A decade-long effort to leverage asset managers to impose net-zero and social justice policies on corporations has gone into reverse with reports from this year’s corporate voting season that the most influential fund managers are no longer voting for these policies.
BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager with more than $11 trillion in assets under management reported that it voted against 98% of the environmental and social shareholder proposals in 2025, up from 96% against in 2024. Vanguard, the world’s second-largest fund manager with more than $10 trillion in assets, did not vote in favor of a single environmental or social proposal.
State Street Investment Management, the third largest with more than $5 trillion under management, has not yet released its 2025 proxy voting report. These three fund managers, often called the “Big Three,” together represent about 25% of the votes cast at annual meetings of S&P 500 companies, a 2022 report by Harvard law professor Lucian A. Bebchuk and Boston University law professor Scott Hirst states.
The vast majority of U.S. corporate shares are owned by institutional investors such as asset managers, pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, banks and insurance companies. These institutions owned 78% of the companies in the Russell 3000 index and 80% of the companies in the S&P 500 index, according to a 2017 study by Pensions & Investments.
When individuals buy into investment funds, the fund typically owns the companies’ shares and the voting rights that come with them. And many fund managers have in turn voted for environmental and social agendas, according to an analysis by Lindsey Stewart, an investment analyst at Morningstar, Inc.
In 2020, the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative was formed and grew to 330 members, which until recently included the Big Three, pledging to leverage their influence as shareholders to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. As a sign of changing times, however, Vanguard quit the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative in 2022, and BlackRock exited this past January, prompting the club to halt operations soon thereafter. Proxy voting has moved in a similar direction.
“The Big Three have indeed effectively ended their support for [Environmental, Social, and Governance] proposals in just a few short years,” Tim Schwarzenberger, portfolio manager for Inspire Investing, told The Daily Signal.
“The legal landscape and public perception have shifted quickly, and these major players are now catching up, which is a major victory for common sense,” he said. “Most Americans and shareholders do not want corporations engaged in politics.”
In addition, red state attorneys general have recently threatened legal action for alleged violations of antitrust laws, and state treasurers have threatened boycotts of left-wing fund managers. Pressure has also come from conservative shareholders, and this, combined with a Trump administration that opposes climate and social-justice agendas, has taken a toll on corporate activism.
“Vanguard and BlackRock have skated where the puck has gone, and should be commended for it,” David Bahnsen, chief investment officer of the Bahnsen Group said of this year’s proxy votes. “Investors want investment strategies connected to return on their capital—they do not want the intrusion of a poorly-defined social agenda.
“That 2019-2022 experiment has ended, and the verdict was clear,” he told The Daily Signal.
Some asset managers also faced charges that political goals diverted them from their fiduciary duties to maximize investor returns. Whether or not this was the case, current rhetoric indicates a focus on shareholder value this voting season.
In its 2025 proxy voting report, BlackRock stated that many of the environmental and social proposals it rejected “were overreaching, lacked economic merit, or sought outcomes that were unlikely to promote long-term financial value.”
Vanguard likewise stated that it rejected proposals that “did not address financially material risks to shareholders.”
Conservatives lauded this approach but say they remain vigilant.
“Vanguard’s apparent return to sanity and their fiduciary duty to their clients is welcome news,” Will Hild, executive director of Consumers’ Research, told The Daily Signal. “While there are many other ways that asset managers wield influence over corporations, support for extremist, left-wing activist shareholder proposals has been one of the most noxious.”
Vanguard’s report referenced the “voluntary withdrawal of proposals by proponents, often following reported engagement with the company.” Conservatives say that in many cases, corporate management settles with activists prior to the vote, in return for having the proposal dropped.
Advocates for corporate activism say it is prudent risk management and that companies that pursue climate and social goals will be more profitable. Critics counter that those issues should be left to voters.
“Issues of climate policy and social justice should be addressed primarily at the election ballot box, not through corporate activism that is at odds with the values of many Americans,” Schwarzenberger said. “And in truth, most [Environmental, Social, and Governance] risks are already captured in stock prices, so symbolic shareholder votes add little value.”
The Daily Signal reached out to BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street for comment. BlackRock provided background information on its proxy voting. Vanguard and State Street did not respond.
We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.