We haven't been able to take payment
You must update your payment details via My Account or by clicking update payment details to keep your subscription.
Act now to keep your subscription
We've tried to contact you several times as we haven't been able to take payment. You must update your payment details via My Account or by clicking update payment details to keep your subscription.
Your subscription is due to terminate
We've tried to contact you several times as we haven't been able to take payment. You must update your payment details via My Account, otherwise your subscription will terminate.

Unilever challenges investor apathy

UNILEVER, the Anglo-Dutch consumer products group, has introduced a twist to the corporate governance debate by asking some of its biggest shareholders why they had failed to vote at its annual meeting.

Unilever, a £15 billion blue chip, wrote to ten of its main institutional shareholders to know why they failed to vote at the annual meeting in May. The letter said: “In the current corporate governance climate we wondered whether this was for policy reasons or whether there were technical reasons.”

The letter, written under the direction of Niall FitzGerald, Unilever’s co-chairman, produced some replies, which give cause for worry because three of the respondents said they had instructed proxies to vote, but the orders were not followed. Unilever’s interrogation of its shareholders refocuses the spotlight on the duties of institutional shareholders since they had been criticised for being complacent about their clients’ money. Nevertheless, institutions have also become more rebellious this year, notably at the annual meeting of GlaxoSmithKline, where the company’s remuneration report was voted down.