The 2026 proxy season has presented a notably different landscape for shareholder activism, largely influenced by a significant policy shift from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Staff in November 2025. This decision, which saw the SEC refrain from providing substantive guidance on the grounds for omitting shareholder proposals under Rule 14a-8 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, has fundamentally altered the dynamics between corporations and proposal proponents. This shift has introduced a new level of uncertainty and negotiation regarding the inclusion of shareholder resolutions in proxy statements. Despite these procedural changes, the prevalence of "anti-ESG" shareholder proposals, which critically assess or question the value of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives, has remained a consistent feature of the proxy season, mirroring trends from previous years.
As of the midpoint of the 2026 proxy season, anti-ESG proposals are proving to be a persistent force, a continuation of their significant presence in recent years. These resolutions typically challenge corporate policies and initiatives related to ESG factors, including the disclosure, management, and response to ESG-related risks such as carbon emissions, diversity, shareholder rights, and corporate social responsibility.
Prevalence and Performance of Anti-ESG Proposals in 2026
By May 31, 2026, approximately 135 ESG-related proposals had been put to a vote by public company shareholders. This figure represents a substantial portion, nearly 35%, of all shareholder proposals considered to date in the current proxy season. Of these, a significant subset, around 50 proposals (or nearly 38%), can be classified as "anti-ESG." Conversely, roughly 80 proposals (about 62%) actively supported ESG-related actions or disclosures. An additional 28 anti-ESG proposals were successfully excluded from proxy statements through the Rule 14a-8 "no-action" process.
A striking pattern observed across the 2024, 2025, and 2026 proxy seasons is the consistent lack of passage for any ESG-related proposals. In 2026, anti-ESG proposals have garnered an average shareholder vote of approximately 1.7%, with a median support level of 1.07%. In contrast, proposals advocating for ESG initiatives have seen higher, though still modest, support, averaging nearly 13.3% with a median of about 11.2%. Notably, one pro-ESG climate-related proposal achieved a substantial 47% of shareholder support, highlighting a potential differentiator for well-received ESG resolutions.
Navigating the No-Action Request Process: A New SEC Stance
Under Rule 14a-8, shareholders generally possess the right to include proposals in a company’s proxy statement, provided they meet certain procedural and substantive requirements. Companies wishing to exclude a proposal must notify the SEC and furnish specific information as stipulated by Rule 14a-8(j). Historically, this process often involved a "no-action" request, wherein a company would seek the SEC Staff’s concurrence that a legal basis existed to omit a proposal, thereby agreeing not to recommend action against the company for its exclusion.
However, the SEC’s November 2025 announcement marked a significant departure. For the 2025-2026 proxy season, the SEC Staff declared its intention not to respond to no-action requests concerning most grounds for exclusion under Rule 14a-8. While the SEC Staff is thus generally abstaining from offering substantive opinions on shareholder proposals in 2026, companies are still obligated to formally notify the SEC and proposal proponents if they intend to exclude a proposal from their proxy materials. To date in 2026, approximately 190 exclusion notices have been filed with the SEC. Of these, about 60 (nearly 35%) are related to ESG issues. Interestingly, these exclusion notices reveal a remarkably even split: approximately 53% of these ESG-related proposals opposed ESG measures, while the remaining 47% supported ESG factors.
Recurring Themes in Excluded Anti-ESG Proposals
Among the anti-ESG proposals excluded in reliance on Rule 14a-8, several recurring themes have emerged. While many of these topics have been present in prior years, the 2026 season has seen new areas of focus, such as proposals addressing gender-related healthcare policy and the impacts of U.S. immigration policy. The SEC’s decision to cease providing substantive guidance on no-action requests has led companies to frequently rely on established precedent from the SEC Staff’s past treatment of similar proposals. In situations where direct precedent was absent, some companies have nevertheless proceeded with exclusion, indicating a growing comfort level in making such determinations independently, presumably based on their interpretation of Rule 14a-8’s substantive provisions.
Emerging Trends and Topics in Anti-ESG Proposals
Analysis of both excluded proposals and those voted on by shareholders reveals several prominent anti-ESG themes in 2026. Traditionally, proposals challenging Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs and opposing climate change mitigation efforts have dominated the anti-ESG agenda.
H2: Proposals Addressing Consumer Values, Free Speech, and Religious Exercise
A notable surge in proposal topics during the 2026 season, accounting for nearly a quarter of all anti-ESG proposals, has centered on corporate stances on social issues and their potential financial ramifications. These resolutions scrutinize the views and policy positions adopted by companies, their officers, and directors, and the perceived impact on employees, customers, and ultimately, the company’s financial health. This proxy season, proposals have primarily focused on three key areas: the risks associated with specific charitable giving practices, the potential for misalignment between corporate values and those of customers, leading to viewpoint discrimination against consumers, and the risks of religious discrimination against employees.
H3: Risks Associated with Charitable Giving
In 2026, nearly 20 companies have faced proposals requesting an analysis of the "benefits, costs, and legal, reputational, competitive, and other relevant risks of the company’s charitable support [or employee-gift match program]." This type of proposal represents an expansion and refinement of a more frequent anti-ESG proposal from 2025, which questioned how "contributions impact [a company’s] risks related to discrimination against individuals based on their speech or religious exercise." Intriguingly, approximately ten of these more comprehensive proposals were excluded in 2026 under Rule 14a-8, despite the SEC’s denial of no-action relief for similar proposals in 2025. When voted upon, these proposals have consistently received very low shareholder support, with no proposal exceeding 2.2% in 2026 to date.
H3: Misalignment of Corporate Values with Customer Values and Viewpoint Discrimination
Thus far in the 2026 proxy season, two companies have received proposals calling for an evaluation of how corporate policies, public statements, and partnerships might diverge from the values of their customer base, along with an assessment of associated legal, regulatory, and reputational risks. Three additional companies have encountered similar proposals. One such proposal, frequently seen in 2025, questioned how a company "oversees risks related to discrimination against users or customers based on their viewpoints under ‘hate speech,’ ‘misinformation,’ and ‘related policies.’" While the underlying themes of anti-ESG proposals remain consistent, the specific wording tends to evolve annually. However, as in previous years, shareholder support for these proposals, when voted on, has not surpassed 3%.
H3: Risks of Failing to Accommodate Faith-Based Employee Resource Groups
During the 2026 proxy season, two proposals specifically requested companies to assess the risks—including "reputational, human capital, operational, legal, and other relevant risks of failing to allow faith-based" employee resource groups. These proposals argue that the exclusion of such groups constitutes discrimination. Proponents contend that "if the company is serious about ditching socially motivated messaging, and committing to equal treatment for employees, it would be a massive oversight, and therefore a significant incursion of legal & reputational risk on the company’s part, to not allow faith-based [business resource groups] as part of this commitment." While proposals addressing religious discrimination against employees have appeared in recent years, this specific formulation has been less prevalent. Both of these proposals received less than 1% shareholder support.
H2: Healthcare and Reproductive Rights Emerge as New Battlegrounds
A significant shift in anti-ESG proposals in 2026 has been observed in the realm of healthcare and reproductive rights, now constituting approximately 13% of all anti-ESG proposals. This trend does not appear to be mirrored by a corresponding increase in pro-ESG proposals. These topics were largely absent or infrequently raised in recent proxy seasons. Two primary themes have emerged: first, proposals inquiring about "risks related to distributing mifepristone and detailing any strategies beyond litigation and legal compliance"; and second, proposals seeking information on the risks associated with providing gender-affirming care within employee healthcare and benefits packages. Only four such proposals have gone to a shareholder vote, all failing to secure more than 1.5% support.
H2: Anti-DEI Proposals: A Shift in Tone and Focus
The prevalence of anti-DEI proposals has seen a dramatic decrease in 2026 compared to 2025. In 2025, these proposals represented over 40% of the anti-ESG proposals that shareholders voted on, whereas in 2026, they constitute approximately 14% to date. Shareholder support for these resolutions has also declined, falling from a maximum of around 3% in 2025 to an average of 1.26% in 2026, with a peak support of about 2.2%. While it remains unclear whether this signifies waning support for anti-DEI initiatives from proponents, shareholders, or both, a notable change in the language of these proposals is evident.
In 2026, several proposals have directly addressed the impact of DEI on shareholder value and a company’s financial standing. This includes requests for assessments of DEI programs based on net present value (NPV) and/or return on investment (ROI), factoring in litigation risks and potential "backlash for perceived and/or actual discrimination in the name of equity and inclusion." Other proposals have sought evaluations of the risks to shareholder value, reputation, and legal compliance associated with integrating ESG and DEI metrics into executive compensation plans. This represents a departure from 2025, when anti-DEI proposals were often strongly worded, explicitly calling for the abolition of DEI policies.
The rationale behind this shift is subject to interpretation. The SEC has consistently emphasized the importance of linking corporate actions to shareholder value. Remarks by Commissioner Hester Peirce, advocating for a "singular focus on building corporate value for shareholders," suggest that companies should prioritize long-term financial value over "pet projects," non-financial targets, or advancing specific shareholder causes. It is plausible that proposal proponents are adapting their strategies in response to the SEC’s messaging, seeking greater traction by aligning with regulatory priorities. Alternatively, this shift may reflect broader changes in the U.S. political climate.
H2: Climate-Based Risk Proposals: Increased Numbers, Diminished Support
In 2026, nearly 30% of anti-ESG proposals have opposed corporate responses to climate-based risks, an increase from approximately 20% at the same point in 2025. Despite this rise in the number of proposals, shareholder support has remained exceptionally low, with all such resolutions receiving less than 1.7% support, a slight decrease from the less than 3% threshold observed in the preceding years. The increase in climate-related anti-ESG proposals is noteworthy, especially given the SEC’s decision in March 2025 to end its defense of rules requiring climate-based risk disclosure. This action, coupled with SEC Chairman Paul Atkins’ emphasis on a "materiality-focused" approach to securities regulation—which would exempt companies from providing climate-risk disclosures where not material—might have been expected to satisfy anti-ESG proponents outside the shareholder proposal process. However, this has not appeared to be the case.
The tone and demands of anti-ESG climate proposals in 2026 have also evolved, mirroring the trend seen in anti-DEI proposals. Many now request assessments of the links between sustainability initiatives or emissions reduction goals and NPV, expected value, or ROI calculations, including litigation and reputational risks. Other similar proposals seek evaluations of financial risks and costs associated with climate commitments. Furthermore, at least three proposals have requested a "quantifiable analysis" of potential benefits and costs related to changes in a company’s plastics packaging policy. Similar to DEI proposals, these resolutions question the connection between climate-based policies and the maximization of shareholder value, suggesting these policies serve purposes other than value generation.
H2: Emerging Focus Areas: Technology and Immigration
Beyond the established themes, 2026 has seen technology and immigration become focal points for both ESG and anti-ESG proposals, reflecting heightened public attention on these critical issues.
H3: Risks Related to Technology
AI-related proposals, which dominated anti-ESG technology discussions in 2025, continue to be a significant concern in 2026. A proposal from 2025 requesting a report on the risks posed by the unethical or improper use of data in AI development, training, and deployment, along with mitigation strategies, received around 10% shareholder support at several companies and a similar vote at one company in 2026. Notably, a related proposal garnered approximately 35% support in 2024, underscoring sustained shareholder interest in AI-related risks.
This proxy season, one company received a proposal concerning decisions related to the use of child sex abuse material identifying software. Shareholders also asked another company for a report on its risk management strategies regarding the "use of its products in facilitating the sale of deepfake content, particularly child exploitation." Only the deepfake content proposal was voted on, receiving approximately 8% support. As with other media-highlighted topics, continued proposals in these areas are anticipated in future years.
H3: Risks Related to Immigration Policy
Proposals concerning changes in U.S. immigration policy have appeared on both sides of the ESG and anti-ESG spectrum in 2026. One "pro-ESG" proposal was excluded under Rule 14a-8 but was still voted on by shareholders, failing to achieve majority support. Conversely, an "anti-ESG" proposal questioned the risks of "actual and perceived anti-American worker discrimination created by the company’s actual, potential, and perceived overreliance on, and abuse of, the Company’s H-1B visa program." This proposal received a favorable shareholder vote of only 0.23%. Given the ongoing prominence of immigration in political discourse, further proposals on this topic are likely in 2027.
H2: The Concentrated Nature of Anti-ESG Activism
Despite the considerable public attention anti-ESG proposals attract, they are not being submitted by a large number of shareholders. In fact, three activist shareholders were responsible for over 60% of the anti-ESG proposals submitted in 2026, with approximately 15 activist shareholders in total submitting such proposals. These same three proponents were also behind about 50% of the anti-ESG proposals in 2025, indicating a continuing trend of concentrated activism. Typically, a single proponent will submit anti-ESG proposals on various topics to multiple companies. This season, however, one proponent focused on climate-risk based proposals to 12 companies, while another submitted charitable giving risk proposals to seven companies.
H2: Key Takeaways from the 2026 Proxy Season
The 2026 proxy season continues a notable trend from recent years: while anti-ESG proposals are prevalent and anti-ESG sentiment is vocally expressed, shareholder support for these measures remains exceptionally low. Despite this lack of widespread voting success, anti-ESG proposals appear to be a fixture for the foreseeable future. Activist shareholders may view these resolutions as a strategic tool for drawing attention to their viewpoints and objectives, irrespective of the voting outcomes. Whatever the underlying rationale, it does not appear to be significantly swayed by the results of shareholder votes. The evolving SEC guidance, while changing procedural dynamics, has not diminished the consistent submission of these counter-ESG resolutions, highlighting a persistent tension in corporate governance and stakeholder engagement.
