# 2026 Shareholder Proposal Trends > Source: > Published: 2026-08-05 11:32:07+00:00 AJ Patterson is an Associate Partner, Rachael Harrison is a Director, and Robert Kalb is a Director on the Global Corporate Governance team at Aon plc. This post is based on their Aon plc memorandum. ## Investor Priorities Hold Steady Even As Processes Change The 2026 proxy season reflected familiar priorities for shareholder proposals, but different processes for how these ballot items are navigated by both companies and proponents. Looking across broad categories of proposals that went to vote across the Russell 3000 during the first half of 2026, governance proposals continued to dominate by volume and support levels, while environmental and social proposals have declined. At the same time, some clear shifts have emerged beneath the surface: fewer proposals are being filed but a higher proportion of those filed are ultimately going to a vote, and a broader mix of topics are drawing attention, particularly in areas such as artificial intelligence (AI) and political spending. A key driver of the procedural changes was the SEC’s decision in November 2025 to largely stop responding to exclusion requests in the Rule 14a-8 no-action process. Without the same level of guidance from SEC staff, companies relied more heavily on their own judgment, and that of their outside counsel, when deciding whether to include or exclude shareholder proposals from annual meeting ballots. This has led to greater variation in approaches and increased focus on engagement, disclosure, and management of legal and reputational risks across the shareholder proposal process. Recent comments from SEC leadership suggest that the longer-term framework may continue to evolve, as they have raised broader questions about the role of Rule 14a-8 in how shareholder proposals are advanced over time. These developments point to a less standardized process in the near term and a greater need for informed, situation-specific decision making. Companies are increasingly taking a coordinated approach across legal, sustainability, and investor relations teams to align on risk appetite, leverage internal expertise, and address potential issues before they escalate. Against that backdrop, this season’s voting results offer a useful reminder that, even as processes have shifted to become more burdensome for companies, investor priorities remain largely consistent. ## Observations on Proposal Volumes and Exclusions The change in process described above has had a meaningful impact on shareholder proposal activity during the 2026 proxy season. As a result of this change, likely coupled with other factors, activity was down meaningfully year-over-year, with some estimates suggesting that shareholder proposal submissions have declined by as much as 40-50% relative to 2025. At the same time, the number of proposals that have gone to a shareholder vote declined only modestly, suggesting that companies pursued fewer exclusions overall ahead of this proxy season. In other words, the decline in proposal volume has been partly offset by a shift in company behavior. Rather than aggressively pursuing exclusion, many companies appear to have allowed more proposals to proceed to a vote, particularly when the shareholder proposal topic was unlikely to attract significant investor support. The result was a proxy season in which fewer proposals were being filed, but a larger share of those proposals are reaching shareholders and gaining visibility at the ballot stage. ## Investors Continue to Prioritize Support of Governance Proposals, While Others Wane Governance proposals focusing on perennial topics such as shareholder rights, vote standards, and board structure remain the strongest and most consistent category in 2026. They continue to receive the highest levels of support and have been the only proposals among Russell 3000 companies to obtain passing support so far this year. This data reinforces that investor preferences have not shifted meaningfully – investors continue to prioritize traditional shareholder rights and core governance practices. Topics that have received passing support in recent months include board declassification, simple majority voting, and the adoption or expansion of special meeting or written consent rights. Environmental proposals continue to face a higher bar. No environmental proposals in the Russell 3000 have received passing support so far this year, consistent with 2025 outcomes. Still, selected proposals have attracted meaningful support, particularly when framed around disclosure or risk oversight, and when targeted at companies that appear to materially lag peers. For example, proposals requesting disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions metrics and/or plans to align with the goals of the Paris Agreement have received support in the 30-45% range in recent months, and they have typically been submitted by serial proponents such as Green Century Capital Management and Trillium Asset Management. By contrast, more prescriptive environmental proposals, such as those focused on climate transition plans, water usage, or plastics at companies whose existing efforts already align with market expectations, have generally received lower support, often in the teens or low twenties. Social proposals show a similarly uneven pattern, with support varying significantly by topic. In line with this year’s outcomes on environmental proposals, no social proposals in the Russell 3000 have received passing support so far. The strongest results have been concentrated in political spending and lobbying disclosure requests, where several proposals received support in the 40-50% range. Many of the highest-supported social proposals were sponsored by proponents such as John Chevedden, the New York State Common Retirement Fund, and other institutional and faith-based investors, particularly on political spending and lobbying disclosure topics. Other social proposals, including those related to human rights, workforce issues, or diversity, generally received lower support. One emerging topic of interest has been AI, with proposal submissions generally focusing on board oversight, unethical data usage, potential to spread inaccurate information, and environmental and workforce impacts. The 2026 season also brought a meaningful number of proposals from “anti ESG” proponents such as the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) and the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC). These proposals often focused on criticizing diversity- and sustainability-related disclosures and practices, charitable giving, and political efforts. Despite achieving high volumes of proposals going to vote this year, shareholder support has remained limited – frequently in the single digits – suggesting that these proponents have not gained meaningful traction with major institutional investors. Overall, the results show a consistent pattern across categories. Governance proposals continue to drive the highest support and the most successful outcomes. Environmental and social proposals remain active, but support is more selective and concentrated in targeted disclosure-oriented requests. The results also reflect a broader shift among many institutional investors toward evaluating environmental and social proposals on their individual merits, with support generally focused on requests viewed as financially material, decision-useful, and appropriately tailored to company-specific circumstances. ## Regulatory Developments Create Additional Complexity for Companies The reduction in SEC staff engagement within the shareholder proposal process has shifted more responsibility to companies when evaluating whether to include or exclude proposals from their ballots. As a result, the proposal process in 2026 has become more dependent on company judgment and risk tolerance. Companies are weighing legal risk, reputational considerations, and expected investor responses more heavily when deciding whether to pursue exclusion. At the same time, selected proponents appear increasingly willing to challenge those decisions through litigation. Recent cases illustrate this shift. In at least one instance, a company’s attempt to exclude a proposal was overturned by a federal court, requiring the proposal to be included in the proxy statement. In several other lawsuits over the past year, shareholder proponents have been similarly effective in challenging exclusion decisions, with many matters ending in settlement. Although these cases remain relatively limited, they highlight that the forum for resolving disputes is changing and that decisions to exclude proposals may now carry broader visibility and consequences than in prior years. In practice, this has contributed to greater variation in company approaches to navigating shareholder proposals. Some companies continue to pursue exclusion where they believe a strong basis exists, while others are taking a more conservative path and allowing proposals to proceed to a vote, particularly when support is expected to be limited.