Unlocking AGMs: From Votes to Voice in Asia-Pacific

Annual general meetings (AGMs) are a pivotal forum for all participants in Asia-Pacific (APAC) capital markets — asset owners, asset managers, listed companies, proxy advisers, minority shareholder associations, and regulators. This report is designed with all these stakeholder groups in mind, offering tailored recommendations to strengthen their role in the governance ecosystem. The analysis and recommendations that follow are structured to address the distinct needs and responsibilities of each stakeholder group, with specific actions outlined.

The report examines how AGMs across Asia-Pacific can evolve from procedural, compliance-driven events into meaningful platforms for stewardship, accountability, and long-term value creation. Drawing on multimarket research and extensive stakeholder interviews, it highlights persistent challenges — such as clustering, limited disclosures, compressed voting window, and language differences as some of the pain points.

Despite the advent of newer and more exclusive avenues selectively available for some shareholders, AGMs remain a cornerstone of investor protection and corporate accountability. They provide shareholders — particularly minority investors — with a rare, formal, and documented opportunity to question boards and senior management, scrutinize strategy, and exercise their voting rights.

In many APAC markets, AGMs are the only forum where investors can engage directly with directors and auditors, making their design and execution critical to safeguarding shareholder rights, raising corporate governance standards, and promoting long‑term value creation. A voice available to all the shareholders, irrespective of the size of their holding, is an important input in ensuring companies and their directors conduct themselves in a responsible manner, in line with their fiduciary duty. The mere fact that directors are “on the stand” (to borrow a legal term) is itself a positive measure that gives shareholders a degree of confidence. Stated differently, how directors conduct themselves at AGMs also has information value, and AGMs continue to remain relevant as the most important legally binding platform for shareholders.

Because of their legacy and major differences in organic evolution, the markets in the APAC region present a complex corporate governance landscape. Company ownership structures are often concentrated, legal and regulatory frameworks vary, and language diversity adds layers of complexity. Even though AGMs are essential to investor protection in APAC, they vary widely in terms of access, timeliness and availability of disclosures, and attendance logistics with respect to convenience and cost, creating uneven participation and significant negative impacts on accountability. Investors cannot take for granted basic conditions or hygiene factors when it comes to AGMs: Late or compressed notice periods, limited English‑language disclosures in some markets, and barriers to attending or speaking opportunities at AGMs remain common.

The impact varies depending on where shareholders stand with respect to their holding in a company. For example, many institutional investors stay away from AGMs by choice because they prefer to engage behind the scenes. Also, in many markets, retail investors often struggle to be taken seriously. Majority‑shareholder dominance can further dilute minority voice. If voting outcomes are predetermined, investors see little value in participating because of low returns on stewardship efforts.

Yet it is not all gloom and doom, and in some markets, reform energy is building. Japan’s decade‑long governance evolution and South Korea’s “value‑up” campaign have intensified scrutiny of capital efficiency, board accountability, and shareholder rights. In India, investors have become vocal on resolutions pertaining to seemingly disproportionate compensation increases for executive directors and senior management. In Malaysia, some nongovernment and not-for-profit entities are doing an excellent job at educating investors on what they should focus on in AGMs. These developments lead to optimism that it is possible to make structural progress and recalibrate AGMs across the region — transforming them from mere “ticking-the-box” compliance exercises into meaningful stewardship touchpoints and deeper, fruitful engagement.

In 2013, CFA Institute published the seminal report "Shareowner Rights Across the Markets,” a comprehensive reference guide to help investors understand and compare shareowner rights across 28 global markets, highlighting the importance of active ownership, including the exercise of shareowner rights for the purpose of value protection and creation. This report was followed in 2020 by “Stewardship 2.0,” in which CFA Institute called for outcome‑focused stewardship codes, asset owner leadership, and integration of material environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors.

This current research extends the principles of those previous reports into further review and practice. By applying those principles, as well as the most up-to-date practices, to AGMs, we seek to identify where AGM design and conduct either enable or frustrate effective stewardship, and we offer stakeholder‑specific actions to enhance performance and produce balanced outcomes.

Across markets during the last 10 years, much effort has gone into upgrading the framework governing shareholder voting and AGMs, with the objective of addressing concerns of low engagement, limited transparency, and weak minority shareholder protection. Despite some progress, reforms across the region show that a “one‑and‑done” approach is not conducive to lasting positive outcomes.

AGM clustering and compressed timelines concentrate hundreds of meetings into narrow and impractical windows, limiting institutional capacity and reducing engagement quality. Late or insufficient disclosures — often compounded by a lack of English‑language materials—hinder informed voting, particularly for foreign investors. Other challenges such as access barriers, whether physical or digital, and frictions in vote execution further erode the effectiveness of shareholder voice.

Technology adoption spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic has acted as a strong catalyst for improved reach through hybrid and virtual formats. However, inconsistent and complicated practices around participant authentication, question queue handling, and lack of transparency still impede fair participation. Majority‑shareholder dominance and insufficient clarity on related‑party transactions remain structural concerns in several markets, underscoring the need for robust rules and active oversight. Without coordinated action, these challenges risk undermining the credibility of AGMs as a forum for accountability and stewardship.

The report provides tailored recommendations for asset owners, asset managers, issuers, proxy advisers, regulators, and shareholder associations. It is valuable to policymakers, investors, and corporate leaders seeking to strengthen governance, enhance shareholder voice, and improve the effectiveness and credibility of AGMs across the region. We conclude that three fundamental shifts are required to make AGMs fit for the future:

• Mindset reset: from compliance to continuum — treat the AGM as part of year-round engagement, not a one-off event.
• Technology: from access to participation — use tools such as real-time translation and analytics to improve dialogue and transparency, while addressing concerns around overly controlled virtual-only formats.
• Ecosystem approach: shared responsibility — progress requires coordinated action by issuers, investors, intermediaries, and regulators.