As we get to the end of the 2025 proxy season, we can see that the proxy vote landscape has shifted significantly. Foundations, pension plans, universities and family offices that were previously able to rely on steady analysis and vote execution by external managers may want to take a second look at what’s changed.
The Trump administration and state Republican attacks on responsible investment seems to have emboldened some investment managers and corporations to walk back prior commitments to good governance and environmental and social stewardship. From major banks leaving global climate initiatives, to multi trillion-dollar tech companies abandoning their diversity initiatives, there is no denying that the landscape has changed. These trends are presenting themselves through shareholder proposal vote outcomes as well.
Although we won’t have a complete picture of voting outcomes until the fall, early data suggests a clear decline in support for environmental and social shareholder proposals. According to analysis by Georgeson, as of mid-May, average support for environmental proposals had fallen by approximately 4%, while support for diversity, equity and inclusion-related proposals dropped by around 8%.
This trend is reflected in individual examples. A shareholder proposal requesting a report on working conditions in Amazon warehouses consistently supported by over a third of shareholders since 2022 saw its backing fall by nearly 10% in 2025. Likewise, a racial equity audit proposal at Walmart received less than half the support it had garnered just a year earlier.
Some asset owners who depend on recommendations or voting execution from major proxy advisors like ISS may be caught off guard to discover that support for certain proposals was withdrawn in 2025, despite no significant change in the underlying company information. For instance, ISS supported a climate-related energy finance ratio proposal at Bank of America in 2024, citing that two peers had already adopted similar measures, underscoring both its practicality and relevance. Yet in 2025, ISS recommended voting against the same proposal, this time pointing to the fact that only two peers had adopted the measure, essentially using the same fact to justify switching its vote.
If you rely on external managers to vote your shares or are concerned that your external manager might be backtracking on prior voting policies, now is the time to evaluate their record and communicate your needs clearly.
One key tool is the proxy audit. By evaluating how managers vote against their public commitments, audits help identify inconsistencies and act as a tool to support data-driven dialogues with your service providers.
If you haven’t changed your mind about what kind of practices bring real value to your portfolio, it’s time to make sure your managers haven’t either.
