ShareAction 2026 Priority Voting Principles

Voting on resolutions is one of the primary ways shareholders can exert their influence over the companies they invest in. Investors’ votes on environmental and social shareholder resolutions, as well as their use of votes for or against items tabled by company management and the re-election of directors, provide a barometer for how seriously they are taking these critical issues.

Investors can act on critical environmental and social risks

Some environmental and social issues are significant enough to pose a direct threat to the critical systems that underpin our society and economy. Given the systemic risk that these issues represent, we believe that companies acting in a way that directly exacerbates these risks are extremely unlikely to be working in the long-term interests of shareholders and the wider economy.

We urge investors to take firm action by voting against management items, such as the re-election of directors and committee chairs, at company AGMs to reinforce the need for urgent action and address these issues as key material risks. More information can be found in our accompanying briefing for investors.

A number of investors are leading the way, setting out voting policies covering management items which have clear expectations for portfolio companies, but this is not yet widespread. More universal adoption of this approach, and greater consistency in policies, would help ensure effective utilisation of this important lever for shareholder influence and greater clarity and coherence for company boards and executives.

Our priority voting principles for 2026

Below we provide a set of 11 priority voting principles for 2026, based on examples from existing voting policies and guidelines used by investors and partner organisations. These are not intended as specific company recommendations, but rather as high-level principles which investors can apply across sectors and jurisdictions. Where available, we have also signposted investors to data, resources and frameworks that they may find useful to assess compliance.

We would encourage investors to adopt these in their approach to votes on management items through the 2026 AGM season, or ask their investment manager to implement them.

1. Company is actively lobbying against action on climate change

Investors may wish to use InfluenceMap data or the CA100+ net zero benchmark (criteria 7) to assess company compliance. This should include both direct lobbying and that done via trade associations, for which investors can also review InfluenceMap data.

We recommend a vote against the re-election of the Chair (or equivalent), with further escalation if the company does not address this issue.

2. Company is expanding or financing the expansion of coal, oil and gas production and infrastructure​ ​

Investors may wish to use Urgewald’s Global Coal Exit List and Global Oil & Gas Exit List to assess company compliance, and/or review the Oil and Gas Policy Tracker and Coal Policy Tracker. Investors can also refer to ShareAction's RISE guidance paper on fossil fuel sector policies. 

We recommend a vote against the re-election of the Chair (or equivalent), with further escalation if the company does not address this issue.

3. Company has materially scaled back its climate targets or fossil fuel policies

This should include firms providing direct financing or underwriting for fossil fuels, including insurance and banks. We recommend a vote against the Chair (or equivalent), with further escalation if the company does not address this issue.

4. Company is in a carbon-intensive industry but has not published a credible transition plan aligned with a 1.5C scenario and has no clear plan to do so

Investors may wish to use frameworks such as the Transition Pathway Initiative (TPI), CA100+ net zero benchmark (criteria 1-6) to assess company compliance.

We recommend a vote against the Chair (or equivalent), with further escalation if the company does not address this issue.

5. Company and/or its supply chain is active in high-risk deforestation sectors, but does not have a measurable and timebound ​deforestation commitment

We recommend a vote against the Chair (or equivalent), with further escalation if the company does not address this issue.

6. Company does not follow World Health Organisation guidelines on responsible use of antimicrobials and/or engages in animal husbandry practices ​that​ may increase the risk of panedemics disease spread

Further information can be found in this investor briefing from NGO Shareholder Commons.

We recommend a vote against the Chair (or equivalent), with further escalation if the company does not address this issue.

7. Company is involved in the supply of weapons and/or enabling infrastructure to countries ​that​ have breached international human rights law

We recommend a vote against the re-election of the ​full board, with further escalation if the company does not address this issue.

8. Company does not pay its staff, including subcontracted staff, a living wage

Companies in the UK should refer to the real Living Wage / London Living Wage as the benchmark. Further information can also be found in this investor briefing from NGO Shareholder Commons.

We recommend a vote against the Chair of the remuneration committee (or equivalent), with further escalation if the company does not address this issue.

9. Company’s tax affairs are being managed in a way that is intended to avoid paying a fair share of tax in the main countries in which corporate value is produced

Investors may wish to use the Fair Tax Mark standards for UK and multinational businesses as a benchmark.

We recommend a vote against the Chair of the Audit Committee (or equivalent) with further escalation if the company does not address this issue.

10. Company fails to abide by the UN Global Compact standards on freedom of association, including effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining

​​We recommend a vote against the Chair (or equivalent), with further escalation if the company does not address this issue​.​​ ​​

11. ​​Vote against corporate political donations and political expenditure to election candidates or political parties

​We recommend a vote against all management resolutions which are intended to authorise political donations and expenditure to political parties or election candidates.

​​

Additional voting resources

We recommend investors also review more detailed management voting resources and flagged votes put forward by The Shareholder Commons, Sierra Club, and the Association of Member-Nominated Trustees (AMNT).

We also highlight Sarasin & Partners’ Net Zero Voting Guide as an example of best industry practice in this area.

Each year, we collate resources for investors, including notice of key resolutions being filed at major companies that we believe should be a priority for investors this proxy voting season. We’ll be publishing more resources closer to the 2026 AGM season – watch this space!

If you would like to be added to our investor mailing list to be notified when these are released, please sign up here.