Glass Lewis has announced plans to retire its long-standing practice of issuing single, default ‘benchmark’ voting recommendations based on a fixed house policy.
Instead, the firm will offer clients a choice of perspectives aligned to management, governance, activism or sustainability. The shift marks a move from a ‘one size fits all’ model to a fully customizable framework.
The decision follows a similar development by Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS), which recently launched governance research services that exclude voting recommendations, providing clients with customizable data, analysis and insights instead.
According to the Financial Times (paywall), Glass Lewis’s decision reflects both evolving client preferences and growing scrutiny of proxy advisory practices in the US and globally. The firm acknowledges that a fixed house policy no longer represents the diversity of fiduciary and sustainability perspectives among institutional investors.
As Glass Lewis explains: ‘We recognize that a single perspective is no longer sufficient … transitioning to a fully client driven policy model will ultimately put all proxy voting control in the hands of shareholders, empowering them to vote in accordance with their specific beliefs and priorities.’
In its statement, Glass Lewis points to ‘rapid advances in technology’ specifically AI as one of the drivers of this change, as it allows the firm to offer customized voting at scale.
A further driver is the widening divergence between US and European investor expectations on ESG and fiduciary duty. Glass Lewis notes that many European clients already use thematic or custom policies rather than rigid benchmarks, and US clients are increasingly seeking the same flexibility.
Political and regulatory scrutiny in the US has added pressure. Both Glass Lewis and ISS are facing investigations and legal challenges over their ESG-oriented voting guidance. In September 2025, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced a probe into whether the firms had misled public companies and investors by issuing recommendations that ‘advance radical political agendas’ instead of purely financially grounded principles. The investigation alleges that the firms routinely encourage proxy votes supporting DEI quotas, mandatory climate targets and other activist positions.
The Texas action has faced judicial resistance. In August 2025, a federal judge blocked enforcement of the Texas law (Senate Bill 2237), which would have required proxy advisers to provide disclaimers and financial analyses for ESG or diversity-related recommendations. The preliminary injunction means the law cannot currently be applied to Glass Lewis or ISS.
Against this backdrop, Glass Lewis is framing its 2027 transition as a client-focused evolution rather than a political concession. In an interview with Responsible Investor (paywall), CEO Bob Mann emphasized that the move is not a response to political pressure in the US. The change, he said, is driven by the need to address ‘diverging investor preferences’ rather than ‘a political pivot.’ Mann reiterated that the new model aims to empower clients rather than constrain them.
Observers, however, note a strategic dimension to the move. By shifting decision-making authority to clients, Glass Lewis reduces exposure to criticism that it promotes a singular ideological stance. As Ann Lipton, a law professor at the University of Colorado, put it: ‘They seem to [be] trying to transition clients to develop more specific policy guidelines, which not only takes Glass Lewis out of the line of fire but also makes more money for Glass Lewis.’
The timing also reflects broader industry trends. ISS has similarly pivoted to a research-led model that allows greater client customization, signaling a shift across the proxy advisory landscape.
What this means for investors
One immediate implication is that investors will need to take a more active role in defining their own voting policies. Rather than relying on a default house view, clients must articulate priorities and potentially invest in internal governance resources. Smaller institutions may face challenges in managing that responsibility.
The market is also likely to see an increase in bespoke voting policies. Glass Lewis expects to offer perspectives labelled management, governance, activism or sustainability – each emphasizing different factors.
Critics caution that expanded choice may lead to fragmentation and reduced comparability. Without a unified benchmark, some fear it may erode consistent governance expectations. Others argue the change could monetize customization, as firms who don’t have internal capacity may turn to external consultancies or Glass Lewis itself, for support.
Shareholder advocate James McRitchie, publisher of CorpGov.net, has described the change as further evidence that proxy advisers are evolving into bespoke service providers rather than standard setters. In a LinkedIn post, McRitchie observed that the development underscores the growing importance of independent research and diligence, noting that clients can no longer rely on a universal policy as a default safeguard.
Some governance professionals also warn of potential transparency risks. Historically, standardized benchmark policies allowed investors to evaluate how recommendations applied across issuers. Under a multi-perspective framework, such comparisons may become more difficult.
The political context
Even though Glass Lewis rejects the notion of a political motive, the timing of the move suggests awareness of escalating political tensions. Proxy advisers remain at the center of US culture wars over ESG and state-level regulatory pressure continues to mount. By decentralizing policy decisions, the 2027 transition could offer the firm a degree of insulation – removing a single, easily targeted policy and placing responsibility with clients.
The transition will be gradual. Glass Lewis will continue issuing benchmark policies through 2026, including its diversity guidance in the US, but with alternative views. From March, diversity-related ‘against’ votes will carry a ‘for your attention’ flag, directing clients to an alternative recommendation that omits diversity considerations.
By 2027, the firm plans to fully eliminate its house policy. The shift marks a pivotal moment for the proxy advisory industry, reflecting both client demand for flexibility and a strategic recalibration amid regulatory and political headwinds. Whether it strengthens or fragments governance norms will depend on how investors craft their policies and how transparently the new advisory model operates.