Forum Home Page [see Broadridge note below]

 The Shareholder ForumTM`

Fair Investor Access

This public program was initiated in collaboration with The Conference Board Task Force on Corporate/Investor Engagement and with Thomson Reuters support of communication technologies. The Forum is providing continuing reports of the issues that concern this program's participants, as summarized  in the January 5, 2015 Forum Report of Conclusions.

"Fair Access" Home Page

"Fair Access" Program Reference


Related Projects 2012-2019

For graphed analyses of company and related industry returns, see

Returns on Corporate Capital

See also analyses of

Shareholder Support Rankings


Forum distribution:

Trends in major investment managers' reported votes supporting executive compensation


Note: Proxy Insight provided the statistical data and other research support for the Forum's project that provided graphed 5-year histories of "Shareholder Support Rankings" for each Russell 3000 company based on shareholder votes for executive compensation.


Source: The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, January 17, 2021 posting

A Look at This Year’s Voting Trends Following the US N-PX Disclosures

Posted by Matthew Scott, Proxy Insight, on Sunday, January 17, 2021

Editor’s Note: Matthew Scott is Vice President of Proxy Insight. This post is based on a Proxy Insight memorandum.

Familiar Territory

Across management proposals, there was not much change this year compared to last. There was a 0.4 percentage point move upwards in the average investor’s support for both all proposals and director elections, and a drop of 0.3 points for Say-on-Pay. These are not exactly headline-grabbing changes, perhaps not even meaningful ones.

It is, however, a little interesting to note that pay votes ticked in the opposite direction to the other two. The widening gap between Say-on-Pay support and the average management proposal shows just how contentious executive pay continues to be, particularly in a year when many companies faced criticism for lavish payouts while under pressure as a result of the pandemic. A look at shareholder proposals shows some more dramatic changes. Last year, a typical US asset manager supported more shareholder proposals than they opposed. This year, that support fell by 1.4 percentage points, taking the figure below that 50% mark.

The average investor’s support for environmental shareholder proposals, on the other hand, rose by a rather dramatic 7.3 percentage points. This would be a trend to make a climate laggard sit up and take notice in any year. The fact that this shift happened even as support for shareholder proposals in general fell makes it even more noteworthy.

There has been similarly little change as a whole among the top investors, shown in Table 2. Across key resolution types, their voting has remained broadly consistent with just a 1-2 percentage point shift here and there. This is the second year we have seen relatively little change across both broad trends and the largest investors, suggesting that investors generally have really settled into an approach they are happy with. Whether they would all agree individually as to quite what that optimal approach is, on the other hand, another question.

Saying ‘Nay’ to Pay

Indeed, some investors have settled on an approach that is very different from others. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this is made quite clear when we look at the highly contentious and truly evergreen issue of executive pay.

As with our analysis last year, it is not generally our N-PX filers who fill most of the spaces on our list of US investors most likely to oppose Say-on-Pay resolutions. This list is, once again, dominated by pension funds, though a few major fund houses do make the top 10, as shown in Table 3.

This ranking includes only investors with at least $10 billion in assets under management, who have disclosed votes for at least 1,000 Russell 3000 meetings. It is worth mentioning that last year’s list was topped by the Minnesota State Board of Investment, and only a lack of disclosed meetings prevented it from doing so again. Otherwise, the list is broadly similar to last year’s.

N-PX filers, especially large ones, are better represented at the opposite end of the scale. Several of the big names, including the three largest investors in the world, are in the top 10 most likely to support an advisory pay vote. This is perhaps not surprising. These mega-investors make no secret of the fact they prefer to use their considerable influence to pressure companies directly, making voting a last resort when they believe a company is simply unresponsive to their efforts to engage.


This is another year that saw no great changes among the very biggest investors or the field as a whole. However, it should be remembered that this short analysis represents only the overview of this year’s trends. No doubt there is much more to find, including voting shifts from investors not so very much smaller than the top few included in this article. We encourage our clients to look closer at the data most relevant to them, and if you are not yet a client you can still access the data with a free trial of our platform.


Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance
All copyright and trademarks in content on this site are owned by their respective owners. Other content © 2021 The President and Fellows of Harvard College.



This Forum program was open, free of charge, to anyone concerned with investor interests in the development of marketplace standards for expanded access to information for securities valuation and shareholder voting decisions. As stated in the posted Conditions of Participation, the purpose of this public Forum's program was to provide decision-makers with access to information and a free exchange of views on the issues presented in the program's Forum Summary. Each participant was expected to make independent use of information obtained through the Forum, subject to the privacy rights of other participants.  It is a Forum rule that participants will not be identified or quoted without their explicit permission.

This Forum program was initiated in 2012 in collaboration with The Conference Board and with Thomson Reuters support of communication technologies to address issues and objectives defined by participants in the 2010 "E-Meetings" program relevant to broad public interests in marketplace practices. The website is being maintained to provide continuing reports of the issues addressed in the program, as summarized in the January 5, 2015 Forum Report of Conclusions.

Inquiries about this Forum program and requests to be included in its distribution list may be addressed to

The information provided to Forum participants is intended for their private reference, and permission has not been granted for the republishing of any copyrighted material. The material presented on this web site is the responsibility of Gary Lutin, as chairman of the Shareholder Forum.

Shareholder Forum™ is a trademark owned by The Shareholder Forum, Inc., for the programs conducted since 1999 to support investor access to decision-making information. It should be noted that we have no responsibility for the services that Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc., introduced for review in the Forum's 2010 "E-Meetings" program and has since been offering with the “Shareholder Forum” name, and we have asked Broadridge to use a different name that does not suggest our support or endorsement.