SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
September, 17 2019, 12:00am EDT
Contact:
Stefanie Spear, sspear@asyousow.org, 216-387-1609
Investment Giants BlackRock and Vanguard Fail to Live Up to Climate Commitments by Voting Against Shareholder Resolutions
BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA
Corporate governance nonprofit Majority Action released today its report analyzing asset managers' 2019 voting records on climate-related shareholder proposals and CEO pay at energy and utility companies. The report finds that influential firms like BlackRock and Vanguard repeatedly voted with corporate management in opposing climate risk mitigation proposals. In fact, BlackRock and Vanguard voted against every proposal supported by the Climate Action 100+, an investor coalition with $34 trillion assets under management; in 16 cases the asset managers' support would have led to majority votes. Instead, the report states, "BlackRock and Vanguard chose to shield management from accountability, serving as a blockade for global investor action on climate."
In contrast, the report noted Legal & General, BNP Paribas, and PIMCO supported more than 95 percent of the shareholder proposals analyzed in this study, as did DWS Group, voting in favor of improved emissions disclosures and reduction plans, transparency regarding corporate political influence activity, and governance reforms to improve accountability to long-term shareholders. In addition, Legal & General Investment Management, BNP Paribas Asset Management, PIMCO, and Standard Life Aberdeen had the highest rate of voting against management proposed director candidates and say on pay proposals in the oil and gas and utility industries. These large asset managers are choosing to set and enforce policies to hold corporate boards accountable if climate-related concerns are not adequately addressed.
Danielle Fugere, president of As You Sow, made the following statement:
"This year we saw many shareholder proposals encouraging companies to take action to mitigate the material climate risks facing their companies and the global economy. By voting against such proposals, BlackRock and Vanguard are demonstrating a profound inconsistency with their own stated purpose, while also jeopardizing shareholder value. There is little time left to change the trajectory of a warming globe, yet these firms are abdicating the power of their proxy vote to help protect the climate, the economy, and investor portfolios from systemic climate risks."
Lila Holzman, energy program manager of As You Sow, made the following statement:
"Transparency is key to investors' ability to assess climate-related risks. While firms like BlackRock and Vanguard have acknowledged climate change risks, they counterproductively vote against proposals that ask for enhanced disclosure and action and fail to transparently explain why. This exposes their clients to even greater risks."
Rosanna Landis Weaver, executive compensation program manager of As You Sow, made the following statement:
"BlackRock and Vanguard voted for 99 percent of U.S. energy and utility companies' proposed directors and 100 percent of their pay packages rewarding CEOs of companies that have underperformed the S&P500 for the past decade. Shareholders should be particularly focused on what behavior is incentivized in this industry, and whether compensation aligns executives' long-term interests with those shareholders."
Andrew Behar, CEO of As You Sow, made the following statement:
"We are pleased to see some of the large asset managers, including BNP Paribas, Legal & General, DWS, and PIMCO, taking climate change seriously by supporting these resolutions. This sends a strong message that shareholders see business as usual by the energy sector no longer acceptable and negatively impacting the entire economy."
For more information on As You Sow's work on climate change, click here.
As You Sow is the nation's non-profit leader in shareholder advocacy. Founded in 1992, we harness shareholder power to create lasting change that benefits people, planet, and profit. Our mission is to promote environmental and social corporate responsibility through shareholder advocacy, coalition building, and innovative legal strategies.
LATEST NEWS
'This Fight Is Nowhere Near Over,' Privacy Advocates Warn After GOP Again Punts FISA Vote
"We won't stop fighting for a self-evident truth: The government should not be able to bypass the courts to surveil Americans," said one privacy campaigner.
Apr 15, 2026
A controversial federal spying power is set to expire next week, but Republican leadership in the US House of Representatives again delayed a reauthorization vote on Wednesday amid persistent demands for reforms from across the political spectrum.
President Donald Trump is pushing for a "clean" 18-month extension of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which allows for warrantless spying on the electronic communications of noncitizens located outside the United States.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) "canceled a vote scheduled for Wednesday evening... amid a hard-liner rebellion, making it more likely the program could expire in five days—but said the House would try again Thursday," Politico reported.
As for whether there would be the necessary votes on Thursday to adopt a rule to proceed to consideration of the bill, Johnson said: "I think we will... We're working through some final details."
Although GOP leaders are plowing ahead with their reauthorization effort, Demand Progress senior policy adviser Hajar Hammado still welcomed the delay, declaring that "this time, fearmongering was not enough to overcome a bipartisan movement fighting for the privacy rights of all Americans."
"We rarely ever see the full force of the White House and the intelligence agencies fail to browbeat Congress into giving them what they want," Hammado noted. "That this happened today is a testament to the tireless work of our movement, which has been successfully bringing Republicans, Democrats, and Independents together for a common cause."
"Of course, this fight is nowhere near over," she added. "Speaker Johnson can still force a vote any time with extremely short notice, but our coalition feels the wind at our backs, and we won't stop fighting for a self-evident truth: The government should not be able to bypass the courts to surveil Americans."
Hammado's group has been a leader in the growing coalition calling for reforms—including for lawmakers to close the "data broker loophole" that intelligence and law enforcement agencies use to buy their way around the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which is supposed to protect Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures.
It's not just congressional Republicans under pressure. Demand Progress Action and Fight for the Future took aim at House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Jim Himes (D-Conn.)—who has signaled that he will support renewal and vote against adding privacy protections—with a Sunday print advertisement in the Connecticut Post.
We teamed up with @demandprogress.bsky.social to call out @jahimes.bsky.social for supporting Trump's mass surveillance efforts by trying to push through Section 702 without reform.
[image or embed]
— Fight for the Future (@fightforthefuture.org) April 14, 2026 at 8:38 PM
On Tuesday, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus Chair Grace Meng (D-NY), Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chair Adriano Espaillat (D-NY), and Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) spearheaded a letter to Democratic and Republican leaders in both chambers arguing that "this authority ought to include meaningful Fourth Amendment protections for Americans in its renewal package."
"The Trump administration has demonstrated an unparalleled appetite for collecting and exploiting Americans' personal data," the caucus leaders and members wrote. "The administration has built profiles on American citizens, demanded that artificial intelligence (AI) companies assist in mass domestic surveillance, and paid hundreds of millions of dollars to build a megadatabase of Americans' personal data. Without independent guardrails on Section 702, this administration has
repeatedly shown that it cannot be trusted to police its own use of this sweeping surveillance authority."
Over 30 civil society organizations—including Demand Progress, Fight for the Future, Indivisible, Project On Government Oversight, RootsAction, and more—endorsed the congressional letter. POGO policy counsel Donald Bell commended the leadership of the caucuses "in seeking real guardrails and accountability that protect our constitutional rights," while Hammado urged "all members of Congress to follow the lead" of the three groups.
Meanwhile, The American Prospect reported Monday that "the Congressional Black Caucus will quietly support an effort to reauthorize surveillance powers that were used to spy on Black Lives Matter activists in 2020," which "comes after Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), the powerful ranking member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, successfully lobbied CBC leadership to stand down on reforming the vast intelligence authority."
After publication, Meeks told the outlet that "I support FISA reauthorization, but the only vote I've been whipping is my war powers resolution to end the war in Iran. Whip operations are traditionally conducted by the ranking member of the committee that has jurisdiction over the legislation being considered. Any claim that I'm whipping the CBC on FISA is false."
In response to that reporting,Re Access Now, Fight for the Future, and STOP Spying NYC said in a joint statement that "if the heat of the glares aimed at Rep. Meeks right now could melt him, he'd be dripping like a snowman on the pavement in July. No one in Queens wants everybody in the federal government to have total access to the intimate details of their lives with the tap of a mouse."
Highlighting the danger of continuing the spying power sans privacy protections as Trump's Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers roam US streets, the groups said that "it is a total betrayal of the Fourth Amendment and the dignity of everyday people in this country to treat us all as if we are guilty until Big Brother Trump proves us innocent by watching our every move. And worse—it's impossible to predict how these troves of records may be weaponized in the future against racial justice activists, trans and queer families, abortion patients and providers, anti-war activists, or anyone who acts out of step with MAGA."
"It's supposed to be the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, not the Forever Indiscriminate Surveillance Act. Rep. Meeks' colleagues are proposing real safeguards to protect people against this indiscriminate government surveillance," the trio added. "He is not only failing his constituency, he is disrespecting them and putting them in danger. It's not too late for Rep. Meeks to get on the right side of history."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'This Is Insane': Alarm Bells Follow New Report of Looming US Plan to Attack Cuba
"Trump is preparing to take the US into another illegal war against Cuba," warned one progressive critic of the US president. "We must stop him. It’s not too late."
Apr 15, 2026
Is Cuba next in line for a US attack?
US President Donald Trump has repeatedly said it could be, and USA Today on Wednesday cited "sources familiar" with the matter who said that the Pentagon is "quietly ramping up" preparations to wage war on the socialist nation if Trump gives the order.
On Monday, Trump flippantly declared that “we may stop by Cuba after we’re finished with this," referring to the illegal US-Israeli war of choice on Iran that's left thousands of Iranians dead or wounded, including hundreds of children.
Trump has also said that he believes he’ll “be having the honor of taking Cuba,” language echoing the 19th century US imperialists who conquered the island along with Puerto Rico and the Philippines from Spain in another war waged on dubious pretense.
"Whether I free it, take it—I think I can do anything I want," Trump said of the island and its 11 million inhabitants.
The USA Today report—authored by Kim Hjelmgaard, Rick Jervis, and Francesca Chambers—sparked widespread alarm among advocates for peace.
"This is not a drill. Trump is preparing to take the US into another illegal war against Cuba to appease the Miami mafia," Progressive International co-general coordinator David Adler said Wednesday on X. "We must stop him. It’s not too late."
Cubans—who have been subjected to generations of privation and hardship due largely to the internationally condemned US economic embargo of their island—have mostly shrugged off Trump's threats, with some observers noting that Cuba's socialist era has outlasted a dozen American presidents.
Responding to a question about a possible US attack on his country, Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel said Sunday on NBC News' "Meet the Press" that “if that happens, there will be fighting, and there will be a struggle, and we will defend ourselves, and if we need to die, we’ll die, because as our national anthem says, ‘Dying for the homeland is to live’.”
Numerous observers expressed shock, but not surprise, that Trump—the self-proclaimed "peace president" who has bombed 10 countries, more than any other US president—is setting his sights on Cuba, which American presidents since Thomas Jefferson have coveted.
Trump has been threatening Cuba since his first administration, when he systematically rolled back the Obama administration's diplomatic normalization with the island's socialist government. He also activated a provision of the Helms-Burton Act allowing lawsuits over property confiscated after the Cuban Revolution.
On the last day of his first term, Trump re-designated Cuba a state sponsor of terrorism, a move critics slammed as absurd given that Cuba has never carried out any acts of terrorism—unlike the United States and the militant Cuban exiles it harbors, who have a decadeslong record of terrorist bombings and other attacks, as well as numerous failed or aborted attempts to assassinate former revolutionary leader Fidel Castro.
Since returning to office, Trump has ratcheted up military threats and economic pressure on Cuba, which was already reeling from decades of US sanctions and the inefficiencies of centralized state control. Trump tightened the embargo by severely restricting fuel imports, exacerbating an energy emergency characterized by blackouts and deadly suffering among the most vulnerable Cubans, including sick people and children.
Last month, US Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) introduced a war powers resolution aimed at preventing Trump from attacking Cuba without congressional authorization as required by law. Numerous war powers resolutions related to Iran, Venezuela, and Trump's extralegal high-seas boat bombings have failed to pass.
Keep ReadingShow Less
New Poll Shows Michigan Senate Primary in Dead Heat as Voters Sour on Pro-Israel Lobby
Abdul El-Sayed has been attacked by a centrist think tank for campaigning with anti-Israel commentator Hasan Piker. He faces Haley Stevens and Mallory McMorrow, who both have ties to the pro-Israel lobby.
Apr 15, 2026
Weeks into a controversy egged on by the centrist think tank Third Way regarding Democratic US Senate candidate Dr. Abdul El-Sayed's decision to campaign with an outspoken anti-Israel commentator, a new poll out Wednesday revealed that despite the best efforts of the explicitly anti-left group and El-Sayed's opponents, the three candidates are in a dead heat with four months to go until Michigan's primary.
The Data for Progress poll, conducted on behalf of Zeteo News and Drop Site News, found that US Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) was in the lead with 23%, but state Sen. Mallory McMorrow (D-8) and El-Sayed were not far behind, with 22% each. A third of voters were undecided, potentially leaving many open to learning more about the three candidates ahead of the August 4 primary.
With Israel and Palestine already a central theme in the primary due the uproar over El-Sayed's decision to campaign with Twitch streamer and commentator Hasan Piker, voters were asked about their views on Piker as well as Stevens' and McMorrow's ties to the pro-Israel lobby, and signaled that the latter two candidates may have more to explain than El-Sayed.
"Michigan primary voters appear significantly more concerned about the influence of [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee], America’s top pro-Israel lobby," wrote Andrew Perez at Zeteo. "Sixty-four percent said they are less likely to support a Senate candidate who receives donations from AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups, while 10% said they are more likely."
Stevens received $340,000 in direct campaign contributions from AIPAC's political action committee last year before she launched her Senate campaign, and she taped a promotional video for the powerful group last month.
McMorrow has positioned herself as a middle ground between Stevens and El-Sayed, a vehement supporter of Palestinian rights, and has spoken out against Israel's US-backed assault on Gaza. The war, which has killed more than 72,000 Palestinians, has been called a genocide by leading human rights groups and Holocaust scholars, but McMorrow has not used that word to describe the attacks and has complained that those who urge politicians to do so are subjecting them to a "purity test."
McMorrow reportedly drafted a position paper for AIPAC and attended an invite-only event hosted by the group last year, featuring a columnist who publicly questioned whether Israel was imposing a starvation policy in Gaza.
Michigan primary voters' views on AIPAC mirror those of the larger electorate, according to one poll from last October by Upswing Strategies, which found that nearly half of voters in competitive districts said they "could never support" a candidate funded by AIPAC or the pro-Israel lobby.
The Data for Progress poll also found that 62% of voters agreed with the statement, "If a candidate is not willing to stand up to AIPAC, I am less likely to trust them to stand up for Michiganders on other issues."
The poll was taken between April 2-8, with 515 people surveyed around the time that El-Sayed was appearing with Piker at rallies at the University of Michigan and Michigan State University.
Stevens and McMorrow both took aim at El-Sayed for associating with Piker, who once said the US "deserved" the September 11 attacks—a remark he later apologized for—and has said the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack was a "direct consequence" of US and Israeli actions. Stevens condemned El-Sayed for "choosing to campaign with someone who has a history of antisemitic rhetoric," while McMorrow compared Piker to far-right, white nationalist streamer Nick Fuentes. Piker and El-Sayed have spoken out against antisemitism and emphasized the difference between opposition to the Israeli government and bias against Jewish people.
Despite the focus on Piker in recent weeks, the poll found that the vast majority of Michigan primary voters didn't know enough about him to have an opinion about his involvement in El-Sayed's rallies. Thirteen percent of respondents had a favorable view of him while 7% viewed him negatively.
Data for Progress gave respondents some context about Piker, highlighting his past remarks and noting he's been accused of antisemitism as well as mentioning El-Sayed's view that "criticism of Israel should not be confused with antisemitism." With the background information, 40% of respondents said they approved of El-Sayed campaigning with Piker, 30% said they disapproved, and 30% said they weren't sure.
Previous polls have found larger gaps between the three candidates; a poll by Upswing Research found in early March that 27% of voters backed Stevens, 25% supported McMorrow, and 23% supported El-Sayed.
While Third Way has cast the primary election as a referendum on a popular livestreamer in recent weeks, Data for Progress executive director Ryan O'Donnell said the poll offered clarity on the other issues that matter to Michigan voters, including expanding Medicare to the entire US population and abolishing US Immigration and Customs Enforcement—both proposals El-Sayed strongly supports.
The Data for Progress poll was released as progressive organization Our Revolution announced its endorsement of El-Sayed.
"He is running on a bold vision beyond universal healthcare, from taking on corporate greed to ending big money in politics to advancing a more just and humane future for all," said Our Revolution. "This is a people-powered campaign—and a chance to build a government that truly works for working families."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular