We permit the publication of our auditors’ report, provided the report is published in full only and is accompanied by the full financial statements to which our auditors’ report relates, and is only published on an access-controlled page on your website, to enable users to verify that an auditors’ report by independent accountants has been commissioned by the directors and issued. Such permission to publish is given by us without accepting or assuming any responsibility or liability to any third party users save where we have agreed terms with them in writing.

Our consent is given on condition that before any third party accesses our auditors’ report via the webpage they first document their agreement to the following terms of access to our report via a click-through webpage with an 'I accept' button. The terms to be included on your website are as follows:

I accept and agree for and on behalf of myself and the Trust I represent (each a "recipient") that:

  1. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”) accepts no liability (including liability for negligence) to each recipient in relation to PwC’s report. The report is provided to each recipient for information purposes only. If a recipient relies on PwC’s report, it does so entirely at its own risk;
  2. No recipient will bring a claim against PwC which relates to the access to the report by a recipient;
  3. Neither PwC’s report, nor information obtained from it, may be made available to anyone else without PwC’s prior written consent, except where required by law or regulation; and
  4. PwC’s report was prepared with Hermes Property Unit Trust's interests in mind. It was not prepared with any recipient's interests in mind or for its use. PwC’s report is not a substitute for any enquiries that a recipient should make. The financial statements are as at 25 March 2016, and thus PwC’s auditors’ report is based on historical information. Any projection of such information or PwC’s opinion thereon to future periods is subject to the risk that changes may occur after the reports are issued and the description of controls may no longer accurately portray the system of internal control. For these reasons, such projection of information to future periods would be inappropriate.
  5. PwC will be entitled to the benefit of and to enforce these terms.
I accept

1. Select your country

  • United Kingdom
  • Austria
  • Australia
  • Belgium
  • Denmark
  • Finland
  • France
  • Germany
  • Iceland
  • Ireland
  • Italy
  • Luxembourg
  • Netherlands
  • Norway
  • Singapore
  • Spain
  • Sweden
  • Switzerland
  • USA
  • Other

2. Select your investor type

  • Financial Advisor
  • Discretionary Investment Manager
  • Wealth Manager
  • Family Office
  • Institutional Investor
  • Investment Consultant
  • Charity, Foundation & Endowment Investor
  • Retail Investor
  • Press
  • None of the above

3. Accept our terms and conditions

By clicking Proceed I confirm I have read the important information and agree to the terms of use.


The Hermes Investment Management website uses cookies to remember your preferences and help us improve the site.
By proceeding, you agree to cookies being placed on your computer.
Read our privacy and cookie policy.

The win-win of shareholder proposals

Home / Hermes EOS Blog / The win-win of shareholder proposals

Darren Brady,
02 October 2014

It is autumn in the US. The leaves are changing colours, football season has begun and active shareholders are prepping their target lists in anticipation of the shareholder proposal submission rush which typically takes place every year from September to mid-November.

With so much talk about no-action letters, precatory filings, settlement negotiations and AGM showdowns originating from this process and carrying through to next year’s voting season, it is worth taking a step back to set the record straight about what all this chatter actually means.

A shareholder proposal is quite simply a resolution sponsored by an investor (the proponent) to be discussed and voted on at a company’s annual general meeting. But what does it really mean? For instance, is it bad for a company to receive lots of shareholder proposals? Can anyone submit a proposal? Can a shareholder ask for anything they want in a proposal? If a proposal wins majority support, does the company have to do something? And will this actually make a difference?

So, answers first: Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Just about anyone. No, it must be specific with a strict 500 word limit. No, the company does not need to do anything – usually. If executed properly – undoubtedly.

Some might be surprised to learn that in the US eligibility requirements for submitting shareholder proposals are quite accessible even to modestly endowed retail investors. Generally speaking, holding $2,000 of a company’s shares for a one-year period will get your foot in the door. While many of the highest profile proposals are sponsored by large institutional investors, others are sent in by special interest groups, social activists, civic organisations and everyday citizens with a few shares and something to say.

Shareholder proposals are often motivated by a range of factors from the sophisticated (leverage to gain board access) and tactical (to raise public awareness for a specific cause) to the downright simplistic (simply stating that company X is bad).

While this level of accessibility is an emblem of shareholder democracy at work, it needs to be taken with a grain of salt.The proponent of a proposal can often reveal as much about its merits as its subject matter or corporate recipient. Because some proponents will be more interested in dialogue, while others are most concerned with capturing headlines, each company’s approach for dealing with a proposal will differ vastly. This is part of the reason the overall number of shareholder proposals a company receives is by itself meaningless. However, the volume of submissions can be an indicator of company-specific challenges or a lack of willingness to engage by either the company or proponent.

What has to happen when a shareholder proposal gains majority support? Well, most of the time nothing. Nearly all shareholder proposals filed are precatory in nature, meaning that the company is under no legal requirement to implement them regardless of the level of investor support received. A company can just ignore it and some do just that. In practice, however, even a strong minority of votes can give a proposal enough momentum to trigger serious consideration and movement from the board.

So if you are not guaranteed to get what you want when you win, how do you win? Many shareholder proposals never even go to a vote. In fact, a large percentage is withdrawn well before the annual meeting arrives. This is often the product of a compromise reached behind closed doors between the proponent and company in exchange for withdrawal from the ballot. In our view, this is almost always the preferred outcome. Often more real progress is achieved as a result of the proposals we settle than the ones which go to a vote and make headlines. We are not looking for a fight and both sides want the same thing – what is good for the company. Once most companies realise this, far greater change can be effected via diplomacy than slinging accusations across various news networks.

Will this actually make a difference? YES!

No single element of our work in the US results as consistently or effectively in precipitating rapid and significant corporate responsiveness. Despite all of the wrangling and uncertainty that surrounds the process, when utilised in a skilled manner with a focused purpose, shareholder proposals can be one of the most effective catalysts of corporate change available to investors.

Share this post:
Darren Brady Darren Brady is sector lead for technology and focuses on governance and engagement activities in the Americas. Before joining Hermes EOS, Darren was based in New York as a product manager with New York Life Investment Management where he was responsible for the positioning and management of the firm’s equity products. Prior to New York Life, Darren held similar roles with Oppenheimer Funds and also previously worked for ING and Haidar Capital Management. He holds a degree in Economics and International Studies from Wake Forest University and the CFA Institute’s Investment Management Certificate.
Read all articles by Darren Brady

Find posts by author

  • Bill Mackenzie
  • Bruce Duguid
  • Christine Chow
  • Colin Melvin
  • Darren Brady
  • Dominic Burke
  • Emma Hunt
  • Freddie Woolfe
  • Hans-Christoph Hirt
  • Jaime Gornsztejn
  • Jennifer Walmsley
  • Jon Brager
  • Justine Lutterodt
  • Karin Ri
  • Leon Kamhi
  • Louise Dudley
  • Lui Goldie
  • Mais Hayek
  • Manuel Isaza
  • Mark Sherlock, CFA
  • Martina Macpherson
  • Matthew Doyle
  • Maxine Wille
  • Michael Russell, CFA
  • Michael Viehs
  • Naheeda Rashid
  • Natacha Dimitrijevic
  • Nina Rehrbein
  • Nina Röhrbein
  • Philip Nell
  • Rochelle Giugni
  • Roland Bosch
  • Sachi Suzuki
  • Saker Nusseibeh
  • Tatiana Bosteels
  • Tim Goodman
  • Tommaso Mancuso
  • Victoria Barron

Find posts by category

  • Select category
  • governance