Vanguard, the world’s second-largest asset manager, has confirmed that it did not support any environmental or social shareholder proposals at U.S. portfolio companies during the latest proxy season — the second consecutive year it has taken this stance.
In its U.S. regional investment stewardship brief, published on 27 August, Vanguard said it analysed and voted against 261 environmental and social proposals, down from 400 in the 2024 season. The firm backed just 2% of such proposals in 2023.
The disclosure comes during a broader decline in shareholder support for environmental and social resolutions. According to data from Ernst & Young, S&P 1500 companies voted on 149 such proposals in 2025 — a 45% year-on-year fall — with average support dropping to 14%, well below the 2021 peak of 33.3%. The Conference Board also reported that shareholder submissions more broadly declined to 781 across Russell 3000 companies this season, down from 932 the previous year.
Vanguard attributed the reduction in environmental and social proposals to changes in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s approach to the no-action process, withdrawals following company engagement, and varying activity levels among proponents.
The firm said the 82 environmental-related proposals it voted on this year typically sought disclosures on greenhouse gas emissions, climate-related risks, and net-zero strategies. New topics included biodiversity loss, supply chain sustainability, and deep sea mining. Social proposals focused on human rights, labour practices, political contributions, lobbying disclosures, and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). Tech companies also faced resolutions on artificial intelligence governance.
At the same time, Vanguard noted a continued rise in anti-ESG filings, which seek to challenge corporate approaches to sustainability and social issues.
The asset manager said its decisions reflected case-by-case evaluations, arguing many proposals were either “overly prescriptive” or failed to address financially material risks. It added that in some cases, companies had already disclosed sufficient information or policies, leaving “no gap” for shareholder proposals to address.
