Where Shareholders Stand on Climate: Examining Shareholder Proposals on Climate Change, Reporting, Lobbying and Emissions

Proxy Voting

October 30, 2025

min read

Courteney Keatinge

Vice-President, ESG Research

Example

‍Key Takeaways:

In 2025, climate-related proposals made up over three-quarters of all environmental proposals. However, no climate-related proposals – or environmental proposals more broadly – received majority shareholder approval this year.
Despite a lower number of climate-related shareholder proposals going to a vote, this year saw a slight increase in the number of climate reporting proposals, though voting support has continued to decrease.
Only three proposals in the U.S. went to a vote requesting the targeted companies produce reports describing if, and how, their lobbying activities align with their net zero ambitions and/or the goals of the Paris Agreement.
Average support for proposals on emissions reductions targets dropped by more than half this year to 12% and unlike previous years, none of these proposals received majority shareholder support.

Investors’ consideration and integration of environmental, social, governance (ESG) related matters have evolved significantly in recent years. In the last decade, ESG integration has gone from a niche practice employed by responsible investors to a mainstay consideration in the routine evaluation performed by mainstream investment managers. More recently, however, the anti-ESG movement has put a damper on how many companies and investors are discussing and addressing environmental and social issues.

Some of this change has been experienced only in certain markets and has resulted in a growing bifurcation of how market participants are integrating these considerations in their operational and investment decisions. For example, many companies and investors in Europe have strengthened their ESG considerations in the last several years, driven, in part by regulations and social expectations.

At the same time, many U.S. companies and investors have eliminated or scaled back many of their ESG-related initiatives and disclosures, particularly those related to climate. Our 2025 Policy Survey found a significant geographic split between U.S. investors and those from other regions, on how they approach environmental stewardship topics like climate transition plans and biodiversity.¹ From the standpoint of the 2025 proxy season, this article looks at the volume and support for proposals on climate change, including those related to climate reporting, climate lobbying and emissions reductions.

Climate Change Proposals and Declining Majority Support

Over the last decade, the number of and investors’ focus on shareholder proposals concerning climate-related issues, including requests for additional disclosure and actions with respect to companies’ contributions to and the impacts of climate change, has grown significantly. For example, in recent years, most environmental shareholder proposals have been related to some aspect of climate change; in 2025, climate-related proposals made up over three-quarters of all environmental proposals.

Although the number of these proposals has grown over the last decade, support for these initiatives has been slowly declining in recent years, in line with broader trends. Prior to 2017, no climate change-related shareholder proposal had ever received majority support, but that year three such proposals received over 50% approval. Since then, an additional 15 proposals, including two in 2024, have received majority shareholder support. However, in 2025, no climate-related proposals, or environmental proposals more broadly, received majority shareholder approval (Table 1).

Table 1. Summary of Climate Change Proposals, 2021-2025

Despite the lack of majority support for any of these proposals in 2025, the consistently high number of proposals on climate-related issues and the support garnered for them is likely indicative of shareholders’ growing realization that issues related to climate change pose significant risks to investors and the companies in which they invest.

Higher Volume, But Diminishing Support on Climate Reporting Proposals

In light of growing shareholder interest and understanding on the part of companies that climate change could present significant risks to their operations, there has been a significant uptick in the number of companies providing reporting on climate impacts and risks. In theory, the trend has negated the necessity of submitting shareholder proposals on this topic. In reality, however, the dynamic nature of climate change and shareholders’ increasing sophistication on this issue has resulted in more detailed and company-specific requests related to climate reporting.

Despite a lower number of shareholder proposals going to a vote, including those related to climate issues, this year saw an increase in climate reporting proposals (see Table 2 below). In line with other types of proposals, support has continued to decrease. The lower levels of support could be due in part to the anti-ESG movement and a greater reluctance from shareholders to support environmental and social shareholder proposals, and in part to the composition of the proposals that went to a vote. Unlike several years ago, when most climate proposals had similar requests, in the last four years, there were nearly as many distinct requests as there were proposals.

Table 2. Summary of Climate Reporting Proposals, 2021 - 2025

Several of these proposals asked for specific accounting of certain types of emissions. For example, a proposal at Markel Group requested that the company disclose the emissions from its “underwriting, insuring, and investment activities that account for major sources of its GHG footprint.”² In addition, a proposal at Skyworks Solutions requested the disclosure of all material Scope 3 GHG emissions.³ Other proposals dealt with companies’ operational strategies, such as a proposal at The Travelers Companies that requested disclosure on the expected impact of climate-related pricing and coverage decisions on the sustainability of its homeowners insurance customer base under a range of climate scenarios in the near, medium, and long-term.Another proposal, submitted at The Southern Company requested disclosure on the utility’s decision to increase reliance on fossil fuel-based energy production rather than renewables.⁴ All of these proposals received between 7% and 21% support.

Slower Momentum on Climate Lobbying

Shareholder proposals concerning how companies are spending treasury funds for electioneering or lobbying purposes have been one of the most popular types of shareholder resolutions for more than a decade. Investors have increasingly been concerned with, and engaging companies on, how their money is being spent and whether or not it is being used to further stated corporate goals. For example, one concern that has arisen in recent years is that companies may be outwardly proclaiming their environmental sustainability while at the same time indirectly funding lobbying efforts aimed at curbing climate regulations through their membership in trade associations.

There have been several approaches to ensuring companies’ values are aligned with their political spending. In particular, investors have sought to learn about companies’ indirect spending, namely their spending conducted through companies’ trade association memberships. Proponents often argue in supporting statements that they are concerned the target company’s money is being spent to lobby against progressive climate legislation.

Historically, the issue of indirect lobbying on climate-related issues was merely an implicit component of broader lobbying proposals. Proposals with a specific focus on climate-related lobbying have appeared in the U.S. since 2020, and in Australia since 2017. However, the momentum behind this issue may have slowed in the last year.

In 2025, only three proposals in the U.S. went to a vote requesting the targeted companies produce reports describing if, and how, their lobbying activities (both direct and through trade associations) align with their net zero ambitions and/or the goals of the Paris Agreement (Table 3). The proposals also generally asked that the requested report address the risks presented by any misaligned lobbying, as well as the companies’ plans, if any, to mitigate these risks. In the first half of this year, the three proposals on this topic were submitted at Bank of America, Mondelez International, and Verizon Communications.

Table 3. Summary of Climate Lobbying Proposals, 2021-2025

None of these proposals received majority shareholder support. All three proposals received between 11% and 16% shareholder support

Lower Number and Support for Emissions Reduction Targets Proposals

For many years, shareholders have proposed resolutions requesting that companies adopt GHG reduction targets. Particularly given the increased focus on issues related to the environment and climate change, it is unsurprising that shareholders are continuing to press companies to take steps to minimize their environmental impacts. However, over the last decade there has been a shift in how shareholders are approaching this issue, the number of proposals going to a vote, and how these proposals are targeted.

From 2019 through 2021, we reviewed ten of these proposals in total. The subsequent increase in the number of proposals likely resulted from changes in how the SEC allows companies to omit shareholder proposals. Prior to 2022, the SEC had interpreted these proposals as dealing with ordinary business matters and allowed companies to exclude them on that basis. However, when the SEC changed its criteria for allowing no-action requests in 2022, proposals asking companies to establish GHG reduction targets became more commonplace.

This has also had an impact on how these proposals are targeted. Initially, these proposals had been targeted almost exclusively at companies operating in the oil and gas industry or in heavily emitting industries, such as utilities. In the last several years, proponents have submitted proposals at companies that are less emissions-intensive. In the last year, only two of the 17 proposals on this topic were at companies where GHG emissions presented a material risk to the target companies, down from 33% and 41% and 33% in 2023 and 2024, respectively. Further, one of these two proposals, submitted at ConocoPhillips, requested the elimination of the oil and gas company’s GHG reduction targets (the only proposal of its kind in 2025).

Table 4. Summary of Emissions Reduction Targets Proposals, 2021-2025

In 2025, average support for these proposals dropped by more than half, to 12% (see Figure 1 below). Moreover, unlike previous years, none of these proposals received majority shareholder support.⁵ In the last year, the highest support for one of these proposals (30.4%) was at BJ’s Wholesale Club Holdings. Fewer than half of these proposals received over 10% support. This is a stark departure from 2024 when average support was 28% and two of these proposals received majority shareholder support, with a third proposal receiving 49.9%.

Figure 1. Average Shareholder Support for Climate-Related Shareholder Proposals