Skip to main content
Governance Authority
Category: Proxy and Voting

Advisory Vote

Also known as: Non-binding Vote, Advisory Voting
Simply put

An advisory vote is a shareholder vote that expresses an opinion or preference on a particular matter but does not legally bind the company to act on the result. It signals shareholder sentiment to the board and management, who may take it into account but are not required to follow it. A common example is the shareholder vote on a company's executive compensation program.

Formal definition

An advisory vote is a non-binding shareholder vote used to gauge and express shareholder sentiment on a specified matter, most commonly a company's executive compensation practices (a 'say-on-pay' vote). Because the outcome is advisory rather than binding, the board retains ultimate decision-making authority and the result can be overruled by the company; however, such votes are typically weighed by the board and management as an indicator of investor views. The practice of advisory votes on executive compensation originated in Europe, first introduced in the United Kingdom in 2003. The precise legal status, required subject matter, and frequency of advisory votes vary by jurisdiction, sector, and entity type, and should be confirmed against applicable law and listing rules; this entry is educational and not legal, audit, or compliance advice.

Why it matters

Advisory votes give shareholders a formal channel to express their views on matters such as executive compensation without stripping the board of its decision-making authority. Because the outcome is non-binding, the board retains ultimate accountability for the decision, but a strong dissenting vote can carry significant reputational and governance weight. Boards and management typically treat the result as an important indicator of investor sentiment, and a substantial 'against' vote can prompt engagement with shareholders, revisions to pay practices, or heightened scrutiny from proxy advisors and institutional investors.

The most common form of advisory vote is the 'say-on-pay' vote on a company's executive compensation program. The practice originated in Europe, first introduced in the United Kingdom in 2003, and has since been adopted in various forms across other jurisdictions. Because the vote is advisory rather than binding, a company can, in principle, overrule the result, but doing so without explanation may invite investor criticism and undermine the perceived legitimacy of the board's stewardship.

The precise legal status, required subject matter, and frequency of advisory votes vary by jurisdiction, sector, and entity type. What is mandatory in one market may be voluntary or structured differently in another, and listing rules can impose additional obligations. Governance professionals should confirm the applicable requirements against the relevant law and listing rules rather than assuming a uniform standard; this entry is educational and not legal, audit, or compliance advice.

Who it's relevant to

Boards and their committees
The board, and in particular its compensation or remuneration committee, retains ultimate authority over matters put to an advisory vote and is accountable for how it responds to the result. Even though the outcome is non-binding, directors typically treat a significant dissenting vote as a governance signal warranting engagement, explanation, or reconsideration of the practice in question.
General counsel and corporate secretaries
These professionals are responsible for confirming when an advisory vote is required, what subject matter it must cover, and how frequently it must occur under the applicable law and listing rules. Because requirements vary by jurisdiction and entity type, they play a central role in structuring the ballot, drafting proxy disclosures, and advising the board on its obligations and options.
Institutional investors and proxy advisors
Advisory votes are a primary means by which institutional investors and their advisors communicate views on matters such as executive compensation. They use the vote to signal support or concern, and the aggregate result can influence subsequent engagement and future voting recommendations.
Compliance and governance professionals
Those responsible for governance monitoring track advisory vote requirements and outcomes to ensure the company meets applicable obligations and responds appropriately to shareholder sentiment. Their role is to confirm the correct process is followed and disclosed, recognising that the specific rules depend on jurisdiction, sector, and the company's own facts.

Inside Advisory Vote

Non-Binding Character
An advisory vote is generally consultative rather than legally binding, meaning the outcome expresses shareholder sentiment but does not, on its own, compel the board or management to take a specific action. The legal effect depends on jurisdiction, listing rules, and the entity's governing documents.
Say-on-Pay
One of the most common applications, in which shareholders vote to approve (or express a view on) executive compensation arrangements. Whether such a vote is required, and whether it is advisory or binding, varies by jurisdiction, sector, and entity type.
Subject Matter
Advisory votes may address executive remuneration, the auditor, governance policies, environmental or social proposals, or other matters put to shareholders. The specific items eligible for an advisory vote depend on applicable law, listing standards, and the company's constitution.
Board Response Expectation
Although non-binding, an advisory vote typically creates an expectation that the board will consider the results and, particularly following significant dissent, engage with shareholders and explain any responsive steps. This is generally a matter of governance practice and, in some regimes, code-based guidance rather than statutory command.
Accountability Locus
Oversight of the response to an advisory vote generally rests with the board and relevant committees (for example, a remuneration or compensation committee for pay-related votes), while management typically prepares the proposals and supporting disclosure. The distinction between board oversight and management execution should be preserved.

Common questions

Answers to the questions practitioners most commonly ask about Advisory Vote.

Is the board legally required to act on the results of an advisory vote?
Generally no. An advisory vote is non-binding by definition, so the board typically retains discretion over whether and how to respond. In many jurisdictions, say-on-pay and similar advisory votes are structured precisely so that the outcome does not compel a particular action or override the board's authority. That said, the effect varies by jurisdiction and entity type, some regimes attach binding votes to certain matters, and a low level of support often carries practical and reputational weight even when it creates no legal obligation. This entry is educational and not legal advice; confirm the applicable requirements for your jurisdiction and listing venue.
Does a passing advisory vote mean shareholders have approved the underlying matter?
Not in the sense of a binding authorization. An advisory vote expresses shareholder sentiment rather than granting formal approval, so a favorable result does not, by itself, ratify or legally validate the matter put to the vote. The distinction between advisory and binding votes matters: a binding vote can be a condition to an action taking effect, whereas an advisory vote typically informs the board's judgment. Whether a given resolution is advisory or binding depends on the framework, statute, or listing rule that applies to the entity.
Which function typically prepares and manages an advisory vote for a general meeting?
Responsibility is usually shared. The board and its relevant committee, for a say-on-pay vote, commonly the remuneration or compensation committee, own the substance being put to shareholders and the oversight of any response. Management and the corporate secretary or governance function generally handle the operational tasks: drafting disclosures, coordinating the proxy or meeting materials, and administering the vote mechanics. The specifics depend on the entity's governance structure and applicable rules, so allocate roles based on your own arrangements.
How might a board respond to significant opposition on an advisory vote?
Common practice in many markets is for the board to acknowledge the result publicly, undertake engagement with shareholders to understand the concerns, and consider disclosing how it intends to respond. Because the vote is advisory, the board generally exercises judgment about what changes, if any, are warranted. Some governance codes and best-practice frameworks encourage follow-up disclosure where support falls below a notable threshold, but whether such expectations apply, and what threshold matters, depends on the applicable code, listing rules, and jurisdiction.
What disclosures generally accompany an advisory vote?
Disclosures typically include the resolution being voted on, the context or rationale (for example, a remuneration report or policy summary), and, in many regimes, an explanation of how prior advisory vote results were considered. The precise content and format are usually driven by applicable regulations, listing rules, and any relevant governance code, and requirements vary by jurisdiction, sector, and entity type. Because disclosure obligations are fact- and regime-specific, confirm the exact requirements rather than relying on a general description.
How should the outcome of an advisory vote be recorded and tracked over time?
It is generally advisable to record the vote result in the meeting minutes and relevant filings, capturing levels of support, opposition, and abstentions as required. Many organizations also track results across successive meetings so the board and its committees can monitor trends in shareholder sentiment and evidence how feedback informed subsequent decisions. The appropriate record-keeping approach depends on applicable rules and the entity's own governance practices, and this reflects process considerations rather than a specific legal mandate.

Common misconceptions

An advisory vote has no practical consequence because it is non-binding.
While an advisory vote generally does not legally compel action, a significant negative vote can carry reputational weight, prompt shareholder engagement, influence proxy adviser assessments, and, in some regimes, trigger code-based expectations that the board explain its response. The practical impact depends on jurisdiction, ownership structure, and governance norms.
All say-on-pay or advisory votes are the same across markets.
Whether a vote is required, how frequently it occurs, and whether it is advisory or binding vary by jurisdiction, sector, and entity type. Some regimes provide only advisory votes, others combine advisory and binding elements, and the governing rules differ; the applicable framework must be checked for each situation.
The board must implement whatever the advisory vote outcome indicates.
An advisory outcome typically informs rather than dictates board decisions. The board retains its decision-making authority and fiduciary responsibilities, and its duty is generally to consider the result in good faith and, where dissent is material, to engage and explain, rather than to adopt any particular course automatically.

Best practices

Confirm at the outset whether a given vote is advisory or binding under the applicable jurisdiction, listing rules, and the entity's governing documents, since the legal effect and required response differ.
Assign clear accountability by having the board and the relevant committee (such as the remuneration or compensation committee) own the review of and response to advisory vote results, while management prepares the underlying proposals and disclosure.
Establish a defined process for interpreting results, including any threshold of dissent that will trigger enhanced shareholder engagement and a documented board response.
Engage proactively with shareholders and, where relevant, consider proxy adviser perspectives before and after the vote to understand the concerns behind the outcome.
Disclose transparently how the board considered the vote and what actions, if any, were taken, particularly following significant dissent, consistent with applicable code-based expectations.
Document the board's deliberations and rationale to evidence that the advisory outcome was considered in good faith and consistent with the directors' duties.