As long-term stewards of our clients’ capital, we believe achieving strong, long-term financial returns includes actively engaging with the companies we invest in, ensuring they are forward-looking and well-positioned to manage risks and opportunities in an ever-changing world. Proxy voting is a vital tool as it enables us to engage constructively with boards, voice shareholder concerns and promote better practices that could contribute to long-term value for our clients and society as a whole.
As equity shareholders in the publicly listed companies in which we invest, we have the opportunity to vote at shareholder meetings. Proxy voting allows shareholders like us to formally express views on corporate decisions. These votes cover a wide range of topics, from approving financial statements and electing Board members to setting executive pay, shaping governance practices, or addressing environmental and social risks. While most topics which are presented as resolutions are submitted by management, shareholders can also file proposals.
We vote on all directly held equities in companies on our approved buy list across discretionary client portfolios, guided by our Global Voting Principles, which focus on material ESG risks and long-term value creation. While we also consider input from a proxy advisor, each vote is assessed individually to reflect company-specific context. To enhance transparency, we also publicly disclose our historical voting instructions.
In 2024, we voted on more than 3,000 resolutions across 201 shareholder meetings and 180 companies. Most proposals (96%) were submitted by management, primarily focusing on Board structure, governance, capitalisation and executive compensation. Shareholder proposals (4%) covered issues such as hiring practices, human rights, environmental impact and political spending. We supported 62% of shareholder proposals that we deemed reasonable, addressed material risks and posed no unintended costs to the company.
We supported management recommendations in 93% of votes. The remaining 7% (201 votes) were situations where we chose to vote against management recommendations, primarily over concerns with board leadership, potential conflicts of interest or strategic decisions. We also opposed some executive pay proposals where there was a lack of clear performance targets, inadequate climate transition plans, limited diversity reporting or shortcomings in labour practices.
Our most significant votes in 2024 were shaped by clear thematic priorities like climate, fairer societies, AI and political lobbying and transparency.
Climate and environmental responsibility remained key priorities for our voting. At Microsoft, we supported a shareholder resolution requesting the company disclose how its AI and machine learning tools are used by oil and gas firms to aid fossil fuel exploration by identifying optimal drilling locations. This practice runs counter to Microsoft’s public climate commitments and presents reputational and strategic risks. Similarly, at Amazon, we backed a proposal calling for greater transparency around the company’s plastic usage and efforts to reduce it across its supply chain with clear reduction targets. Both proposals were ultimately not approved but received meaningful levels of support (10% 1and 28% 2), signalling investor concern about environmental performance.
Beyond the environment, we also prioritised issues related to work and fair labour practices. At Amazon, we voted in favour of an independent audit into warehouse working conditions driven by ongoing concerns around injury rates and performance pressure. The proposal received 31% support 2 and remains an area where we continue to engage the company.
The ethical use of emerging technologies, particularly AI, was another growing area of concern for us. At Microsoft, we supported a proposal for an independent assessment of the company’s role in military weapons development, including its work on the HoloLens for the US Army. We also backed a proposal urging the company to disclose how it sources third-party data for training its AI models. The latter received 36% support 1 – a strong signal for greater ethical oversight in AI development.
Corporate transparency and accountability continued to be a focus too. At Eli Lilly, the US pharmaceutical company that produce drugs such as Zepbound and Mounjaro, we voted for enhanced lobbying disclosures to ensure alignment between public commitments (e.g. on drug affordability) and lobbying activities. With 25% support 3, the proposal pointed to growing investor concern over misalignment between public commitments and behind-the-scenes advocacy. Lastly, at Alphabet, the parent company of Google and YouTube, we supported a resolution calling for clearer performance metrics and targets to evaluate child safety on YouTube. Despite low shareholder support (14% 4), we believe the proposal raises urgent issues around platform accountability and regulation.
In 2024, our votes reflected a deliberate focus on environmental stewardship, human capital, technological responsibility, and corporate ethics. We remain committed to using our voice to drive change constructively and transparently.
To learn more please see our latest Stewardship Report, which includes case studies and outcomes from our engagement activity.
[1] Microsoft: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/investor/corporate-governance/votingresults
[2] Amazon: https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001018724/069df373-8bf7-45d8-adf9-769a48cebbff.pdf
[3] Eli Lilly: https://investor.lilly.com/static-files/f1918c6c-7249-4c3b-bba4-b03b101b404e
[4] Alphabet: https://abc.xyz/assets/bb/9e/6edb74c225a65859e42261ae4b11/4d03d29b576032a603b6e429d17f8f1a.pdf
This communication is provided for information purposes only. The information presented herein provides a general update on market conditions and is not intended and should not be construed as an offer, invitation, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any specific investment or participate in any investment (or other) strategy. The subject of the communication is not a regulated investment. Past performance is not an indication of future performance and the value of investments and the income derived from them may fluctuate and you may not receive back the amount you originally invest. Although this document has been prepared on the basis of information we believe to be reliable, LGT Wealth Management UK LLP gives no representation or warranty in relation to the accuracy or completeness of the information presented herein. The information presented herein does not provide sufficient information on which to make an informed investment decision. No liability is accepted whatsoever by LGT Wealth Management UK LLP, employees and associated companies for any direct or consequential loss arising from this document.
LGT Wealth Management UK LLP is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority in the United Kingdom.
