abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb
Article

5 Jun 2018

Author:
Council on Ethics

Recommendation to exclude Texwinca Holdings Ltd from the Government Pension Fund Global

See all tags

The Council on Ethics recommends that Texwinca Holdings Ltd be excluded from investment by the Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG) due to an unacceptable risk that the company is responsible for systematic human rights violations...

The Council contacted Texwinca for the first time in June 2015 to request information about working conditions at the company’s factories in Vietnam. Texwinca replied by referring the Council to the company’s annual report and its Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Report...

In October 2016, the company was sent a draft recommendation to exclude it from the GPFG that had been prepared on the basis of the Council’s investigations. Texwinca replied that the company did not wish to comment on the recommendation.

To obtain a broader basis for assessing the company, Kollan was investigated in May–July 2017. Texwinca was sent a new draft recommendation to exclude the company in February 2018. Once again, the company said it did not wish to comment on working conditions at the factories.

In its communications with the Council on Ethics, Texwinca has commented solely on its corporate structure, but has otherwise provided no information about the matter at hand. According to Texwinca:

“We have no comment on the enclosed draft recommendation. As explained in our previous communication, it is the Group’s strategy to remain as a passive investor in the Megawell business. To allow maximum appropriate authority to the managers of Megawell Group to operate and expand the business, it was agreed that we would impose the minimum intervention in the business of Megawell. Though we hold 50% equity interest in Megawell Group, the other two active investors, acting in concert and collectively own the remaining equity interest, also maintain 50% controlling interest in Megawell Group. Thus, we have no legal right to exercise full control on Megawell.”