Asset managers’ support for shareholder resolutions aimed at tackling social and environmental issues crashed to a new low in 2024, with only 1.4% (just 4 out of 279) receiving majority support down from 21% in 2021, ShareAction’s latest research shows.
Asset managers who blocked corporate action by voting against shareholder resolutions to protect human rights, nature and climate included the four largest asset managers in the world; BlackRock, Fidelity Investments, State Street Global Advisors and Vanguard. Together, they manage $23trn in assets – more than the total GDP of the entire European Union – but collectively they supported just 7% of key shareholder resolutions.
An additional 48 shareholder resolutions would have passed had these four asset managers chosen to support them. This includes a resolution at Cadbury and Oreo-maker Mondelez International that asked for greater disclosure of the operational and reputational risks associated with the company’s continued operations in Russia since the invasion of Ukraine.
Elsewhere in the report, the first analysis of votes on management items found that asset managers are failing to use these votes to express dissatisfaction with companies’ strategic approach to important social and environmental issues.
Claudia Gray, head of financial sector research at ShareAction, said: “This is the worst result we’ve seen from asset managers in the six years we’ve been monitoring their voting performance and shows a worrying retreat from ambition when it’s most needed.
“As support for shareholder resolutions hits rock bottom, our first-ever analysis of votes against resolutions proposed by company management paints a similarly bleak and disappointing picture, with asset managers failing to use these votes to hold companies accountable for their social and climate impacts.
“This should be of great concern to asset owners who are putting their faith in asset managers to act in their best interests. If ever we needed asset owners to be the drivers of responsible investment, it’s right now. We need their leadership to hold asset managers to account at such a critical time for people and planet.”
‘What’s good for the planet is good for business’
As in previous years, ShareAction noted a striking gulf in performance between asset managers in the US and Europe. UK and European asset managers continued to demonstrate greater commitment to responsible investment than their US counterparts, supporting 81% of shareholder proposals on average in the context of higher corporate transparency standards set by regulators.
However, the report noted that European asset managers could go further by committing to vote against management resolutions at companies that are falling short on social and climate action.
ShareAction urged policymakers to safeguard the EU’s enabling regulatory framework to retain and strengthen the “ambition, transparency and accountability” needed to ensure a sustainable future.
Meanwhile, 10 asset managers – including the four largest – voted against four human rights-related resolutions at weapons companies Lockheed Martin, RTX and Northorp Grumman. With support from these asset managers, the resolutions could have achieved transparency for shareholders on the firms’ lobbying activities and human rights impact.
Gray continued: “We live in a world where asset managers have a huge impact through the companies they invest in. Many claim to be playing their part in tackling important issues like climate change, yet our report calls into question whether the majority of the world’s wealth is being managed effectively by investment firms.
“At a time when the climate breakdown is already devastating lives around the world – from prolonged droughts to deadly wildfires – the finance sector should be driving urgent environmental action, not slowing it down. What’s clear is we need better regulation from policymakers and bold leadership and ambition from decision-makers across the financial sector.”
Judith Richardson, head of sustainability at business management consultancy Argon & Co, agreed: “Companies cannot simply keep their heads down and hope to ‘ride out’ the next four years. Doing so is counterintuitive.
“While terms like ‘sustainability’ and ‘ESG’ can be off-putting to some, initiatives under these banners are ultimately about creating cleaner, more cost-effective, and resilient supply chains. So, companies that delay action risk falling behind from a competitive standpoint.
“Practical steps still offer mutual benefits. Simple efficiencies, like avoiding unnecessary shipping or aligning production with demand, help reduce waste. However, deeper systemic changes are also needed. Businesses are already facing the consequences of inaction – increased flooding, droughts and wildfires threaten supply chains, driving up costs. We saw how climate change already impacted chocolate prices last year, with high temperatures damaging cocoa harvests. This will become a common occurrence in the coming years: adaptation is no longer optional.
“Businesses are continuously balancing short-term returns with long-term resilience. Therefore, the key here is to link sustainability with wider business performance and metrics – because, in the end, what’s good for the planet is ultimately good for business.”
