Questions shareholders ask at the AGM 15
Climate disclosure
Climate proposals come mostly from overseas NGOs and pension funds, and are aimed at banks, trading houses and utilities. The question is not whether a company has a target but what its transition plan is, and whether the board can oversee it. Support swings widely from year to year.
Published 19 October 2026; sources re-checked 24 October 2026. Vote figures come from extraordinary reports and company disclosures.
The questions as asked
Shareholders cannot tell whether the board has the competence to oversee climate-related risks and opportunities. Disclose the directors' competencies.
Summary of the reasons for a 2024 shareholder proposal at Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (8306) (Market Forces and other environmental groups, per a compilation).
Disclose how you assess whether fossil-fuel clients' transition plans are credibly aligned with the 1.5°C goal, and what you do when they are not.
Summary of the second 2024 proposal at the same company. A proposal with the same aim was filed again in 2025.
What an answer needs to contain
The Japan IR Index's 34 questions do not score climate directly. Only related questions are shown as codes.
- The transition plan: interim targets, scope and progress.
- How it is assessed: how the transition of clients or businesses is assessed, and what happens when it is not aligned (escalation).
- Board oversight: the responsible committee and the directors' skills.G3
- Why not in the articles: if you oppose, where you disclose what instead.
- In English, on the same day: the board opinion, the climate report and the voting results.S6G6
Case: Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (8306), 2024–2025
MUFG is not covered by the Japan IR Index.
| Climate-related shareholder proposals (articles changes, two-thirds needed) | Support |
|---|---|
| 2024: director competencies for managing climate-related risks and opportunities | 25.79% |
| 2024: assessment of customers' transition plans | 18.38% |
| 2025: disclosure of the assessment of clients' transition plans | 8.94% |
| 2025: disclosure of financial-risk audit by the audit board | 6.80% |
The board opposed both proposals in its opinion of May 2024, published in English. On transition plans, it explained that alignment with the 1.5°C goal is checked through a transition assessment framework, using public information and non-public information gathered through client engagement, and that there is an escalation process to consider reviewing credit terms for clients that fail to show credible plans. It pointed readers to its climate report, which includes a transition plan based on GFANZ guidance. It also said that the articles define basic matters about the company, and that individual policies do not belong in them.
The proxy adviser ISS recommended voting for the 2024 proposal on director competencies, and the company published its response in English on 11 June.
What the answer covered
- Answered both things the proposal asked for, the assessment method and the response when plans are not aligned, specifically, and named the report to read.
- Published the board opinion, its response to ISS and the voting results (a translation of the extraordinary report, with vote counts) all in English.
What it left unanswered
- The opinion gives no figures showing the escalation process in use, such as the number or value of credit terms reviewed.
The published documents do not show why support fell so sharply between 2024 and 2025. Differences between the proposals, and whether proxy advisers recommended support, may have played a part.
See also: Toyo Seikan Group Holdings (5901), 2021
One of Oasis's five proposals, an articles change requiring disclosure of a plan reflecting a TCFD-based management strategy, was rejected with 14.31%. That year it drew the third-highest support, after abolishing advisory posts (26.75%) and the buyback (18.58%). Theme 02 →