“The lack of regulation and accountability of proxy advisory firms, their conflicts of interest, ongoing objective errors in their reports, as well as unfounded biases and presumptions underlying their proxy voting positions, demonstrate the need for these participants in the U.S. proxy system to be subject to reasonable, common-sense regulation.”

[COMMENTARY] Shareholders today do not hold stocks for long periods like they did years ago and are thus usually only interested in short-term results. They also typically don’t have the time or expertise to delve into the nuances of proxy positions. Hence, their reliance on proxy voting services, which, as described in this report, can sometimes be problematic.
Testimony in House Hearing: “Exposing the Proxy Advisory Cartel: How ISS & Glass Lewis Influence Markets”, by Elizabeth Ising, May 5, 2025, Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, USA.