The 2026 State of Stewardship report documents the continued improvement of stewardship practice in Aotearoa New Zealand. As foundational elements such as voting and disclosure become established, the market is transitioning towards the global frontier of leading stewardship. This shift includes deeper engagement, active policy advocacy, and collaborative action regarding systemic risks. The report specifically analyses stewardship reporting submitted to the Code for the 2025 calendar year. It identifies key themes across the market, highlights areas of strong practice via case studies, and provides practical guidance for signatories to strengthen their approach. By the start of 2026, the Code had 20 signatories, following a market merger and the departure of two organisations. Assets under management globally across these signatories reached approximately $3.8 trillion, and the quality and depth of individual reports have improved considerably.

Market snapshot

The market snapshot reflects 19 stewardship reports released in 2025, an increase from 16 in the previous year. This consistent growth indicates a genuine shift in accountability norms within the New Zealand investment market. Reports were assessed against the nine Principles of the Code and rated out of five. Principle 8, “Measure and report”, achieved the highest average rating of 5, while Principle 6, “Manage conflicts of interest”, remained the lowest at 2.6. Notable improvements were seen in Principle 4, “Be engaged”, which rose from 3.5 to 4.1, and Principle 3, “Incorporate material ESG matters”, which increased from 3.4 to 3.9. Principle 7, “Collaborate and advocate for change”, also saw a strong average rating of 4.5.

Integration of te ao Māori is also advancing, with 42% of signatories referring to Māori worldviews in their 2025 reporting, up from 38% the previous year. While staff cultural training remains the most common entry point, an increasing number of signatories are connecting te ao Māori directly to investment thinking. This includes applying principles such as kaitiakitanga to the long-term stewardship of natural capital. The report encourages signatories to move beyond basic training towards ongoing integration, considering how Māori communities are viewed as stakeholders and how long-term obligations to future generations are reflected in engagement priorities.

Stewardship in practice

Engagement reporting in 2025 moved beyond simple interaction counts to explaining objectives and outcomes. The most common thematic priorities disclosed were climate-related risks (95%), corporate governance (95%), human rights and modern slavery (84%), and biodiversity and nature (58%). In terms of effort, governance accounted for 38.3% of engagements, environment for 28.3%, and social issues for 21.2%. Outcomes achieved fell into three main categories: climate-related progress (such as SBTi alignment, net-zero roadmaps, and GHG reporting), governance reform (board renewal and executive remuneration restructured with ESG KPIs), and human rights or biodiversity disclosures involving escalation.

Escalation practices have matured, with 58% of reports setting out a defined escalation approach. A typical sequence begins with management-level dialogue, progressing to board or CEO engagement, active voting, collaborative pressure, or shareholder resolutions if progress stalls. Collaborative engagement also saw growth, exemplified by the first New Zealand-focused climate collaborative engagement led by Milford and Pathfinder, which targeted the transport sector. Furthermore, policy engagement remained high, focusing on modern slavery legislation and climate-related financial disclosure reforms involving MBIE, FMA, and RIAA. Voting participation remains high, with an average “vote against management” rate of 12%, showing convergence with international counterparts. Primary reasons for voting against management included concerns over board independence, weak diversity, excessive director tenure, and misaligned executive pay structures.

Case studies

The report includes several case studies illustrating areas of strong practice across the 2025 reports. Amova Global Stewardship Report 2025 provides a clear table outlining specific stewardship-related conflict scenarios and the governance controls used to mitigate them. Trust Investments 2025 Ethical Investment Update & Stewardship Report describes a structured framework for monitoring third-party managers, including monitoring cadence and evaluation criteria. The NZ Super Fund 2025 Stewardship Report is highlighted for its depth of data on engagement activity, including the number of engagements, issues addressed, and specific milestones achieved. Lastly, Fisher Funds is recognised for providing clear voting statistics and context, transparently reporting activity while explaining process changes and thematic reasons for votes against management.

Guidance: Stewardship policies

A stewardship policy serves as the essential foundation for an organisation’s activities, articulating why stewardship is taken seriously and how engagement and voting are approached. The report suggests that a well-structured two to three page document often provides more value than a lengthy framework. Such a policy should cover the organisation’s stewardship purpose and principles, priority issues, engagement approach, and proxy voting methodology. It must also outline escalation steps, oversight and implementation responsibilities, and a commitment to transparency and periodic reporting of activities.

Guidance: Voting policies

Developed in collaboration with Glass Lewis, this guidance encourages signatories to strengthen voting processes in alignment with Principle 5. A robust voting policy should clarify the principles guiding decisions across different resolution types to ensure individual votes are consistent. Key areas to address include board governance, executive remuneration, shareholder rights, and sustainability. The report highlights three questions for assessing quality: whether votes are cast consistently on the same agenda items, whether they genuinely serve beneficiaries’ interests rather than just following a checklist, and whether engagement outcomes are reflected in the final voting decision. Signatories are encouraged to use “comply or explain” guidelines and ensure insights from voting feed back into portfolio management.