View our voting record, stock by stock
Our voting record
As shareholders in companies we invest in on behalf of clients, we have the right to vote on how companies are run – and by whom.
We vote against management hundreds of times a year. But it makes sense that we vote with management in the bulk of cases. That’s because we only invest in companies which we think are well-run, with good corporate governance.
Even so, no company is perfect – there’s always room for improvement. Voting against management is one way for us as a responsible investor to encourage this, if we feel engagement hasn’t worked.
We’re most likely to oppose management by voting against the election or re-election of directors. This is a good way of expressing our misgivings about a particular issue or about the general direction in which a company is heading. For example, as holder of shares in a company on behalf of our clients, we might vote against the Chair over the company’s overall strategy, if we feel it runs counter to our clients’ long-term interests.
Voting policy
Our bespoke approach to voting across a range of different ESG issues.
In 2025, Rathbones Group voted on 10,615 resolutions at 801 meetings. We voted against management 639 times.
Hover over each slice of the pie to see details.
The map below shows voting by European country
Hover over the bubble to see number of meetings voted at
The map below shows voting in the rest of the world
Hover over each bubble to see number of meetings voted at
Voting case studies
Apple
US technology company
What’s the issue?
- We have continuing concerns about ESG risk management, centred on governance and human rights.
- We’re worried about Board independence, given long director tenure and the Executive Chair structure.
- We’re also aware of the risk of forced labour in Apple’s China supply chain.
What did we do?
- At the March 2026 AGM, we issued a split vote on the Chair’s re-election — Rathbones Asset Management against, Rathbones Investment Management abstaining. We also asked how Apple weighs long director tenure against perceived Board independence.
- We also sought greater transparency on how it addresses human rights controversies in its China supply chain. This includes remediation, supplier compliance checks, and preventing forced labour.
What happened?
- Chair re-election: 9% voted against, the highest of any Board director.
- On a follow-up call, Apple said its Board was robust but relies on qualitative independence assessments.
- Its supply-chain due diligence looked extensive, but gaps remain on forced-labour detection and supplier transparency.
What next?
- We’ll keep monitoring governance and human rights and continue engaging with Apple.
- With former CEO Tim Cook now Executive Chair and a new CEO elected, we’ll test independent oversight in practice.
- Questions remain on enhanced due diligence for retained suppliers and escalation.
ExxonMobil
US energy company
What’s the issue?
- ExxonMobil has only partially disclosed a net zero by 2050 target and set only partial medium-term targets aligned with that pathway.
Under the Climate Action100+ methodology, it meets none of the 11 indicators in full. - Developments over the past year have done little to allay the climate risk concerns we raised in previous years.
What did we do?
- At ExxonMobil’s May 2026 AGM, we voted against all incumbent directors and against re-electing the auditors.
- We also challenged PwC, the auditors, over the limited detail on how climate risk and a 1.5°C pathway were reflected in the audit. We pressed for better climate disclosure in future financial statements.
- We then wrote to the Board re-emphasising our concerns about net zero risk management.
What happened?
- ExxonMobil responded to our letter, but we didn’t think its response was enough to alleviate our concerns.
What next?
- We’ll keep engaging on the issues above and push for progress against key assessment indicators.
- We’ll continue raising concerns about the related audit processes and press for improved climate disclosures overall.
Nvidia
US technology company
What’s the issue?
- Nvidia’s unequal voting structure means supermajority provisions could allow a minority of shareholders to block widely supported changes.
- That runs counter to global best practice: the OECD and ICGN Principles support majority voting as a foundation of fair, accountable governance.
What did we do?
- A resolution at Nvidia’s 2026 June AGM asked the company to adopt a simple-majority voting standard.
- We voted in support.
- Beforehand, we wrote to the Board setting out our rationale: that the change would align Nvidia with the OECD and ICGN Principles and strengthen shareholder democracy and strengthen the governance at the company.
What happened?
- The resolution passed with 86% support.
- Decisions that previously required at least two-thirds of shareholder votes can now pass by simple majority.
What next?
- We’ll monitor Nvidia’s implementation of the new simple-majority standard.
- More broadly, we’ll continue engaging with portfolio companies on shareholder rights and governance best practice.
Votes Against Slavery
About 50m people were trapped in modern slavery in 2021, according to the United Nations.
Modern slavery is defined as when someone loses their freedom and is exploited for personal or commercial gain.
In a landmark piece of legislation, Section 54 (s54) of the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 created a duty for companies to set out the steps they’ve taken to ensure modern slavery isn’t lurking in their businesses and wider supply chains.
As a responsible investor, we engaged with the UK government to press for the inclusion of s54 in the Act. Ever since then, we’ve pressed companies to comply with s54.
In 2020, Rathbones launched Votes Against Slavery, a coalition of investors. Its members consider voting against a company’s annual financial statement and report if it’s failed to meet the demands of s54.
In 2022, the campaign won ‘Stewardship Initiative of the Year’ in the annual UN Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) awards & ‘ESG Engagement Initiative of the Year EMEA’ in 2024 for the Environmental Finance Awards.
In 2025, one of our six engagement priorities was to encourage compliance at UK companies in the FTSE 350 and on the AIM market for smaller listed companies.
