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
Melrose Industries
Melrose Industries owns industrial businesses. These businesses’ products include components for the aerospace and defence industries, such as parts for the F-35, the world’s most advanced fighter jet.
What’s the issue?
If senior executives’ pay increases much faster than wider workforce pay, that could be bad for morale and the reputation of the business. We’re acutely aware that executive pay comes out of shareholders’ funds, which could be reinvested in the company or paid to shareholders.
Melrose decided to give several departing directors generous pay packages that we didn’t think were appropriate.
What did we do?
We issued a split vote over the remuneration report, which sets out senior executives’ pay. This is where different fund managers vote in different ways, reflecting the interests of their particular clients. The majority of our fund managers opposed the report.
What happened?
At the April 2025 AGM, almost two-thirds of shareholders opposed the company’s pay report. This was the largest vote against pay of the UK voting season, which runs from April to June.
What next?
This vote wasn’t binding, but we were confident Melrose would make changes in response. We decided to seek a meeting with management to discuss its intended changes.
Microsoft
Microsoft is a US technology company.
What’s the issue?
It's building data centres in countries with chequered records on human rights and liberties. We worry that these states’ governments might try to see the data stored here and use this to persecute dissidents. We’re also concerned that Microsoft’s AI and cloud products and services could be abused – for example, to create and spread false information.
What did we do?
At the December 2025 AGM, we supported a shareholder proposal for it to publish a data centre report. It would assess the implications of building centres in countries with human rights concerns, and strategies for mitigating these impacts.
We also backed a shareholder proposal for a report assessing the effectiveness of its human rights due diligence for the misuse of AI and of cloud products and services.
What happened?
The proposal for a data centre report received 27% support.
Altogether, 26% of shareholders backed the proposal about AI and cloud products and services.
What next?
Such support shows these are important issues for shareholders. That opens the door for further engagement with the company.
We’ll consider escalating matters if Microsoft doesn’t give us a satisfactory explanation of how it’s dealing with these issues.
Netflix
Netflix is a US streaming company.
What’s the issue?
Company Boards need good independent directors. Independent directors don’t earn their main living from the company or have very close ties to it in other ways, such as a former executive role. However, they are paid a fee for sitting on the Board. This independence could make them more likely to speak up if they see something they think could be bad for shareholders.
Netflix’s lead independent director (LID) only attended half the Board meetings in 2024.
The US streaming company’s Chair wasn’t regarded as independent, so this was a particular problem.
What did we do?
In June 2025, we voted against the LID’s re-election. We also raised our concerns in a letter to the company.
What happened?
Seventy-eight percent of shareholders opposed his re-election. This was an advisory vote – it wasn’t binding on the company – but the LID resigned.
Netflix rejected his subsequent resignation. But it said the LID had committed to meet his previous extremely high attendance rate.
What next?
We wanted the LID’s attendance to improve dramatically. So we planned to monitor his attendance and consider escalating the issue if the attendance was poor.
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.
