As AGM season winds down, we examine the key trends that influenced resolutions and outline our core principles for voting.
Read this article to understand:
- The key trends on UK executive pay, US shareholder resolutions, and board diversity
- The value of corporate governance reform in South Korea
- The rise of virtual AGMs and recommended best practice
The 2026 AGM season fell at a time of heightened geopolitical risk, diverging social views and increasing market competitiveness. Investor and societal reactions were mixed, and the role, use and influence of voting rights at AGMs varied across markets.
High commodity prices were compounding the cost-of-living crisis, drawing attention to companies and executives that stood to profit from market conditions. Yet companies need to stay competitive, and their performance is under pressure from investors. Filing shareholder resolutions in the US has become more complex, views differ on board diversity, and more companies have adopted virtual-only AGMs, potentially limiting shareholder voices.
So far in 2026, our overall voting is consistent with the same period in 2025, and we have supported around 78 per cent of all resolutions. Overall in the market, we have observed a slight reduction in support for management resolutions (95.8 per cent support on average, against 96.1 per cent in the first half of 2025).
And we have seen an increase in overall support for shareholder resolutions (24.2 per cent, against 22.7 per cent in H1 2025).1 Our support for shareholder resolutions also increased, to 39.9 per cent in H1 2026 from 36.1 per cent in H1 2025.
UK executive pay
In the months leading up to their AGMs, several UK companies had held consultations on proposed changes to their executive pay packages. Boards are increasingly drawing on the practices of their international peers to justify these arrangements, challenging investors to weigh their companies’ global competitiveness against UK market norms and expectations.
Approximately 100 FTSE 350 firms (excluding investment trusts) put their policies to a vote in 2026. Significant pay increases, hybrid plans (which provide a portion of shares irrespective of performance), and a relaxation of bonus deferral provisions (which reduce long-term accountability) remained the key areas of focus, both for remuneration committees and investors.
Executive pay needs to correspond to strong performance
We are yet to be convinced that a hybrid of performance and non-performance awards is aligned with shareholder interests given the win-win scenario they create for executive directors. We have no problem with high executive pay, but we think it needs to correspond to strong performance, especially through long-term value creation.
Similarly, for bonus deferrals, we think some deferral should still apply, even if executive shareholding requirements have been met, as this better aligns management interests with the long-term interests of shareholders.
Voting results
We reflected on these issues in our 2026 voting policy and saw some companies take on board our recommendations on bonus deferrals.
In H1 2026, we supported slightly more executive pay resolutions (57.4 per cent) than in H1 2025 (56.7 per cent). This shift was even more pronounced when looking at UK AGMs only, where we supported 77.6 per cent of pay-related votes, compared to 75 per cent in H1 2025.
But we have voted against most of the hybrid plans put forward in the UK, and we continue to advise companies and their consultants of our views. More broadly, executive pay continues to be an integral part of our investment considerations. Structure and specific performance targets can tell us something about how boards view the future – or at least allows us to challenge their assumptions.
Shareholder resolutions: The changing US landscape
In November 2025, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) amended its “no-action process”, giving companies greater flexibility to manage their acceptance (or not) of shareholder resolutions.2 Certain states have also made it more difficult for shareholders to file resolutions, with Texas, for example, introducing much higher ownership requirements in May 2025.3
Although the overall number of resolutions filed remained stable, the changes to policy in the US led to a decline in the number of shareholder resolutions put forward for approval at the AGMs (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Number of shareholder resolutions at AGMs where we voted in H1 2026 versus H1 2025, by type
| 2026 | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental | 90 | 104 |
| Social | 138 | 168 |
| Governance | 417 | 622 |
| Miscellaneous | 4 | 10 |
| Total | 649 | 904 |
Source: Aviva Investors. Data as of 1 July 2026.
Voting results
Regardless of those changes, we continued to focus on financially material issues and integrated our assessment of ESG risk and opportunities – informed by our engagement with companies – within relevant voting decisions. Naturally, when we evaluate the results of shareholder resolutions, we focus on the financially material ones that receive high levels of support, as the way boards respond to those will have a bearing on our investment considerations.
Given the decline in total shareholder resolutions, we have supported a lower absolute number of resolutions so far this year than in the same period in 2025 (259 against 326). But, as a proportion, our support increased from 36.1 per cent to 39.9 per cent.
We focus on the financially material resolutions that receive high levels of support
This is not unexpected given these resolutions were typically material and strategic, as demonstrated by the fact the companies themselves incorporated them into their AGM agendas.
However, when looking at this by resolution type (see Figure 2), we have supported a lower share of environmental and social shareholder resolutions than in 2025. Our increase in support came instead on governance resolutions, of which there were a lot more. In particular, we observed a greater volume of shareholder resolutions seeking to eliminate supermajority voting rights and to improve governance of AI, which we widely supported.
Figure 2: Percentage of our votes in support of shareholder resolutions by type, H1 2026 versus H1 2025
| 2026 | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental | 38.9% | 54.8% |
| Social | 24.6% | 36.3% |
| Governance | 45.6% | 33.1% |
| Total | 39.9% | 36.1% |
Source: Aviva Investors. Data as of 1 July 2026.
Board diversity
Diverging market approaches to board diversity were more visible this year. The UK and other European countries continue to require boards to have gender and minority ethnic representation, generally on a “comply or explain” basis. In contrast, in the US, many companies revised or discontinued their diversity-related disclosures and initiatives in 2025.
Investor responses have been mixed. But many shareholders still expect board diversity and related disclosures. The 2026 AGM season was a balancing act for companies between stakeholder litigation risk and shareholder demands, and the US continued to see varying levels of disclosure.
Voting results
We believe board diversity makes for better decisions
We continued to consider board diversity in our AGM approach, as we believe it makes for better decisions, and that boards’ makeup should reflect that of their stakeholders, particularly employees and customers. Beyond boards, we also expected to see more focus and progress on diversity in senior management.4
We were pleased to see progress, and as a result, our votes against management based on diversity concerns reduced from 614 in H1 2025 to 532 in H1 2026.
Key takeaways
Spotlight: Virtual AGMs
Around the globe, more companies are using technology to conduct virtual-only AGMs. We acknowledge they have clear benefits, being more practical to set up and run, and providing access to many more shareholders, but several guardrails are needed.
Earlier in 2026, through the Investment Association, we took part in a consultation requested by the GC100, a UK association that represents FTSE100 General Council and Company Secretary professionals, on the merits of virtual-only AGMs in the UK.5 We outlined best practice recommendations in our 2026 Voting Policy, laying out two key considerations that may inform our voting action.6
Firstly, shareholders should have a regular opportunity to vote on this format, at least every three years, particularly as this is unchartered territory.
Secondly, the virtual meeting should mirror physical AGMs as closely as possible. Shareholders must be able to ask questions, attendees should be able to see how many shareholders have raised their hand, and all board members should be present and able to answer questions.
Spotlight market: South Korea governance
In 2025, South Korea began to reform its corporate governance rules, in an effort to eliminate the “governance discount” that often lowers the valuations of Korean companies.7 The country’s “Corporate Value-Up Program”, launched in 2024 and aimed at enhancing shareholder returns, has lent strong support to this initiative.8
There has been a big shift towards improved transparency and minority shareholder rights. Key 2025-2026 reforms include strengthening audit committee independence, increasing outside directors, and mandating companies’ fiduciary duty to shareholders.9 As a result, we have already seen a few activist campaigns at Korean AGMs pushing for governance change to improve performance.
We support the initiatives to improve corporate governance in Korean companies, as we believe better governance is key to better performance. These initiatives have the potential to improve capital allocation, strengthen minority shareholder protections and ultimately unlock value for investors.
References
- Source: Glass Lewis, as of 1 July 2026.
- “SEC upends no-action letter review process for 2026 proxy season”, Jones Day, November 2025.
- Practical Law Corporate & Securities, “Texas adopts heightened shareholder proposal submission thresholds”, Thomson Reuters Practical Law, May 21, 2025.
- “Global voting policy”, Aviva Investors, January 2026.
- “GC100”, Thomson Reuters Practical Law, accessed March 31, 2026.
- “Global voting policy”, Aviva Investors, January 2026.
- “Corporate governance laws and regulations Korea 2025-2026”, ICLG, July 29, 2025.
- Junho Kim, “Navigating South Korea's Corporate Value-Up program”, Glass Lewis, September 30, 2024.
- “Corporate governance laws and regulations Korea 2025-2026”, ICLG, July 29, 2025.
