Overview

2025 will be a transformational year marked by a more favorable business environment including the prospect of reduced regulation, lower taxes, reindustrialization, innovation and energy independence.  The flurry of White House activity will be unrelenting, warranting ongoing attention and adeptness by corporations.

In comparison, this season’s annual meetings are shaping up to be relatively calm as shareholder activists assess how they can adapt to this dynamic landscape and recalibrate their campaigns going forward.  Some of the trends emerging this spring include the following:

• A more corporate-friendly SEC: Under Republican leadership, the SEC will take a more measured
  approach to rulemaking and enforcement while focusing on its core mission of protecting investors, maintaining fair and efficient markets and facilitating capital formation.  Early on, the SEC undertook actions to deter shareholder activists and large asset managers from pressing companies to conform to environmental, social and governance (ESG) agendas.  These include revoking and replacing Biden-era guidance, which had made it difficult for companies to exclude Rule 14a-8 proposals that have a broad societal impact, and issuing clarifying guidance on shareholder engagements that may rise to the level of attempting to influence or control companies.  The SEC has also taken initial steps to unwind the 2024 climate disclosure rule.
• Less “noise” on proxy ballots:  To the relief of issuers and institutional investors suffering from “shareholder
  proposal fatigue,” the volume of filings to date (730) has subsided substantially after reaching its highest level last year (1,034) since 2015 (see Table 1).   Submissions of environmental and social (E&S) resolutions are down by nearly a third from last year’s peak as proponents awaited an expected course change by the incoming Trump administration and the GOP-led SEC.  Omissions are also running higher than last year, which stand at 18% of all filings compared to 12% in 2024.
• Governance measures stand out: Resolutions focused on widely accepted governance principles feature
  prominently in this season’s shareholder proposal lineup and will continue to prevail in the majority vote count (see Table 2).  E&S proposals are unlikely to rebound after losing steam in voting support since 2021 due to the “quantity over quality” approach of proponents.  Major asset managers could shift towards a more neutral stance, as did Vanguard last year when it refrained from supporting any E&S resolutions.
• Demise of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).  The Trump administration’s clamp-down on illegal DEI
  practices in the federal government and among federal contractors and the broader corporate community are accelerating the pace of company retreats from DEI commitments. Board diversity mandates are also disappearing after a federal court voided Nasdaq’s requirements in December.  As a result, DEI expectations are being purged from companies’ public communications and investor voting policies, which will frustrate pro-DEI activist campaigns that depend on robust disclosures.
• Pro- and anti-ESG faceoffs: Conservative-leaning investors are highly active again this proxy season and
  have already accounted for 39% of the first quarter shareholder proposal votes (see Table 3).  Despite the marginal support they generate, their campaigns will capture media attention, particularly at companies that must navigate competing resolutions on DEI, climate change and other E&S issues with diverging viewpoints.

This report further examines these and other key issues that will underpin the 2025 proxy season.

Table 1: Shareholder Proposal Trends

Table 2: Top Shareholder Proposal Filings: 2025 (as of April 7) – 2024 (full year)

Table 3: Early Votes (reported through April 7, 2025)

SEC Reforms 

Under GOP leadership, the SEC is pivoting away from former Chair Gary Gensler’s aggressive approach to rulemaking and enforcement and will prioritize reducing regulatory burdens, promoting capital formation and innovation, and creating a crypto-friendly regulatory framework.

In February, Acting SEC Chair Mark Uyeda began the process of dismantling the agency’s 2024 climate change disclosure rule, which was voluntarily stayed due to legal challenges over the rule’s validity.  In late March, the commissioners voted to end the SEC’s defense of the rule, signaling that the agency may eventually abandon it altogether. 

Other Gensler-era ESG rulemaking is not expected to survive either.  This includes proposed rules on human capital management and board diversity disclosure, which were delayed to October 2025 in the SEC’s fall 2024 Regulatory Flexibility Agenda.  

As described below, the SEC took immediate steps to offer relief to issuers from being pressured to adopt ESG measures.  In February, it issued new guidance that will facilitate the exclusion of shareholder proposals and will discourage large investors from being coercive when conducting engagements with companies.  Other reforms to the Rule 14a-8 process may be in store, including reexamining ownership thresholds, enhancing oversight of the proxy advisory firms and deterring robovoting practices.

No-Action Requests

The SEC’s Feb. 12 release of new interpretative guidance on the omission of Rule 14a-8 proposals has the potential to significantly disrupt the number of shareholder resolutions reaching ballots this season, particularly those dealing with E&S issues.¹

Staff Legal Bulletin (SLB) 14M largely reinstates pre-SLB 14L guidance, making it easier for companies to exclude shareholder resolutions on economic relevance and ordinary business grounds by applying a narrower, company-specific approach rather than looking to broad societal impacts.   Proposals that raise issues of social or ethical significance may be excludable if they do not have a sufficient nexus to the targeted company or if they relate to operations that account for less than 5% of total assets, net earnings and
gross sales.  

SLB 14M also reverts to previous staff guidance with expanded micromanagement exclusions, including proposals that are highly prescriptive, seek intricate detail or specific timeframes or methods for implementing complex policies, or deal with compensation available only to senior executives and/or directors.  

SLB 14M additionally calls attention to the fact that the SEC’s 2022 proposed amendments to the substantial implementation, duplication and resubmission bases for exclusion were never finalized.  The amendments would have narrowed these standards of omission by requiring that a company meet all of the proposal’s essential elements to be considered substantially implemented and for the proposal to address the same subject matter and seek the same objective by the same means in order to qualify for duplication or resubmission exclusion.  Henceforth, the staff will review these no-action requests under operative SEC rules and applicable staff guidance. 

The SEC is allowing companies to amend pending no-action requests or submit new ones, even if their filing deadlines have passed, if they wish to raise new legal arguments based on the updated guidance.  So far, 16 companies have done so, primarily to challenge various E&S proposals on ordinary business, micromanagement and economic relevance grounds.

Investor Engagements

New guidance on beneficial ownership reporting issued by the SEC in February will impact the timing and substance of outreach discussions between companies and their major investors by expanding on what constitutes an attempt to change or influence control of a company.²  

The revised Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (CD&Is) provide clarity around situations when a large (greater than 5%) investor’s engagements would require more expansive disclosures on Schedule D, rather than the short-form Schedule G.  While a shareholder may discuss with management its views on a particular topic and how its views inform its voting decisions, it would be disqualified from reporting on Schedule G if the discussion constituted pressure tactics.  This would include if the shareholder explicitly or implicitly conditioned its support of the issuer’s director nominees at the next director election on the issuer abiding by the shareholder’s voting policy or adopting the shareholder’s recommendations regarding its governance provisions; compensation practices; or a social, environmental or political policy.

The new reporting requirements squarely take aim at a handful of institutional investors whose concentrated ownership of U.S. public companies gives them outsized influence over corporate decision making.  According to Free Float Analytics data cited by Reuters, in the fourth quarter of 2024, BlackRock and Vanguard filed 13G disclosures at 52% and 48%, respectively, of all U.S. public companies, followed by Dimensional Fund Advisors (9%), Fidelity Investments (9%) and State Street Global Advisors (SSGA) (7%).³

As a result, large investors who wish to retain their 13G status may be reluctant to share with portfolio companies their voting intentions or detailed perspectives on a given company.  SSGA, for example, overhauled its 2025 proxy voting and engagement policy and deleted all references as to when it will vote against directors and other management proposals.⁴ Issuers will therefore need to be attentive to the voting behavior of their major investors this year to stay apprised of issues that may trigger adverse votes.

E&S Issues

Shareholder proponents have substantially scaled back their submissions of E&S proposals this year, which have seen declining support since 2021 and posted only three majority votes in 2024.  So far, only about 429 E&S resolutions have been filed—a 30% decrease from last year’s 610.  The Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) also reported only 217 member filings for 2025, which is their lowest level since 2014.  As You Sow and Proxy Impact attribute the pull-back to proponents taking a “wait and see” approach in view of the change in presidential administration and expected policy shifts at the SEC.

E&S advocates have struggled to maintain the momentum their initiatives saw several years ago due in large part to complaints by major asset managers of the resolutions being overreaching, poorly targeted, lacking economic merit, or sufficiently implemented.  Last year, SSGA supported only 9% of E&S resolutions, BlackRock supported 4% and Vanguard supported none.  In contrast, 2021 support levels were 32% for SSGA, 40% for BlackRock and 26% for Vanguard.⁵ 

The number of E&S resolutions reaching ballots this season may also be down due to omissions.  So far, 15% of E&S proposals have been excluded, up from 8% last year, of which two-thirds were based on ordinary business arguments.  Another 54 no-action requests directed at E&S initiatives remained pending as of April 7.  Meanwhile, the rate of withdrawals, which are ongoing, is tracking about 11% behind last year’s level, including proposals that were reportedly filed but did not show up on ballots.

In addition to greenhouse gas (GHG)/climate transition plan resolutions, this year’s DEI-related proposals, which span both ends of the ideological spectrum, rank among the most popular shareholder resolution submissions.  Although some proposal formulations are less prescriptive, few topics among this year’s E&S lineup are likely to attract majority support.

DEI

DEI promises to be one of the most contentious issues this season for both advocates and detractors.  President Trump’s executive orders (EO) ending illegal DEI programs in the federal government and directing federal agencies to combat illegal discrimination and preferences in the private sector will set into motion the rapid decline of corporate DEI programs that violate civil rights laws.⁶

Corporate rollbacks of DEI initiatives, which were widely adopted in response to the #MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements, were initially sparked by the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning affirmative action in higher education, prompting concerns over the risk of legal exposure.  The trend accelerated last year when social media influencer Robby Starbuck exposed consumer brand companies’ DEI programs, igniting a public backlash.

In keeping with the EOs, federal agencies are already deploying their enforcement powers to combat discriminatory DEI practices. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently launched investigations into the current and past DEI policies of Comcast/NBC Universal and Walt Disney/ABC for potential violations of the FCC’s equal employment opportunity regulations. The Department of Justice (DOJ) and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) have also issued two technical assistance documents addressing their views on what workplace DEI practices may be unlawful.⁷ 

As a result, companies have been scrubbing mentions of DEI in their earnings calls, annual reports, and public communications and have disbanded DEI positions and departments, refocused employee training from diversity to business operations, and ended quotas for hiring, promotions, and the selection of suppliers.  However, it is unclear to what extent corporate DEI pullbacks are more optics than substance.  According to an April survey by the Society of Governance Professionals, only 37% of the responding member companies plan to adjust or have already adjusted their workforce-related DEI policies, programs and/or practices in response to the EOs.  Of these firms, over 80% are removing or rebranding DEI-related terminology from internal and external communications, while only 40% are scaling back diversity hiring and promotion goals or modifying DEI-linked pay metrics.

Workplace DEI Proposals

This year’s DEI-related proxy resolutions largely reflect pro- and anti-DEI activists’ reaction to the large-scale corporate retreat from DEI in 2024.  As You Sow is asking companies that rolled back their DEI commitments, including Ford Motor, Harley-Davidson and Tractor Supply, to disclose the research and analysis their boards undertook before changing their DEI policies and practices.   The AFL-CIO is similarly asking Best Buy, Lowe’s Companies and Tractor Supply to issue an LGBTQ+ non-discrimination report out of concern that their decision to stop reporting data to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) reduces transparency around their non-discrimination policies.  Tractor Supply was able to block both resolutions on ordinary business or substantial implementation grounds, while Harley-Davidson successfully excluded the AFL-CIO resolution as micromanagement.

As You Sow has also rephrased its proposals asking companies to report on the effectiveness and outcomes of their DEI programs based on quantitative metrics for workforce hiring, promotion and retention by gender, race and ethnicity.  The revised language requests a report on the effectiveness of companies’ efforts to create a workplace where all employees can contribute to the company’s success.  

Conservative proponents are building on the momentum of 2024 by asking companies to report on the legal and reputational risks of maintaining their DEI programs or, in a more direct approach, to consider eliminating them altogether.  The National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) is also calling on several companies to cease participating in the HRC’s Corporate Equality Index, which tracks employers’ commitment to LGBTQ+ equality practices.  A common concession among Starbuck’s corporate targets was ending their involvement with the HRC. The resolution received 1.5% at Walt Disney and is pending at CVS Health.

The National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) is petitioning about 10 companies to revisit their executive incentive guidelines and consider eliminating discriminatory DEI goals.  Most of the targeted companies unsuccessfully argued to the SEC that they had substantially implemented the request, which simply asked them to review their incentive pay metrics—which they do annually anyway—rather than to make changes to them.  Several of the targets no longer include DEI goals in their executive pay measures which, according to WTW, have been losing ground at large-cap companies since 2021.⁸ 

Initial DEI Votes

The season’s first anti-DEI proposals, filed by NCPPR, asked Costco Wholesale to study and report on the financial risks associated with its DEI roles, policies and goals and for Apple to consider abolishing its DEI programs altogether.  Although the negligible levels of support (less than 2%) were regarded by the media and advocates as a referendum on the companies’ DEI programs, the votes essentially reflect the fact that the proxy advisors and large institutional investors almost never support resolutions from conservative proponents, irrespective of the topic.

Deere found itself in the crosshairs of pro- and anti-DEI proposals after paring back its DEI initiatives last year in response to Starbuck’s campaign.  Deere even stated in its proxy that because of the ideologically opposing perspectives of the proposals, it was unable to satisfactorily address the concerns of proponents with one set of views without creating concerns for those with an opposing viewpoint.

NLPC and As You Sow submitted similar resolutions at Deere seeking additional gender/racial workforce statistics to determine if the company engages in discriminatory versus merit-based hiring (NLPC) and to assess the effectiveness of the company’s DEI programs in creating a “meritocratic” workplace (As You Sow).  The NLPC proposal received 1.7%, while As You Sow withdrew its resolution before the annual meeting following dialogues with the company and after ISS and Glass Lewis had recommended against it.

The other notable vote at Deere was on a proposal by corporate gadfly John Chevedden calling for a third-party civil rights audit to analyze the bias and discrimination risks of the company’s policies, practices, products and services, including the adverse impacts of its recent rollback of its DEI commitments.  The resolution received 29.5%–well above last year’s 12.6% average support for similar proposals—and was backed by ISS and Glass Lewis.

Board Diversity

In addition to workplace DEI policies and programs, board diversity requirements are also disappearing.   Last December, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit invalidated Nasdaq’s 2021 board diversity rule which mandated that listed companies annually disclose the diversity of their directors and have at least one woman, racial minority or LBBTQ+ member on their boards or explain why they do not.  

Companies will also see relief this season from meeting board diversity mandates from proxy advisors and large institutional investors.  Because of the Trump administration’s heightened scrutiny of DEI practices, ISS suspended its consideration of board gender and racial/ethnic diversity factors when making voting recommendations on director elections at U.S. companies.  Glass Lewis will continue applying its policy but will flag its recommendations against directors for diversity-related reasons so its clients may vote differently.

Major institutional investors also removed board diversity considerations from their 2025 proxy voting policies, perhaps to avoid giving the appearance of promoting boardroom quotas.  BlackRock and State Street eliminated their numerical and percentage diversity targets for U.S. boards, while Vanguard, which had no explicit board diversity quotas, removed references to gender, racial and ethnicity diversity in favor of a broader range of “personal characteristics.”  Goldman Sachs Group similarly dropped its requirement that any company it takes public in the U.S. or Europe must have at least two diverse directors, including
one woman.

Investors who maintain quota-style voting policies may find them harder to apply if companies, such as those listed on Nasdaq, discontinue providing disclosure of board demographics.⁹ As a result, some investors will continue to press companies to voluntarily provide the information.  As part of its Boardroom Accountability Project 2.0, launched in 2017, the New York City Retirement Systems (NYCRS) is continuing to press companies to publish board matrices describing the skills, gender and race/ethnicity of individual directors.  Earlier this year, it reached agreements with Boyd Gaming and NextEra Energy and has shareholder proposals pending at Corpay and DraftKings Holdings.

Climate Change 

As with DEI, the Trump administration is deconstructing the climate change agenda.  As widely anticipated, President Trump issued a series of EOs to promote America’s energy independence and roll back Biden-era climate regulations, including withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Agreement and other climate-related financial commitments. To advance these EOs, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin subsequently announced 31 historic actions the agency will undertake to overhaul environmental regulations to unleash American energy, reduce the cost of living and spur economic growth. A follow-on EO, issued in early April, is directed at illegitimate state-level impediments to domestic energy production, including state laws purporting to address climate change or involving ESG initiatives, environmental justice, carbon or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and funds to collect carbon penalties or taxes.¹⁰

In mid-March, U.S. Senate Banking Committee member Bill Hagerty (R-TN) introduced legislation–the “Prevent Regulatory Overreach from Turning Essential Companies into Targets” (PROTECT USA) Act of 2025—which would shield U.S. companies from regulatory encroachment by the European Union (EU), specifically the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD).¹¹ Adopted in May 2024, the CSDDD converts a range of international conventions into binding laws which would force American companies to adopt the EU’s net-zero carbon emissions target and other standards that exceed the requirements of U.S. law and impose severe financial penalties for violations.  Hagerty’s bill would prohibit U.S. entities in the agriculture, mining, energy, timber and manufacturing sectors from being forced to comply with the CSDDD or any foreign sustainability due diligence regulation and would block any adverse actions taken against such entities for action or inaction related to the regulation.

For its part, the EU released its Omnibus Simplification Package in February which would reduce the administrative burdens associated with the CSDDD, Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), and EU Taxonomy Regulation.  The changes would exempt about 80% of companies from mandatory disclosures under the CSRD, simplify and reduce reporting and diligence requirements, and delay implementation deadlines.  The Commission said the revisions were needed to strengthen Europe’s competitiveness in view of the global demand for affordable and reliable energy.

United Nations-backed climate coalitions are also breaking apart.  In the first weeks of 2025, six of the largest U.S. banks pulled out of the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA), while BlackRock—and more recently J.P. Morgan Asset Management–departed from the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative (NZAM), which has since suspended its primary activities.  The defections follow years of probes by GOP lawmakers and state attorneys general (AGs) over potential anti-trust concerns arising from climate collaborations. Signatories of the organizations pledge to advance global net-zero goals through their investment, lending and policy advocacy activities.  NZAM members also agree to implement a stewardship and engagement strategy, with a clear escalation and voting policy, that is consistent with the ambition for all assets under management to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 or sooner.¹² 

In view of the rapidly evolving regulatory landscape, climate-focused shareholder activists may be more compelled to pursue their agenda through private ordering.  This year, shareholder proposals addressing climate issues remain numerous, but it remains to be seen to what extent investor interest will hold up.  

In his 2025 annual letter investors, BlackRock Chair/CEO Larry Fink dispensed with mentions of DEI, ESG, climate change and sustainability.¹³ Instead, he continued last year’s theme of “energy pragmatism” in view of the surging global demand for electricity, fueled by artificial intelligence (AI) data centers, which cannot be met with renewables.  This year’s emphasis was on increasing energy production-particularly nuclear power–reducing burdensome regulatory and permitting requirements, and making investments in infrastructure projects through private markets more accessible to investors. 

GHG Emissions

Proponents of GHG emissions reduction proposals are gravitating towards less prescriptive requests after scoring only two majority votes in 2024 at Jack in the Box and Wingstop.  The sponsor of last year’s successful resolutions—The Accountability Board (TAB)—said that it deliberately made broadly worded requests that left discretion to companies as to what reduction goals they set and the scope of emissions they covered.

As a result, this year’s GHG resolutions may receive higher levels of support.  In many cases, the proposals simply ask companies how they plan to reduce their GHG emissions in alignment with the Paris goals or whether their current climate transition plans align with or can reasonably meet such goals.  Green Century Capital Management, which is focusing on Scope 3 emissions disclosure and target-setting across various industries, is also avoiding overly explicit language by, for example, asking companies how their supply chain emissions reduction targets align with their net-zero ambitions.

As You Sow and NYCRS are resuming their campaign at major banks to annually disclose their clean energy financing ratios, which compare their financing for low-carbon energy projects versus fossil fuel projects.  Last year, the proponents reached agreements with Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and the Royal Bank of Canada to disclose the new climate metric, while the proposals voted averaged 25.9% support.

AI Data Centers

Along with individual investors, As You Sow has additionally introduced a new proposal at Amazon.com and Meta Platforms to explain how they will meet their climate change-related commitments in view of the growing energy demands from their build-out of AI data centers.  According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. power consumption is expected to reach record levels in 2025 and 2026 due in large part to rising demand from data centers supporting AI and cryptocurrency.

In a related initiative, NorthStar Asset Management is raising concerns with the water demands of AI data centers and how companies are mitigating the impact on local communities of potential water supply disruptions and scarcity.  NorthStar reached an agreement with Adobe and has proposals pending at Digital Realty, Salesforce and Zoom Communications.

Climate Risk in Retirement Plans

For a fourth year, As You Sow is asking a handful of companies to assess and report on the actions they are taking to address climate change risk in their retirement plan options.  The proponent takes particular issue with target date funds offered by BlackRock, Fidelity and Vanguard, which are typically the most popular plan options but are heavily invested in high-carbon industries and companies that contribute to deforestation.  

Since being introduced in 2022, the resolutions have marshalled no more than 13% support and have been uniformly opposed by ISS and Glass Lewis.  Support for this year’s resolutions has been similarly weak—11.9% at QUALCOMM and 7.2x% at Walt Disney, with one still pending at Centene.

Net-Zero Pushback

Conservative proponents are continuing to rebuke net-zero policies for being economically destructive in view of the high global demand for oil and gas.  NLPC is asking several oil majors, including Chevron and ConocoPhillips, to remove all GHG emissions reduction targets covering company operations and energy products, while NCPPR has filed a repeat proposal at United Parcel Service to report on the risks arising from voluntary carbon-reduction goals, which received 8.4% support in 2024.

New Breeze is probing Duke Energy and several banks over their commitments and agreements involving net-zero goals.  Two of its targets—Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase—were successful in omitting the resolutions as substantially implemented after having dropped out of the NZBA in February.   In February, Wells Fargo became the first major U.S. bank to abandon its 2050 net-zero targets for financed emissions along with its sector-specific interim targets for 2030.  It said that achieving those goals was dependent on factors beyond its control, including public policy, consumer behavior and technology changes.

Environmental Protection 

Shareholder proposals on biodiversity and natural capital have surged in volume in recent years though support levels have fallen dramatically since 2021, in large part because companies have substantially addressed the requests.¹⁴ 

This year’s nature-related proposals include some new themes as well as repeat topics such as deforestation, plastic pollution and recycling, microfiber shedding, regenerative agriculture, and sourcing minerals from deep-sea mining.

• Avocado sourcing: As You Sow is asking several retailers what actions they are taking to prevent sourcing avocados from deforested land, particularly in Mexico.  Agreements were reached with Mission Produce and Target and the proposal remains pending at Kroger.
• Misleading labeling: Green Century Capital Management and The Last Beach Cleanup are urging food,
  beverage and consumer packaged goods companies to remove misleading recyclability claims from their plastic packaging labeling.
• Food waste: TAB is requesting restaurant and retail companies to measure and set targets for reducing the food waste they generate.  According to the Environmental Protection Agency, food accounts for almost one quarter of the waste sent to U.S. landfills.
• Plastic recycling policy review: New this year is a proposal by NLPC asking Colgate-Palmolive to
  reexamine its plastic production and packaging policies based on non-biased, objectively verified, scientifically accurate, and economically thorough research.  The proponent contends that single-use plastics have been unjustifiably demonized by environmental activists when plastic pollution is primarily the result of poor disposal practices, not production.

Workers’ Rights

Union pension plans have been less active this year in filing shareholder resolutions with about 53 submissions to date compared to 98 during 2024.  As in the past, a central focus is on workplace health and safety and freedom of association/collective bargaining rights.

• Worker health: The SOC Investment Group and NYCRS have sponsored a new proposal at four airlines to report on their efforts to mitigate extreme heat exposure throughout the companies’ operations that may impact worker health.
• Workplace violence: For a third year, various proponents including SOC are raising concerns about unsafe working conditions–particularly gun violence by customers—at restaurants and retail stores.  Last year, the proposal received 19.2% at Walmart and 30% at Chipotle Mexican Grill, where it has been refiled for 2025.  Both ISS and Glass Lewis have been supportive of this initiative.
• Non-interference policy:  In conjunction with their organizing efforts, labor proponents are asking about nine airline, automotive, broadcasting, food and banking companies to uphold the rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining in their operations as reflected in the International Labor Organization’s (ILO) Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.  Since this campaign began in 2022, average support has been declining each year from a high of 36.2% to 25.7% in 2024.The AFL-CIO is revisiting this issue at Warrior Met Coal where last year the proposal received its highest level of support (46.1%).  In response, the company has already commissioned an independent third-party assessment of the company’s respect for human rights, including freedom of association and collective bargaining rights.
• Anti-unionization: At Starbucks, NLPC countered the unionization drive by directing the board to study
  the human rights risks related labor organizing efforts, including how the company is protecting the rights of employees who do not wish to be represented by a union as well as negative impacts on shareholder value.  Although the company completed a similar assessment last year, it was produced as a result of a majority-backed shareholder proposal from pro-union activists and addressed only pro-bargaining rights perspectives.   The resolution received 1% support and was opposed by ISS and Glass Lewis.

Health impact-related proposals are down by about one third from last year due to the dramatic decline in abortion access resolutions, which peaked in 2023 following the U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.  Proponents have also intertwined their initiatives on the cost of prescription drugs with human rights standards and backed off their focus on anti-competitive practices such as patent exclusivities.

Meanwhile, concerns around food safety and product labeling will be reflected in Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s reorganization of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to prioritize reversing chronic disease by focusing on safe, wholesome food, clean water and the elimination of environmental toxins.

• Access to medicine: For a second year, faith-based organizations are taking a human rights approach
  to access to medicine and drug pricing at a half-dozen pharmaceutical companies.  The proposals call for a human rights due diligence process (HRDD) and human rights impact assessment (HRIA) to determine the extent drugmakers are increasing the access and affordability of their medicines.  A similar resolution last year received 10% at Eli Lilly and was withdrawn at Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer.
• Access to healthcare: ICCR members pulled a much-touted measure at UnitedHealth Group to
  prepare a report on the public health costs and macroeconomic risks created by company practices that delay or deny access to healthcare.  The proposal was prompted by the public outrage over the exorbitant costs and restricted access to healthcare that ensued following the shooting of CEO Brian Thompson.  In view of the company’s no-action challenge, the proponents opted to withdraw the resolution so as not to jeopardize the chance to refile it next year.
• Nutrition reporting: In a new campaign initiated last fall by ShareAction, religious organizations are
  asking food and beverage manufacturers to report on the healthiness of their products using internationally recognized Nutrient Profiling Models (NPMs).  The resolution was withdrawn at Kraft Heinz and omitted at Mondelez International as micromanagement.
• Non-sugar sweeteners: After a longstanding campaign on the role of sugar in disease causation and obesity, particularly among children, religious orders switched their focus last year to the potential health harms of non-sugar sweeteners in soft drinks.  The proposal has been refiled at Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, where it received 10.7% and 11.5%, respectively, in 2024.

Political Activities

Notwithstanding the release of SLB 14M, companies have been more successful in recent years in omitting shareholder proposals on ordinary business and micromanagement grounds.  Lobbying disclosure resolutions became an early casualty of the 2025 proxy season after Air Products and Chemicals successfully argued for micromanagement exclusion because the supporting statement narrowly focused on the company’s association with specific organizations, such as the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

According to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), a long-time sponsor of corporate lobbying proposals, there were eight previous determinations by the SEC staff between 2011 and 2020 that the proposals focused primarily on companies’ general political activities and did not constitute micromanagement.

Out of over three dozen lobbying proposals filed for 2025—mostly by Chevedden—about two dozen companies are seeking no-action relief on micromanagement grounds, in some cases also noting the highly prescriptive and detailed nature of the report being sought.  So far, 15 requests have been granted, two remain pending, and eight were withdrawn by the proponents after being challenged.  

As a result, the proponents are crafting revised versions of their proposals which instead focus on what actions the company has taken when the lobbying efforts of the trade associations and social welfare groups in which it is a member contradict the company’s public position.

Conservative Initiatives

Conservative-oriented proponents have cut back their submissions this year, which stand at about
100 proposals, down from a high of 120 in 2024. However, their share of all 2025 filings has risen to 14% from
11% in 2024, and this year they account for 21% of all E&S filings, compared to 18% in 2024.  Although their initiatives typically draw negligible levels of support, many of their longstanding issues—particularly their opposition to DEI and ESG—are being addressed by the Trump administration and GOP Congressional lawmakers and state officials.

This year, several new right-leaning advocacy groups have joined in on issues such as censorship, politicized debanking, religious discrimination in corporate charitable giving, and data privacy in AI systems.  These include the Heritage Foundation, GuideStone Capital Management, the Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth, Investing with Purpose Capital, and the Oklahoma Tobacco Settlement Fund.

In an unusual move, Bristol-Myers Squibb reached an agreement with NCPPR to include two of its resolutions on its 2025 ballot.  One calls for the cessation of the company’s DEI efforts and the second requests the establishment of a board committee to oversee and review the impact on the company’s financial sustainability of its policy positions, advocacy, partnerships and charitable giving on social and political matters.

AI and Data Protection 

NLPC is targeting Big Tech companies with proposals on how they are safeguarding user data from potential unethical or improper usage in the development and training of their AI products.  The massive amounts of training data needed by AI systems are often sourced from personal information, copyrighted material and proprietary business data, in some cases through third parties such as OpenAI, which has faced multiple allegations of unethical data collection practices without data owners’ consent.

The proposal was first introduced at Microsoft last fall where it received 36.2% support—one of the highest levels attained on a social proposal sponsored by a conservative investor.  It also received the rare backing of both proxy advisors.  At Apple’s February annual meeting, it received 11.6% and was endorsed by Glass Lewis but opposed by ISS.  Additional resolutions are pending at Alphabet, Amazon.com and Meta Platforms.

Censorship

Conservative investors’ 2025 censorship proposals take aim at potential risks arising from discrimination against advertising buyers and sellers based on their political or religious views.

A particular concern has been companies’ affiliation with the Global Alliance for Responsible Media
(GARM), which was formed by the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) in 2019 to help advertisers avoid supporting harmful or illegal content in digital media that could damage their brands.  GARM was disbanded in 2024 following a lawsuit by X and a House Judiciary Committee investigation over its “cartel-like behavior” to demonetize platforms, podcasts, news outlets and other content deemed disfavored by GARM and its members.¹⁵ 

Bowyer Research, which is the primary sponsor of the proposals, contends that many of the advertising agencies, corporations and trade associations that were GARM members continue to maintain similar censorship practices.  The measure received 1% at Walt Disney and is pending at six other companies.  The proponents reached agreements with Johnson & Johnson, Mastercard and PepsiCo, which have committed to independent decision-making in their advertising.

Bitcoin Diversification Strategy 

President Trump’s EOs aimed at making the U.S. the “crypto capital of the world” marks a dramatic shift from the Biden administration’s often hostile approach to digital assets, particularly regarding SEC enforcement actions.¹⁶ In addition to developing a federal regulatory framework for crypto assets, the Trump administration is considering the creation of a national digital asset stockpile.  About two dozen states are also advancing legislation for strategic Bitcoin reserves.

This forward-looking stance on digital technology could give a lift to proposals filed by NCPPR asking several companies, including Dell Technologies, Meta Platforms and Salesforce, to conduct an assessment to determine if adding Bitcoin to the company’s treasury would be in the long-term interests of shareholders.   NCPPR’s initial foray into this topic received only 0.5% support at Microsoft last fall and was opposed by the proxy advisory firms.

Charitable Contributions 

Conservative investors have reformulated their charitable giving proposals, which in the past asked for a list of the recipients of corporate charitable contributions over a certain amount ($5,000 or $10,000).  This year’s versions are tied to religious discrimination.

• Employee philanthropic freedom: Inspire Investing, Investing with Purpose Capital and the Catholic Diocese of Forth Worth are asking a number of companies to issue a report evaluating how excluding religious charities from the company’s employer-gift match program impacts the risks of religious discrimination against employees.  The resolution received 1.9% at Apple and was withdrawn at Charles Schwab due to ongoing dialogues.  Other targets, including American Express, BlackRock and Wells Fargo, were able to omit the proposal for containing false or misleading statements.
• Discrimination in charitable giving:  Bowyer Research and the Oklahoma Tobacco Settlement
  Endowment Fund are asking several firms to assess how their charitable contributions and partnerships—particularly their sponsorship of the HRC—impact their risks related to religious discrimination against individuals based on their speech and religious exercise.  The proposal received 1.3% at Deere and 0.8% at Starbucks and is pending at lululemon athletica. 

Governance Issues

As in 2024, governance proposals are poised to outperform other categories of shareholder resolutions and will likely dominate the majority vote count.  Through March, four proposals already received majority support.  These included a board declassification proposal at Agilent Technologies, where the board made no recommendation on the measure, and two proposals to replace supermajority voting with a simple majority vote at Post Holdings and Hologic, where the board supported the measure.  A proposal to reduce the eligibility threshold for calling special meetings from 25% to 10% also garnered a majority vote at Sanmina.  

Last year’s successful campaigns are having an impact as well with a record number of companies (80 to date) proposing to retract their supermajority voting provisions, in many cases proactively rather than in response to a new shareholder proposal or a past vote.

Chevedden continues to be the most prolific sponsor of governance resolutions, as well those on compensation matters, such as severance pay, clawbacks and the retention of equity awards.  However, at least 17 of his resolutions have been excluded this year for procedural deficiencies, including at five companies where he neglected to include the proposal in his submission. 

TAB, which focuses on the food industry, is also expanding more into the governance arena this year.  So far, it has filed over a dozen resolutions on special meeting rights, independent board chairs, board independence, dual-class stock and the repeal of supermajority voting.  

Individual investor Chris Mueller has reemerged for a second year with over three dozen filings that largely center around concerns related to direct stock purchase plans.  These include offering ComputerShare’s QuickCert “print on demand” stock certificates, educating shareholders on how they can protect their securities against abusive short-sellers (such as the 2021 GameStop short squeeze), and demanding additional disclosures from the transfer agent on arbitrage exposure enabled through recurring direct stock plan purchases.

In all cases last year, Mueller’s submissions suffered from procedural defects and were omitted or withdrawn following company challenges.  So far, his 2025 resolutions are succumbing to the same fate and unlikely to reach ballots.

Special Meeting Improvement  

This year, Chevedden is presenting two versions of his resolutions to enhance shareholders’ special meeting rights: to adopt or reduce the stock ownership threshold to 10% or to simply drop any one-year holding period.  

The latter style of proposal was last introduced at four companies in 2023 and received only 11.6% in average support.   ISS opposed all of the resolutions, while Glass Lewis supported those where the company’s ownership requirement was above Glass Lewis’s preferred level of 10-15%.  According to DMI data, of the S&P 500 firms that allow shareholders to call special meetings (74%), 15% attach a one-year holding period to their ownership provision.

Director Resignation Policies

Early votes continue to show only modest support for proposals filed by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters calling for more rigorous director resignation policies, despite some tweaks from last year.  This year’s version requires that if a director fails his election for two consecutive years, his second tendered resignation would be automatically effective 90 days (rather than 30 days) after the vote is certified and that the policy be contained in the governance guidelines (rather than the bylaws).

Eight resolutions came to a vote in January and averaged 21.8% support—up from 17.6% for the eight voted in 2024—with the highest vote ever recorded at Sally Beauty Holdings (38.8%).   ISS has continued to oppose the proposals while Glass Lewis supports them.

Proposals in the pipeline for later meetings include an updated version at Supernus Pharmaceuticals which asks the company to adopt a governance guideline whereby after an initial failed vote, the director’s tendered resignation would be effective 90 days after the vote is certified.  The company is trying to omit the resolution as materially false and misleading because it has a plurality, rather than a majority, voting standard.  

Dual-Class Vote Reporting 

Faith-based organizations are filing a relatively new proposal at dual-class stock companies to report their vote results according to each class of stock in order to better monitor their responsiveness to the votes of non-insider shareholders.  The resolution received 13.1% at Tyson Foods and is pending at Meta Platforms, where last year’s proposal received 17.1% support.  ISS and Glass Lewis have been supportive of this initiative.  Interestingly, the resolutions are scoring lower votes than proposals calling for a recapitalization plan so that each share carries one vote, which garnered 26.3% at Meta Platforms in 2024 and 20% at Tyson Foods in 2020.

Reincorporations 

2025 was expected to be the year of “DExit” after a series of Delaware court rulings—the most prominent being the recission of Elon Musk’s $55 billion pay package—have called into question the state law’s longstanding predictability.

According to Bloomberg data, out of 40 proposed reincorporations between 2021 and mid-August, 2024, 15 companies sought to redomicile from Delaware to another state, primarily Nevada and Texas, which are vying to become legitimate alternatives^.17 Citing the increasingly litigious environment for companies with controlling shareholders, Dropbox, Meta Platforms, Pershing Square Capital Management, Simon Property Group, Trump Media & Technology Group and Walmart are considering or have made plans to leave the state.¹⁸  

To stave off an exodus, in late March amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL) were enacted that offer a process for boards to protect directors, officers and controlling shareholders from litigation over alleged conflicts of interest.¹⁹  These include providing safe harbors for conflict transactions, establishing a presumption of director independence based on national stock exchange standards, narrowing shareholder access to books and records, and defining a controller as owning at least a majority of the voting stock or one-third of the voting stock combined with managerial control over the affairs of the corporation.

The legislation has drawn sharp criticism from investor and public interest groups that it will reduce corporate insider accountability and lower safeguards for minority shareholders.  However, advocates contend that the amendments will restore balance, clarity and certain to Delaware law.