GROWTH EMERGING MARKET GROWTH GLOBAL TRADE ENVIRONMENT* CURRENCY EXCHANGE RATES 6 CURRENCY EXCHANGE RATES LIQUIDITY IN THE FINANCIAL MARKETS COMMODITY PRICES COMMODITY PRICES INCREASE IN DIRECT CORPORATE ACCESS REQUESTS FROM INVESTORS 7 COMMODITY PRICES COMMODITY PRICES REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT EMERGING MARKET GROWTH 8 INFLATION INFLATION LIQUIDITY IN THE FINANCIAL MARKETS EUROZONE STABILITY 9 TRADING TRANSPARENCY TRADING TRANSPARENCY INFLATION INFLATION * Global Trade Environment was added as an answer option in the 2017 Survey. 24

The most strategic countries/markets as sources of new or increased investment in the next ifve years 2013 2015 2017 2019 l l l l Considering that geopolitical issues are the In fact, the respondents’ impression of all top concern of respondents globally, it is not international ﬁnancial centers as strategic surprising to see respondents globally focused for capital raising has been falling since the 90.4% 91.3% less on the leading international ﬁnancial 2013 Survey, with the steepest decline in centers, e.g., the U.S. (76.7% vs 80.1% in 2017) consideration for Germany (-62.7%), Japan 80.1% 78.0% and the UK (50.4% vs 57.6% in 2017), as areas (-52.1%) and Singapore (-46.0%). 76.7% 75.8% of focus for investment over the next ﬁve years. 57.6% 50.4% 50.4% 44.8% 41.4% 43.8% 37.2% 38.9% 36.6% 40.4% 26.0% 24.2% 28.7% 27.6% 18.5% 16.8% 21.0% 13.9% UNITED STATES UNITED KINGDOM GERMANY CHINA HONG KONG JAPAN 50.4% 43.7% 27.0% 25.8% 18.2% 18.1% 27.2% 15.2% 11.9% 11.7% 14.9% 13.3% 10.9% 9.6% BRAZIL INDIA SINGAPORE AUSTRALIA* * Australia was added as an answer option in the 2017 Survey. 25

Impact of Evolving Sell-Side Structure on Investor Relations Teams 27

Impact of Evolving Sell-Side Structure on Investor Relations Teams We continued to monitor how investor relations teams react to changes in their markets, including changes in the sell and buy sides. We asked speciﬁc questions about the impact of the European Union’s MiFID II legislation on IR teams’ workﬂows. As of 2019, while a majority of respondents reported no effect or were uncertain, a signiﬁcant minority did see a negative impact to their day-to-day workﬂow resulting from this legislation. The majority of respondents globally, One change observed that may be due to 63.6%, cited no change or were uncertain new regulation was that 62.5% of respondents if there were changes in their IR activities globally have seen an increase in direct related to MiFID II. As expected, the impact corporate access requests from investors, has been felt primarily in the markets of most prominently in Western Europe (74.2%) Western Europe (38.7% negative) and North and North America (69.0%). America (33.3% negative, 2.4% positive). Of all respondents in Western Europe, not one reported a positive impact. RESPONDENTS SAY DIRECT CORPORATE ACCESS REQUESTS FROM INVESTORS ARE INCREASING GLOBAL 62.5% WESTERN EUROPE 74.2% NORTH AMERICA 69.0% 28

Impact of MiFID II No change Uncertain Negative Positive l l l l 41.6% 42.5% 22.0% 20.0% GLOBAL MEGA-CAP 32.5% 30.5% 5.8% 5.0% 41.7% 36.4% ASIA 20.1% 20.6% PACIFIC 30.2% LARGE-CAP 34.6% 7.9% 8.4% 44.0% 37.8% LATIN 24.0% 23.4% AMERICA 22.7% MID-CAP 33.3% 9.3% 5.4% 42.9% 51.6% NORTH 21.4% 21.0% AMERICA 33.3% SMALL-CAP 21.0% 2.4% 6.5% 41.9% 46.2% WESTERN 19.4% 30.8% EUROPE MICRO-CAP 38.7% 15.4% 0.0% 7.7 % 29

To explore the impact of MiFID II, we asked had an impact on them. This was possibly access teams. This was reported by higher respondents’ views on changes to sell-side related to changes in sell-side research percentages of small- and micro-cap issuers services in the past 12 months. Globally, coverage as described on the next page. At the (17.3%) and emerging markets issuers (16.4%) respondents reported that a decrease in same time, 14.3% globally said they perceived and could be due to the sell side’s focus on geographic presence (25.0%) of the sell side an increase in the quality of sell-side corporate areas where they can differentiate themselves from their peers. In your view, what have been the changes to each of the following sell-side services in the past 12 months? DECREASED GLOBAL MEGA & MID-CAP SMALL & DEVELOPED EMERGING LARGE-CAP MICRO-CAP MARKETS MARKETS Geographic presence 25.0% 23.8% 19.8% 29.3% 20.1% 26.9% Equity sales capabilities 24.5% 21.1% 23.4% 24.0% 26.2% 18.7% Broker’s investor client universe 21.8% 27.9% 17.1% 18.7% 25.6% 18.7% Quality of investor targeting provided by broker 21.5% 23.1% 16.2% 22.7% 24.4% 17.0% Quality of formal post-meeting feedback 19.2% 17.0% 16.2% 17.3% 18.3% 15.2% Corporate access team 19.0% 21.1% 18.9% 20.0% 17.7% 22.2% Financial coverage of logistics 17.9% 17.7% 18.9% 18.7% 18.3% 18.1% Insight on current investor demand 17.6% 17.7% 12.6% 13.3% 18.3% 11.7% Management of logistics 13.0% 12.2% 9.0% 14.7% 11.6% 11.7% Investment banking relationship 9.5% 9.5% 8.1% 16.0% 6.7% 14.0% INCREASED Corporate access team 14.3% 13.6% 9.0% 17.3% 9.1% 16.4% Insight on current investor demand 12.4% 10.9% 13.5% 10.7% 7.9% 15.8% Investment banking relationship 10.8% 6.8% 9.0% 14.7% 6.1% 12.9% Quality of investor targeting provided by broker 9.5% 8.8% 9.9% 14.7% 7.3% 13.5% Quality of formal post-meeting feedback 9.3% 8.2% 7.2% 9.3% 6.1% 10.5% Geographic presence 8.1% 10.2% 8.1% 4.0% 3.7% 12.3% Equity sales capabilities 6.2% 7.5% 4.5% 9.3% 2.4% 11.1% Broker’s investor client universe 4.9% 5.4% 6.3% 1.3% 3.0% 6.4% Management of logistics 4.7% 6.1% 4.5% 1.3% 2.4% 6.4% Financial coverage of logistics 2.3% 1.4% 3.6% 1.3% 0.6% 3.5% 30

The greatest decrease reported by respondents Have you seen an increase in direct corporate access requests in developed markets was in equity sales from investors? capabilities (26.2%), while the greatest Yes No Uncertain decrease reported by respondents in emerging l l l markets was the geographic presence of the sell side (26.9%). Larger market-cap companies 15.1% 15.8% 9.5% 12.9% reported a strong negative impact from the 22.7% sell side’s investor client universe (27.9%), 21.4% 12.9% and across the spectrum companies reported 22.4% 25.2% a negative impact or less service in sell-side 20.0% equity sales capabilities (21.1% mega- and large-cap, 23.4% mid-cap, and 24.0% for small- and micro-cap). 74.2% 62.5% 59.0% 69.0% 57.3% Interestingly, feedback on changes to sell-side services was mixed across the board. No response, positive or negative, received a response of 30% or more from any region or capitalization category in this report. GLOBAL ASIA LATIN NORTH WESTERN PACIFIC AMERICA AMERICA EUROPE Metric used to evaluate investor relations program We have continued to see a decrease in IR teams using the number of covering analysts as a metric to evaluate their IR success. This could be a side effect of MiFID II legislation, which has driven the number of research analysts in the industry down overall, affecting in particular smaller or mid-cap companies. This has also been voiced by some industry participants as a driver of perceived deterioration in the quality 2015 2017 2019 5 of some research produced. If the number of analysts covering the 47.6% 43.9% 36.1% company is no longer seen as within the control of the IR team, it is logical to remove this item as a benchmark for IR team performance. NUMBER OF ANALYSTS COVERING THE COMPANY 5 CFA Institute. MiFID II: One Year On. Page iv. Retrieved January 29, 2020 from https://www.cfainstitute.org/-/media/documents/survey/cfa-miﬁd-II-survey-report.ashx. 31

64.7% 52.0% MEN WOMEN ATTEND ATTEND BOARD OF BOARD OF DIRECTOR DIRECTOR MEETINGS MEETINGS GENDER DIFFERENCES We asked what metrics IROs were benchmarked against for their compensation. Surprisingly, more men than women (55% men vs. 44% women) reported that their salary and/ or bonus was not linked to any metrics of IR effectiveness. 33% of women, as compared to 23% of men, said that their compensation is linked to both qualitative and quantitative metrics of their performance. When reporting the goals for their IR program, the top three IR goals chosen by female and male IR professionals are the same. However, the fourth most common choice for female respondents was increasing research coverage, chosen by 32.0%. This goal ranked sixth for male respondents, 20.2%. For male IR professionals, the fourth-ranking goal was providing greater management visibility/accessibility, 29.4%. 33

Methodology 35

Methodology The BNY Mellon Global Investor Relations Survey (the “Survey”) was conducted between April and July 2019. The Survey was distributed to nearly 5,000 companies and captures 335 the online responses of 335 respondents from 41 countries. TOTAL Participants were sourced using internal and Historical references are provided to results RESPONDENTS external sources and span all macroeconomic from the 2017, 2015 and 2013 surveys. Graphs sectors and economy types, as deﬁned by GICS and tables provided throughout the Survey and MSCI, respectively. may not capture the entire respondent pool 41 due to rounding and participant requests for Market capitalization classiﬁcations are anonymity. In graphics depicting data sets TOTAL deﬁned as follows (in USD): equaling 100% per category, rounding may COUNTRIE S • Mega: more than $25 billion cause percentage totals to vary between 99% REPRESENTED and 101%. • Large: $5 – $25 billion 57% • Mid: $1 – $5 billion RESPONDENT PROFILES • Small: $150 million – $1 billion IDENTIFIED AS More than half of company respondents MOST SENIOR • Micro: less than $150 million globally, 57%, identiﬁed themselves as the IR EXECUTIVES most senior IR executive at their company. AT COMPANY The gender of the individuals identiﬁed as the respondent company’s most senior IR executive was 65% male, 30% female and 65% 5% preferred not to disclose their gender. MALE 30% FEMALE 5% PREFERRED NOT TO DISCLOSE 36

Regions Market Cap DEVELOPED ASIA 24% Mega-Cap 12% Over $25 billion AFRICA EASTERN 1% EUROPE 4% Large-Cap 32% $5 billion – $25 billion 22% 100% 9% LATIN WESTERN AMERICA EUROPE 10% Mid-Cap 33% $1 billion – $4.9 billion MIDDLE EAST 18% EMERGING 13% ASIA NORTH AMERICA Small-Cap 19% $150 million – $999 million Micro-Cap 4% Under $150 million Sectors 5% 6% 6% 7% 8% 8% 12% 13% 14% 21% HEALTHCARE ENERGY UTILITIES TELECOM BASIC CONSUMER CONSUMER INDUSTRIALS TECHNOLOGY FINANCIALS MATERIALS STAPLES DISCRETIONARY 37

Global Investor Relations Advisory BNY Mellon’s Depositary Receipts Global Investor Relations Advisory (GIRA) team works with our DR clients to provide them with investor relations solutions based on global best practices. We focus on helping clients achieve measurable investor relations program goals. We draw on extensive investor relations and capital markets experience to help our clients develop their strategic objectives, including assessing the liquidity and visibility of their equity securities and enhancing their relationships with the investment community. Guy Gresham Karen Bodner Group Head, Global IR Advisory & Investor Solutions Head, Global IR Advisory +1 212 815 4693 +1 212 815 2557 guy.gresham@bnymellon.com karen.bodner@bnymellon.com Ludmila Lell Laura Riley Principal, ESG Advisory Senior Specialist, Market Connect +1 212 815 4493 +1 212 815 2157 ludmila.leliavskaia@bnymellon.com laura.riley@bnymellon.com Robert Meyers Diana Soto Principal, Market Connect Senior Specialist, Market Connect +1 212 815 3098 +1 212 815 6184 robert.I.meyers@bnymellon.com diana.soto@bnymellon.com Michael O’Brien Parichat Wrolstad Principal, ESG Advisory Senior Specialist, Investor Relations +1 212 815 6007 +1 212 815 4372 michael.o’brien@bnymellon.com parichat.wrolstad@bnymellon.com 38

We would like to thank the following groups for their support of the BNY Mellon Global Investor Relations Survey: AIRA (Australasian Investor Relations Association) AUSTRALIA INARI (Instituto Nacional de Relación con Inversionistas) MEXICO CIRA (Cercle Investor Relations Austria) AUSTRIA NEVIR (Netherlands Association for Investor Relations) NETHERLANDS BELIR (Belgian Investor Relations Association) BELGIUM NIRF (Norsk Investor Relations Forening) NORWAY ABRASCA (Associação Brasileira das Companhias Abertas) BRAZIL IRPAS (Investor Relations Professionals SINGAPORE Association Singapore) IBRI (Instituto Brasileiro de Relações com Investidores) BRAZIL AERI (Asociación Española para las Relaciones SPAIN con Inversores) FIR (Finnish Investor Relations Society) FINLAND IR Club Schweiz SWITZERLAND Cliff FRANCE SET (Stock Exchange of Thailand) THAILAND IR Club GERMANY TÜYID (Yatırımcı Ili!kileri Derneği) TURKEY DIRK (Deutscher Investor Relations Verband) GERMANY MEIRA (Middle East Investor Relations Association) UNITED ARAB EMIRATES IR Society INDIA IR Society UNITED KINGDOM IIRF (Israeli Investor Relations Forum) ISRAEL MIRA (Malaysian Investor Relations Association) MALAYSIA We would like to acknowledge the contribution of Adler Branding & Marketing to the design and production of Global Trends in Investor Relations, 12th edition. 39 INSIDE BACK COVER (PAGE 39)

BNY Mellon is a global investments company dedicated to helping This document is not intended for distribution to, or use by, any person its clients manage and service their ﬁnancial assets throughout the or entity in any jurisdiction in which such distribution or use would be investment lifecycle. Whether providing ﬁnancial services for institutions, contrary to local law or regulation. Similarly, this document may not corporations or individual investors, BNY Mellon delivers informed be distributed or used for the purpose of offers or solicitations in any investment management and investment services in 35 countries. As jurisdiction or in any circumstances in which such offers or solicitations of Dec. 31, 2019, BNY Mellon had $37.1 trillion in assets under custody are unlawful or not authorized, or where there would be, by virtue of and/or administration, and $1.9 trillion in assets under management. such distribution, new or additional registration requirements. Persons BNY Mellon can act as a single point of contact for clients looking to into whose possession this document comes are required to inform create, trade, hold, manage, service, distribute or restructure investments. themselves about and to observe any restrictions that apply to the BNY Mellon is the corporate brand of The Bank of New York Mellon distribution of this document in their jurisdiction. The information Corporation (NYSE: BK). Additional information is available on contained in this document is for use by wholesale clients only and www.bnymellon.com. Follow us on Twitter @BNYMellon or visit is not to be relied upon by retail clients. BNY Mellon has various our newsroom at www.bnymellon.com/newsroom for the latest subsidiaries, afﬁliates, branches and representative ofﬁces in the company news. Asia Paciﬁc Region that are subject to regulation by the relevant local This document, which may be considered advertising, is for general regulator in that jurisdiction. We wish to inform you that whilst The information and reference purposes only and is not intended to provide Bank of New York Mellon (“BNY Mellon”) is authorized to provide legal, tax, accounting, investment, ﬁnancial or other professional advice ﬁnancial services in Australia, it is exempt from the requirement to on any matter, and is not to be used as such. BNY Mellon does not hold, and does not hold, an Australian ﬁnancial services licence as warrant or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of, nor undertake to issued by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission under update or amend the information or data contained herein. We expressly the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) in respect of the ﬁnancial services disclaim any liability whatsoever for any loss howsoever arising from or provided by it to persons in Australia. BNY Mellon is regulated by in reliance upon any of this information or data. We provide no advice the New York State Department of Financial Services and the US nor recommendation or endorsement with respect to any company or Federal Reserve under Chapter 2 of the Consolidated Laws, The securities. Nothing herein shall be deemed to constitute an offer to sell Banking Law enacted April 16, 1914 in the State of New York, which or a solicitation of an offer to buy securities. If distributed in the UK or differs from Australian laws. Not all products and services are offered EMEA, this document may be a ﬁnancial promotion and is for distribution in all locations. only to persons to whom it may be communicated without breach of applicable law. This material may not be reproduced or disseminated in any form without the prior written permission of BNY Mellon. Depositary Receipts: NOT FDIC, STATE OR FEDERAL AGENCY INSURED MAY LOSE VALUE NO BANK, STATE OR FEDERAL AGENCY GUARANTEE Trademarks and logos belong to their respective owners. © 2020 The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation. All rights reserved.