In a volatile world, consistency is our edge: What ten years of voting has taught us

Over the past decade, stewardship has transformed. Expectations of boards have surged, scrutiny of investors has intensified, and proxy voting has moved from an operational function to a real tool for accountability. Through all this change, one thing has remained deliberately steady at Royal London Asset Management: our approach to voting.

More than 10 years ago, we brought our voting under a single, centralised approach and placed it at the heart of our Responsible Investment team. Since then, we’ve worked to one clear aim apply consistent, principles-based judgement in every vote.

That continuity is no accident. We believe effective stewardship comes from being clear about what we expect. Applying those expectations thoughtfully and consistently over time, rather than constantly rewriting the rulebook.

From box ticking to accountability

Ten years ago, proxy voting was often procedural: something to be completed, filed, and moved on from. The emphasis was on compliance, minimum standards, and trying to stay out of the spotlight. Governance mattered, but it was typically restricted to board structure and pay. Voting against management was relatively rare and seen as an extreme thing to do.

Today, there is much more to voting. While only part of our wider stewardship efforts, it is often most visible. The one time a year where we must make a very visible and concrete statement about our priorities and convictions. Each vote requires careful judgement, balancing sometimes competing priorities. Based primarily on our voting guidelines, but also managing long‑term risk, reinforcing our engagement, and ideally contributing to real world outcomes.

More than ever those decisions are watched closely by companies, clients, the media and society at large.

Voting is a conscious escalation tool.  When engagement stalls or progress is insufficient, voting is the mechanism through which we signal concern and hold boards to account. Recent proxy seasons illustrate this shift clearly, with director elections increasingly used to reflect weaknesses in climate oversight, biodiversity governance or workforce practices. See How we voted in 2025, from policy to practice.

By anchoring our framework in clear, principle-based expectations, we’re able to respond to new risks and emerging issues without sacrificing consistency or clarity.

Through this shift, our approach has been steady but not static. By anchoring our framework in clear, principle-based expectations, we’re able to respond to new risks and emerging issues without sacrificing consistency or clarity. That balance – evolution without drift – is central to how we practice stewardship.

Governance has broadened – and deepened

What once felt quite narrowly defined has expanded into something more demanding and consequential. Climate change, biodiversity loss, human rights and workforce practices are no longer peripheral environmental or social concerns. They sit squarely within the governance remit, testing board oversight, strategic resilience and, ultimately, accountability for outcomes.

Over time, we’ve become clearer about how these risks feed into our voting decisions, and transparent about when and why we use our votes to signal concern. For the 2026 voting season we are actively monitoring and considering escalating our votes at over 1,000 companies for issues that align with our engagement themes.

Learn about out company engagement priorities for 2026-2028.

More scrutiny, higher expectations

A member of our Responsible Investment team will review every - single - vote. Because of this, informed judgement always takes precedence in the final decision.

We have publicly disclosed every voting decision and rationale for why we’ve voted against management since 2015. By being so public, we must be able to stand behind our track record. We can do this because of our judgement-based approach. A member of our Responsible Investment team will review every - single - vote. Because of this, informed judgement always takes precedence in the final decision. 

For several years now, we’ve also written directly to companies to explain why we are voting the way we are. While some companies have always acknowledged these letters, the increase in responses in recent years has been notable – particularly from outside the UK. We may have different opinions to the companies we write to, but there is (usually) an appreciation for the transparency and consistency in our views.

Voting in an age of instability

If the last decade was about broadening Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG), the next is likely to test its resilience. Political volatility and shifting regulations are reshaping the landscape in which companies operate. At the same time, proxy voting is becoming more complex.

If the last decade was about broadening ESG, the next is likely to test its resilience.

Shareholder proposals have been harder to advance in the US, a trend which is now showing the first signs of transferring over to the UK. The number of climate-specific proposals also appears to be decreasing. In that environment, long-term alignment, strong board oversight and credible disclosure take on even greater importance. It is the Board directors who must ultimately be held accountable for these decisions.

This voting season will test where investors draw the line and how clearly they are prepared to hold boards and individual directors accountable for long term outcomes. At Royal London Asset Management, we are strong and unwavering in our commitment to responsible investment and promoting good governance.

After more than a decade applying our voting guidelines, our conclusion is straightforward: consistency enables credibility. Anchoring voting in clear principles, while allowing judgement to evolve, equips us to navigate uncertainty and to use our votes where they have the greatest impact.

How our approach translates into practice:

Our voting always aims to be pragmatic, reflective of local best practice and evolving market insights, and in the long-term interests of our clients. Alongside voting, our engagement, research, and advocacy also help to add value and meaning to our investment decisions. We seek to support the boards of our investee companies that act in the long-term interests of shareholders and stakeholders.

Voting and engagements may not always apply to any specific Royal London Asset Management fund or strategy, as each will have different investment objectives. Please check your prospectus for details on specific product objectives.

For professional investors only. This material is not suitable for a retail audience. Capital at risk. This is a financial promotion and is not investment advice. Past performance is not a guide to future performance. Reference to any security is for information purposes only and should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell.

The value of investments and any income from them may go down as well as up and is not guaranteed. Investors may not get back the amount invested. Portfolio characteristics and holdings are subject to change without notice. The views expressed are those of the author at the date of publication unless otherwise indicated, which are subject to change. Forward looking statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties. Actual outcomes may be materially different from those expressed or implied.