Last week, I blogged stats from a report from ISS-Corporate about the trends in shareholder proposals this far in the proxy season. This new report from Glass Lewis has even more recent stats – and a bevy of great charts.
Here are a few things drawn from the report:
- Companies are moving to exclude far fewer shareholder proposals — which has largely offset the reported decline in the number of proposals being filed – Although the number of proposals filed is down by as much as 47%, the number of shareholder proposals that went to a vote is only down by approximately 8% through April 30, compared to 2025. That’s because over the same period, the number of exclusion requests filed by companies dropped by nearly half.
- The proponent’s identity matters: companies are seeking to omit more proposals submitted by individual shareholders, while allowing proposals from institutional and “anti-ESG” proponents onto the ballot – A look at the breakdown of proponents suggests that companies may be taking a different approach to proposal exclusions in 2026, depending on who filed the proposal. While the mix of proponents among proposals that went to a vote remained largely stable from 2025 to 2026, the pool of proponents whose proposals were targeted for exclusion has changed significantly this season – companies have targeted individual proponents and one individual in particular, John Chevedden.
- The types of shareholder proposals being targeted for exclusion is also shifting – In particular, companies are focusing much more on governance proposals, with the number of exclusions doubling from 2025 to 2026, and less on environmental and social proposals, for which the number of exclusion notices went down by 85%. To some extent, the mix of topics targeted by exclusion notices reflects the overall mix of proposals. In particular, the number of governance proposals being submitted is up compared to last year, and the number of E&S proposals being submitted is down.
- Companies tend to rely more on procedural grounds as the basis for exclusion – The SEC’s new approach could also have an impact on the grounds companies cite to exclude proposals. While the margin is not definitive, through the end of April, more companies are relying on procedural or technical reasons to exclude proposals compared to 2025. The decision to focus solely on more clear-cut procedural issues could indicate that, absent cover from SEC staff, companies may be looking to avoid relying on substantive reasons, which can be open to debate.
