Climate-Related Shareholder Resolutions: History and Trends
How Have Environmental Shareholder Resolutions Evolved?
Environmental shareholder resolutions have transformed from fringe advocacy to mainstream institutional investor activity over the past two decades. In 2000, a resolution requesting climate risk disclosure might receive 3–5% support. By 2023, similar resolutions regularly achieved 30–60% support, and several companies adopted voluntary "Say on Climate" processes in anticipation of formal investor demands. The content of environmental resolutions has also evolved: early climate resolutions requested disclosure; current resolutions demand Paris-aligned strategy, net-zero commitments, fossil fuel lobbying alignment, and credible transition plans.
Environmental shareholder resolutions are formal proposals filed by institutional investors requesting specific corporate actions on climate change, biodiversity, water, deforestation, and other environmental issues — representing the most documented form of ESG activism with public vote records enabling trend analysis.
Key Takeaways
- Average support for climate-related resolutions at US S&P 500 companies increased from approximately 20% in 2015 to approximately 35–40% in 2022 before retreating slightly in 2023 under anti-ESG pressure.
- The resolution content has escalated from disclosure requests (early 2000s) through target-setting demands (2010s) to Paris alignment assessments, lobbying alignment, and Say on Climate votes (2020s).
- The most successful climate resolutions in recent years have used financial framing — arguing that insufficient climate strategy creates financial risk — rather than purely environmental framing.
- Say on Climate — advisory votes on company climate transition plans — has been adopted by Nestlé, Shell, BP, HSBC, and many others; it has also been the subject of resolutions at companies that have not voluntarily adopted it.
- Fossil fuel lobbying alignment resolutions — demanding companies' lobbying activities be consistent with their stated climate commitments — are among the most rapidly growing resolution categories.
The Climate Resolution History
Phase 1: Disclosure Requests (2000–2010)
Early climate resolutions focused on getting companies to disclose their GHG emissions and climate-related risks. The CDP's investor-backed climate disclosure request complemented and overlapped with formal shareholder proposals.
Key developments:
- CERES coordinated early climate resolutions in the US
- Resolutions requesting TCFD-aligned disclosure began appearing before TCFD's formal creation
- Average support: 5–20%
Phase 2: Target-Setting and Strategy (2010–2018)
As disclosure norms became established, resolutions escalated to requesting:
- Formal GHG reduction targets
- Scenario analysis (2°C and below scenarios)
- Board oversight of climate risk
- Independent review of climate strategy
Key developments:
- NY State Common Retirement Fund, CalSTRS, and major European pension funds co-filed aggressively
- Vote support increased to 20–35% at resistant companies
- Several large companies adopted climate targets in response to resolution pressure
Phase 3: Paris Alignment and Lobbying (2018–Present)
The most recent evolution requests:
- Net-zero commitments with credible intermediate targets
- Paris alignment of capital expenditure (no new fossil fuel investment inconsistent with Paris)
- Alignment between stated climate commitments and lobbying activities (companies claiming climate commitment while funding lobbying against climate regulation)
- Independent review of climate transition plan credibility
CA100+ benchmark assessments: Climate Action 100+ developed a benchmark assessing the 166 target companies against net-zero commitment, short-term targets, decarbonization strategy, capital allocation alignment, TCFD disclosure, and lobbying alignment. Low scores on CA100+ benchmarks have supported resolution filings.
Say on Climate
Say on Climate is an advisory shareholder vote on a company's climate transition plan, analogous to say-on-pay votes on executive compensation.
Origin: Developed by Sarasin & Partners (UK) and promoted by the Say on Climate initiative, which campaigns for annual advisory votes on corporate climate strategies.
First adopters: Several major companies adopted voluntary Say on Climate processes ahead of formal resolution pressure:
- Shell (2021)
- BP (2022)
- Nestlé (2022)
- HSBC (2022)
- Multiple FTSE 100 companies
Resolution route: At companies not voluntarily adopting Say on Climate, investor coalitions filed formal resolutions requesting the company introduce an annual advisory vote on climate strategy. These resolutions achieved significant vote support (30–50%) at some major companies.
Outcomes: Most Say on Climate votes at major companies achieved 80–90%+ support for company-prepared climate plans — reflecting investor approval of the concept if not always the plan content. Some more critical interpretations would note that management-prepared plans rarely receive majority opposition.
Fossil Fuel Lobbying Resolutions
The "lobbying alignment" category has grown rapidly since 2020:
Core ask: Companies with stated climate commitments should align their direct lobbying and trade association memberships with those commitments. Companies claiming to support Paris Agreement goals while funding trade associations lobbying against carbon pricing are engaging in lobbying inconsistency.
Research support: InfluenceMap's research on corporate lobbying misalignment has provided the empirical foundation for lobbying alignment resolutions. InfluenceMap scores companies on whether their lobbying activities support or oppose effective climate policy.
Vote results: Lobbying alignment resolutions at US oil and gas companies and utilities have achieved 30–45% support at major companies (ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron) between 2020 and 2023.
The 2023 Vote Retreat
In 2023, average support for climate resolutions at US companies declined from 2022 peaks, for several reasons:
- Anti-ESG political pressure influenced some institutional investors to moderate their public stances
- Resolution content escalated to more prescriptive asks that mainstream institutional investors viewed as overreaching
- Vanguard withdrew from CA100+ in late 2022 (rejoined discussions in 2024)
- BlackRock communicated more restrictive support criteria for shareholder proposals
The 2023 retreat was notable but not reversal — climate resolution support remained well above pre-2015 levels.
Common Mistakes
Measuring resolution success only by majority votes. Climate resolutions at major energy companies with 35–45% support represent transformational change from the 3–8% of 2010. Progress should be evaluated against historical trajectory, not against majority thresholds.
Ignoring negotiated withdrawal. Many high-impact environmental outcomes occur through privately negotiated resolution withdrawal — when companies adopt climate commitments specifically to secure withdrawal. Published vote statistics don't capture this outcome.
Treating Say on Climate as unconditional success. Advisory votes on management-prepared climate plans that receive 85% approval may reflect investor support for the concept of advisory voting, not investor satisfaction with plan content. Scrutiny of the actual plan is required.
Related Concepts
Summary
Environmental shareholder resolutions have evolved from early 2000s disclosure requests (5–20% support) through target-setting demands (20–35%) to current Paris alignment, lobbying alignment, and Say on Climate votes (30–45% mainstream; majority at some companies). The most effective climate resolutions use financial framing — arguing that inadequate climate strategy creates financial risk — alongside environmental framing. Say on Climate has been voluntarily adopted by major European and some US companies; it remains a resolution tool at resistant companies. The 2023 vote retreat reflects US political headwinds but not structural reversal of the long-term trend toward higher climate resolution support.