Proxy Power and Shareholder Alignment: The Evolving Dynamics of M&A Validation in Asset Management

---

In the high-stakes world of asset management, mergers and acquisitions (M&A) remain a cornerstone of strategic growth. Yet, the success of these deals increasingly hinges on a less-discussed but pivotal factor: shareholder alignment. Over the past two years, proxy advisory firms like Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) and Glass Lewis have emerged as gatekeepers of corporate governance, wielding outsized influence over M&A outcomes. Their recommendations, often followed in lockstep by institutional investors, have reshaped the calculus of dealmakers and boardrooms alike.

The Proxy Advisory Duopoly and M&A Outcomes

Proxy advisors operate as de facto market duopolies, with ISS and Glass Lewis controlling 48% and 42% of the U.S. proxy advice market for mutual funds, respectively, according to a ScienceDirect analysis. Their influence is amplified by the rise of "robo-voting," where asset managers, particularly those using ISS or Glass Lewis voting platforms, align their votes almost exclusively with the firms' guidance, according to a ZHAW study. For instance, when ISS recommends voting against a director's election, its subscribers are 20 percentage points more likely to follow suit compared to non-subscribers, the analysis found. This dynamic extends to M&A proposals: negative proxy advisor recommendations can trigger significant shareholder opposition, forcing companies to revise terms or abandon deals altogether, as noted in a Harvard Law Forum article.

A 2024 case study illustrates this power. When a major tech firm proposed a $20 billion acquisition, ISS issued a "withhold" recommendation on the board's slate, citing governance concerns. The resulting shareholder backlash led to a 15% drop in support for the deal, compelling the board to renegotiate terms, the Harvard Law Forum article reported. Such scenarios underscore how proxy advisors act as both arbiters of corporate strategy and catalysts for market volatility.

The Counterbalance: Asset Managers as Strategic Actors

While proxy advisors dominate the governance landscape, large asset managers like Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street have increasingly asserted their independence. In 2024, these firms supported management nominees in 75%, 50%, and 75% of large-cap proxy contests, respectively-far exceeding the 25% support rate of ISS and Glass Lewis, the Harvard Law Forum article noted. This divergence highlights a critical nuance: while proxy advisors set the agenda, asset managers retain the final say, particularly in high-stakes M&A scenarios.

This power dynamic is not without friction. Critics argue that the "Big Three" asset managers prioritize short-term returns over long-term strategic value, often favoring management teams despite proxy advisor objections, as discussed in the Harvard Law Forum article. For example, BlackRock's 2024 decision to back a controversial leveraged buyout, despite Glass Lewis's "against" recommendation, sparked debates about fiduciary responsibility versus governance norms.

Criticisms and the Call for Reform

The growing influence of proxy advisors has drawn regulatory scrutiny. Critics, including the Manhattan Institute, argue that ISS and Glass Lewis lack transparency in their methodologies and operate without fiduciary duties to shareholders. Their one-size-fits-all approach, which applies standardized governance metrics to diverse industries, risks stifling innovation and corporate flexibility, the Manhattan Institute analysis warns.

Moreover, the ESG (environmental, social, and governance) agenda has exposed gaps between asset managers' stated commitments and their voting behavior. A 2025 study by Zurich University of Applied Sciences found that while asset managers publicly champion ESG principles, their proxy votes on climate-related proposals often diverge from these pledges. This dissonance raises questions about the authenticity of ESG-driven M&A strategies and the role of proxy advisors in either amplifying or mitigating such inconsistencies, the ZHAW study observed.

The Path Forward: Balancing Influence and Accountability

The tension between proxy advisors and asset managers reflects a broader debate about corporate governance in the digital age. To ensure alignment with shareholder interests, regulators and industry stakeholders must address three key issues:
1. Transparency: Proxy advisors should disclose their methodologies and conflict-of-interest policies, a recommendation echoed by the Manhattan Institute.
2. Customization: Governance frameworks must adapt to industry-specific contexts rather than relying on rigid templates, as the ScienceDirect analysis suggests.
3. Accountability: Asset managers must reconcile their ESG commitments with voting behavior, particularly in M&A scenarios, a conclusion supported by the ZHAW study.

Conclusion

The intersection of proxy advisory influence and shareholder alignment has redefined M&A validation in asset management. While proxy advisors provide critical governance insights, their power must be tempered by transparency, customization, and accountability. For asset managers, the challenge lies in balancing fiduciary duties with the evolving expectations of stakeholders. As the industry navigates this complex landscape, the ultimate test will be whether governance frameworks can adapt to foster both shareholder value and long-term strategic resilience.

---