The umbrella Organisation of Ethical Shareholders ask a whole host of questions with regard to the Russian group Norilsk Nornickel, who is claimed to infringe – to be responsible for several catastrophes and the violation of indigenous rights. So, in which – how far is DWS invested in Nornickel? Which risks of Nornickel were known to DWS? What were the arguments saying that Nornickel was a responsible and trustworthy company? What were the concrete measures and researches taken by DWS when it comes to international, social and ecological standards? Because Nornickel is active in an ecologically sensitive area. What measures has DWS taken after the catastrophic environment and human rights impact of the activities of Nornickel in the Arctic Circle in order to avoid or mitigate further damage done by Nornickel? Is there an engagement dialogue with Nornickel on ESG and sustainability, or are there plans to have such a dialogue? If yes, which concrete topics are part of the dialogue? If no, why don’t you think a dialogue is not important? Are there clear criteria when or under which concrete conditions DWS would sell the shares of Nornickel if the company does not speedily improve its eco-balance and the respect of indigenous rights speedily and comprehensively?
