1/8/2026
BlackRock’s Updates Stewardship Expectations for 2026
Governance Intelligence (01/08/26) Bannerman, Natalie
BlackRock (BLK) will renew its focus on long-term financial performance and take a more pragmatic approach to environmental policies at investee companies in 2026, according to its updated U.S. Stewardship guidelines for 2026, as proxy advisers and companies continue to react to political pressure. The revisions arrive after the asset manager received public criticism from New York City comptroller Brad Lander, who in 2025 urged city pension boards to consider dropping BlackRock, Fidelity, and PanAgora over what he described as inadequate decarbonization plans. Against that backdrop, BlackRock’s latest guidance reads as both a defense of its approach and a signal of how it intends to navigate growing political, regulatory, and investor pressure. Lander’s Net Zero Implementation Plan Update and Recommendations sharpened scrutiny on how large managers vote and engage on climate-related issues. His central recommendation was blunt: pension funds should reconsider relationships with managers that do not demonstrate sufficient alignment with net zero goals through voting and engagement. The report framed proxy voting as a key test of credibility and accountability. This was further evidenced by BlackRock’s loss of its second European pension fund The PME group, last month, over concerns about climate action and the U.S. manager’s voting record. BlackRock responded quickly and publicly, rejecting the premise that stewardship should be judged against a single policy objective and arguing that effective stewardship focuses on long-term economic value rather than mandated outcomes. That position now runs clearly through BlackRock’s updated U.S. Stewardship guidelines and its 2026 voting policies, with renewed emphasis on purpose and process. BlackRock states that its stewardship activities are designed to protect and enhance long-term shareholder value on behalf of clients. It reiterates that it does not set company strategy or pursue political goals. Instead, it focuses on the quality of governance, board oversight, and how companies manage material risks and opportunities that could affect financial performance over time. This framing reflects the reality that stewardship has become increasingly politicized in the United States. Large asset managers face criticism from multiple sides, with some investors and public officials pressing for stronger climate action while others question whether managers have overstepped their remit. BlackRock’s updated language is more precise and disciplined, with repeated references to financial materiality, consistency, and company-specific analysis. Board oversight remains central to BlackRock’s 2026 voting stance. The U.S. Benchmark voting guidelines reaffirm expectations around board composition, refreshment, and effectiveness. Boards are expected to demonstrate active oversight of strategy and risk, particularly where companies face sustained underperformance, governance weaknesses, or significant control failures. The guidelines make clear that a lack of responsiveness to shareholders may result in votes against directors, including committee chairs. This approach sits alongside changes from proxy advisors ISS and Glass Lewis, both of which updated their U.S. voting policies for 2026. Glass Lewis has tightened its focus on board authority and oversight, while ISS has refined benchmark policies across governance, compensation, and shareholder rights. At the same time, both proxy advisors are facing increased scrutiny from the Trump administration, mirroring the attention directed at large asset managers. For BlackRock, this reinforces the need to clearly distinguish its own voting framework from the recommendations of proxy firms with the 2026 guidelines explicitly stating that proxy research informs BlackRock’s analysis but does not determine voting outcomes. As for executive compensation, the updated U.S. guidance stresses that companies are expected to provide clear explanations, particularly where pay decisions diverge from prior practice or stated targets. Climate-related disclosure remains part of BlackRock’s stewardship expectations, though the tone is notably pragmatic. The firm does not introduce new disclosure mandates or set decarbonization targets. Instead, it expects companies to identify and disclose material climate-related risks and opportunities in a way that is relevant to their business and strategy. The asset manager also highlights the need to act on decision-useful information rather than compliance-led reporting. Companies are encouraged to tailor disclosures to their specific risks and investor base. Shareholder proposals are treated with similar selectivity. BlackRock reiterates that support depends on relevance, clarity and economic merit. The firm signals limited backing for proposals that are overly prescriptive, duplicative, or insufficiently connected to long-term shareholder value. This puts BlackRock between activists pushing for broader support and critics arguing for more restraint. One notable development in the new voting guidelines is a firmer tone on escalation. While engagement remains the preferred starting point, the 2026 guidance suggests a greater readiness to reflect unresolved concerns through voting – particularly in situations where companies fail to provide adequate disclosure or demonstrate progress after repeated engagement. Taken together, BlackRock’s updated U.S. Stewardship guidelines and voting policies reflect a refinement of approach under pressure. They respond directly to criticism such as Lander’s by doubling down on fiduciary framing and long-term value, while also signaling accountability through voting where boards fall short.
Read the article