We permit the publication of our auditors’ report, provided the report is published in full only and is accompanied by the full financial statements to which our auditors’ report relates, and is only published on an access-controlled page on your website, to enable users to verify that an auditors’ report by independent accountants has been commissioned by the directors and issued. Such permission to publish is given by us without accepting or assuming any responsibility or liability to any third party users save where we have agreed terms with them in writing.

Our consent is given on condition that before any third party accesses our auditors’ report via the webpage they first document their agreement to the following terms of access to our report via a click-through webpage with an 'I accept' button. The terms to be included on your website are as follows:

I accept and agree for and on behalf of myself and the Trust I represent (each a "recipient") that:

  1. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”) accepts no liability (including liability for negligence) to each recipient in relation to PwC’s report. The report is provided to each recipient for information purposes only. If a recipient relies on PwC’s report, it does so entirely at its own risk;
  2. No recipient will bring a claim against PwC which relates to the access to the report by a recipient;
  3. Neither PwC’s report, nor information obtained from it, may be made available to anyone else without PwC’s prior written consent, except where required by law or regulation; and
  4. PwC’s report was prepared with Hermes Property Unit Trust's interests in mind. It was not prepared with any recipient's interests in mind or for its use. PwC’s report is not a substitute for any enquiries that a recipient should make. The financial statements are as at 25 March 2017, and thus PwC’s auditors’ report is based on historical information. Any projection of such information or PwC’s opinion thereon to future periods is subject to the risk that changes may occur after the reports are issued and the description of controls may no longer accurately portray the system of internal control. For these reasons, such projection of information to future periods would be inappropriate.
  5. PwC will be entitled to the benefit of and to enforce these terms.
I accept

1. Select your country

  • United Kingdom
  • Austria
  • Australia
  • Belgium
  • Denmark
  • Finland
  • France
  • Germany
  • Iceland
  • Ireland
  • Italy
  • Luxembourg
  • Netherlands
  • Norway
  • Singapore
  • Spain
  • Sweden
  • Switzerland
  • USA
  • Other

2. Select your investor type

  • Financial Advisor
  • Discretionary Investment Manager
  • Wealth Manager
  • Family Office
  • Institutional Investor
  • Investment Consultant
  • Charity, Foundation & Endowment Investor
  • Retail Investor
  • Press
  • None of the above

3. Accept our terms and conditions

By clicking Proceed I confirm I have read the important information and agree to the terms of use.


The Hermes Investment Management website uses cookies to remember your preferences and help us improve the site.
By proceeding, you agree to cookies being placed on your computer.
Read our privacy and cookie policy.

Be aware the botched executions’ effect

Home / EOS Blog / Be aware the botched executions’ effect

Tim Goodman
11 February 2015

Reputational risk
Many pharmaceutical companies have acknowledged the reputational risk associated with supplying medicines to the US penal system for use in administering lethal injections to perform capital punishment. To mitigate the risk and prevent the supply of their drugs to the US penal system, they have put in place distribution controls. This is supported by EU law that prevents export of these drugs for such purposes.

As a result of the industry establishing such distribution controls, some US states have halted – albeit temporarily – capital punishment, while others have sought to use compounded rather than manufactured drugs. A third category has started to use experimental drug cocktails to execute the death penalty.

The latter activity has led to a series of botched executions. As these executions can be horrific in nature, they leave the manufacturers of the drugs open to reputational and legal risk as well as the possibility of divestment from asset owners.

Unwitting participation
However, not all companies have taken action yet to prevent the use of their drugs in US executions.

Research has indicated that a few companies supply drugs used in the experimental cocktails because they have not set up effective restricted distribution systems.

One company has put a restricted distribution system in place for propofol which appears to be working. However, it has not done the same for hydromorphone, which was used in a botched execution in Ohio. Another one has failed to implement restricted distribution systems for either hydromorphone or midazolam, drugs which are named in the execution protocols in a number of US states. Similarly, rocuronium bromide – produced by a third manufacturer – is used as a paralytic agent and also listed in the execution protocols of some US states.

A fourth company meanwhile has limited restrictions on the distribution of mizadolam, vecuronium bromide and rocuronium bromide. However, the controls, which do not stop sales to the US penal system from retail or compounding pharmacies, are insufficient to stop the use of these drugs in lethal injections in a number of US states which record one or more of them in their execution protocols.

What we have done
One of the pharmaceutical companies implicated in US executions is part of our core-engagement programme and we have a specific engagement objective for it to implement distribution controls to prevent the use of its drugs to administer capital punishment.

We have also contacted the CEOs of three other companies highlighting our concerns on this issue.

Share this post:
Tim Goodman Tim Goodman is a director at Hermes EOS and sector lead for oil and gas. He is also responsible for Hermes EOS’ activities in North America. Previously, he worked in the insurance industry and held a number of senior operational management roles before acting as a company secretary at a UK-listed company. He is a member of the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators, having obtained the institute prize for the best overall performance when he qualified. Tim is a regular speaker on governance-related matters, a former member of the US Council of Institutional Investors’ corporate governance advisory council and a former chair of the UK Quoted Companies Alliance corporate governance committee. He is currently on the ESG advisory board of US law firm Grant & Eisenhofer.
Read all articles by Tim Goodman

Find posts by author

  • Alex Knox, ACA
  • Andrew Jackson
  • Bill Mackenzie
  • Bruce Duguid
  • Christine Chow
  • Claire Gavini
  • Colin Melvin
  • Darren Brady
  • Dominic Burke
  • Dr Michael Viehs
  • Emeric Chenebaux
  • Emma Hunt
  • Geoffrey Wan, CFA
  • Hans-Christoph Hirt
  • Harriet Steel
  • Ingrid Holmes
  • Jaime Gornsztejn
  • Jonathan Pines, CFA
  • Justine Lutterodt
  • Leon Kamhi
  • Louise Dudley
  • Mark Sherlock, CFA
  • Maxine Wille
  • Michael Russell, CFA
  • Michael Vaughan
  • Michael Viehs
  • Natacha Dimitrijevic
  • Nick Spooner
  • Nina Röhrbein
  • Philip Nell
  • Rochelle Giugni
  • Roland Bosch
  • Sachi Suzuki
  • Saker Nusseibeh
  • Silvia Dall’Angelo
  • Tatiana Bosteels
  • Tim Goodman
  • Tommaso Mancuso

Find posts by category

  • eos
  • social