The Dutch pension fund ABP has reflected on its voting approach during the 2025 annual general meeting season, in which it voted against anti-diversity proposals.

The pension fund explained that during the season, a number of American companies received anti-diversity proposals from shareholders, such as removing diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) related initiatives and scrapping targets relating to these from executive remuneration.

The reasons for this are concerns about politics and regulations in the United States, ABP noted.

“We voted against these anti-DEI proposals: ABP believes it is important that the board continues to report on its performance and progress with regard to diversity within the board, executive management and the entire workforce,” the pension fund explained.

“Many other shareholders supported the same view: more than 97 per cent voted against. A large majority of shareholders, therefore, remain committed to the principles of good governance and the importance of diversity. A responsible, well-considered and transparent remuneration policy.”

During the season, ABP said its asset manager, APG, voted on its behalf on thousands of proposals at shareholder meetings worldwide. However, ABP said that due to it transitioning to a new share portfolio, it voted against proposals less frequently in 2025 than in previous years.

“This is because we assess companies more strictly before they are included in the portfolio, which means we invest in fewer companies. We voted at virtually every shareholders' meeting where we could exercise our rights,” it stated.

The pension fund’s voting policy focused on key themes in its sustainable and responsible investment policy - climate, nature & biodiversity, human rights and good governance.

Furthermore, before the voting season, ABP said it entered into discussions with various companies, for example, on remuneration policies.

“ABP voted against various proposals that did not meet our standards in the area of remuneration policy. This may be for various reasons, such as excessive remuneration and a lack of transparency, but it may also be due to the absence of climate targets in this policy,” it explained.

---