<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance</title>
	<atom:link href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/11/24/2021-annual-corporate-governance-review/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu</link>
	<description>The leading online blog in the fields of corporate governance and financial regulation.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2026 11:32:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.8</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>2021 Annual Corporate Governance Review</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/11/24/2021-annual-corporate-governance-review/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=2021-annual-corporate-governance-review</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/11/24/2021-annual-corporate-governance-review/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Nov 2021 13:44:09 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Corporate Elections & Voting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ESG]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Institutional Investors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Practitioner Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Diversity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Engagement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shareholder proposals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shareholder voting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sustainability]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/?p=141529?d=20230201161019EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Shareholder Proposals The 2021 proxy season produced unprecedented results, including record high proposal submission levels, average support levels and passage levels, among other notable results related to shareholder proposals. These results reveal that investors’ heightened focus on ESG risks and opportunities is having a meaningful impact on voting decisions, such as: A total of 71 [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by Hannah Orowitz, Brigid Rosati and Rajeev Kumar, Georgeson LLC, on Wednesday, November 24, 2021 </em><div class='e_n' style='background:#F8F8F8;padding:10px;margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:10px;text-indent:2.5em;'><strong style='margin-left:-2.5em;'>Editor's Note: </strong> <p style="margin:0; display:inline;"><a class="external" href="https://www.georgeson.com/us/about-us/meet-our-team/hannah-orowitz" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">Hannah Orowitz</a> is Senior Managing Director of ESG, Brigid Rosati is Managing Director of Business Development and Corporate Strategy, and Rajeev Kumar is Senior Managing Director at Georgeson LLC. This post is based on a Georgeson memorandum by Ms. Orowitz, Ms. Rosati, Mr. Kumar, Ed Greene, Aaron Miller and Michael Maiolo.</p>
</div></hgroup><h2>Shareholder Proposals</h2>
<p>The 2021 proxy season produced unprecedented results, including record high proposal submission levels, average support levels and passage levels, among other notable results related to shareholder proposals. These results reveal that investors’ heightened focus on ESG risks and opportunities is having a meaningful impact on voting decisions, such as:</p>
<ul>
<li>A total of 71 shareholder proposals passed, compared to 45 in 2020 and 50 in 2019</li>
<li>33 environmental and social proposals passed, <a class="footnote" id="1b" href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/11/24/2021-annual-corporate-governance-review/#1">[1]</a> the highest number on record and an 83% increase compared to the 2020 proxy season</li>
<li>Over one third of environmental shareholder proposals voted upon passed; average support across voted proposals exceeded 39%</li>
<li>Average support for social proposals increased to 32.6%, compared to approximately 27% average support in both the 2020 and 2019 seasons</li>
<li>Record-breaking support for shareholder proposals focused on political spending, plastic pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation and board and workforce diversity, as well as management-supported proposals relating to climate change, diversity, equity and inclusion (DE&amp;I) and human rights</li>
<li>A sizeable increase in negotiated settlements (withdrawals) of shareholder proposals compared to the 2020 and 2019 proxy seasons</li>
</ul>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/11/24/2021-annual-corporate-governance-review/#more-141529" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading 2021 Annual Corporate Governance Review">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/11/24/2021-annual-corporate-governance-review/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
