EX-99.PROXY POL 5 d902701dex99proxypol.htm CLOSED END FUND PROXY VOTING POLICY

Closed-End Fund Proxy Voting Policy

August 1, 2021

Closed-End Fund Proxy Voting Policy
Procedures Governing Delegation of Proxy Voting to Fund Adviser
Effective Date: August 1, 2021 Last Review Date: September 1, 2024

Applies to the following types of Funds registered under the 1940 Act: ☐ Open-End Mutual Funds (including money market funds) ☐ Money Market Funds ☐ Exchange-Traded Funds ☒ Closed-End Funds ☐ Other

Objective and Scope

Set forth below is the Closed-End Fund Proxy Voting Policy.

Policy / Document Requirements and Statements

The Boards of Trustees/Directors (the “Directors”) of the closed-end funds advised by BlackRock Advisors, LLC (“BlackRock”), (the “Funds”) have the responsibility for the oversight of voting proxies relating to portfolio securities of the Funds, and have determined that it is in the best interests of the Funds and their shareholders to delegate that responsibility to BlackRock as part of BlackRock’s authority to manage, acquire and dispose of account assets, all as contemplated by the Funds’ respective investment management agreements.

BlackRock has adopted guidelines and procedures (together and as from time to time amended, the “BlackRock proxy voting guidelines”) governing proxy voting by accounts managed by BlackRock. BlackRock will cast votes on behalf of each of the Funds on specific proxy issues in respect of securities held by each such Fund in accordance with the BlackRock Proxy voting guidelines; provided, however, that in the case of underlying closed-end funds (including business development companies and other similarly-situated asset pools) held by the Funds that have, or are proposing to adopt, a classified board structure, BlackRock will typically (a) vote in favor of proposals to adopt classification and against proposals to eliminate classification, and (b) not vote against directors as a result of their adoption of a classified board structure.

BlackRock will report on an annual basis to the Directors on (1) a summary of the proxy voting process as applicable to the Funds in the preceding year together with a representation that all votes were in accordance with the BlackRock proxy voting guidelines (as modified pursuant to the immediately preceding paragraph), and (2) any changes to the BlackRock proxy voting guidelines that have not previously been reported.

|  | Public |  | Page 1 of 1

BlackRock

Active

Investment

Stewardship

Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines

Effective as of January 2025

Contents

Overview |  |  | 3 |
Introduction to BlackRock |  |  | 4 |
About BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship |  |  | 4 |
Our approach to stewardship within active equities |  |  | 5 |
Our approach to stewardship within fixed income |  |  | 5 |
Boards of Directors |  |  | 6 |
Executive compensation |  |  | 9 |
Non-executive director compensation |  |  | 10 |
Capital structure |  |  | 10 |
Transactions and special situations |  |  | 11 |
Corporate reporting, risk management and audit |  |  | 12 |
Shareholder rights and protections |  |  | 14 |
Shareholder proposals |  |  | 15 |
Corporate political activities |  |  | 15 |
Sustainability, or environmental and social, considerations |  |  | 16 |
Key stakeholders |  |  | 16 |
Climate and decarbonization investment objectives |  |  | 17 |
Appendix 1: How we fulfil and oversee our active investment stewardship responsibilities |  |  | 18 |

BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship |  | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines | 2

Overview

This document provides high level guidance on how BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship (BAIS) views corporate governance matters that are commonly put to a shareholder vote, or on which investors engage with issuers. BAIS works in partnership with BlackRock’s investment teams, excluding index equity, providing expertise on investment stewardship, engaging with companies on behalf of those teams when appropriate, and assisting in recommending, operationalizing and reporting on voting decisions. The guidance informs BAIS’ voting recommendations to BlackRock’s active portfolio managers. It applies to active equity holdings in BlackRock’s fundamental equity, systematic equity and multi-asset solutions strategies. It also may apply to holdings in BlackRock’s index and active fixed income strategies, to the extent those strategies hold voting securities or conduct issuer engagements. The guidelines are not prescriptive as active portfolio managers have discretion as to how they integrate these guidelines within their investment processes in light of their clients’ or funds’ investment objectives. There are separate, independently developed principles and voting policies that are applied to BlackRock’s index equity investments by a distinct and independent function, BlackRock Investment Stewardship.

BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship |  | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines | 3

Introduction to BlackRock

BlackRock’s purpose is to help more and more people experience financial well-being. We manage assets on behalf of institutional and individual clients, across a full spectrum of investment strategies, asset classes, and regions. Our client base includes pension plans, endowments, foundations, charities, official institutions, insurers, and other financial institutions, as well as individuals around the world.

About BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship

BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship (BAIS) is a specialist team within the Portfolio Management Group and manages BlackRock’s stewardship engagement and voting on behalf of clients invested in active strategies globally. BAIS is also responsible for engagement with issuers in index fixed income strategies, where appropriate. Our activities are informed by these Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines (“the Guidelines”) and insights from active investment analysts and portfolio managers, with whom we work closely in engaging companies and voting at shareholder meetings.

Engagement with public companies is the foundation of our approach to stewardship within fundamental active investing. Through direct dialogue with company leadership, we seek to understand their businesses and how they manage risks and opportunities to deliver durable, risk adjusted financial returns. Generally, portfolio managers and stewardship specialists engage jointly on substantive matters. Our discussions focus on topics relevant to a company’s success over time including governance and leadership, corporate strategy, capital structure and financial performance, operations and sustainability-related risks, as well as macro-economic, geopolitical and sector dynamics. We aim to be constructive investors and are generally supportive of management teams that have a track record of financial value creation. We aim to build and maintain strong relationships with company leadership based on open dialogue and mutual respect.

Different active equity strategies may implement these voting guidelines differently, as a result of the latitude the portfolio manager has to make independent voting decisions aligned with their portfolio objectives and investment strategy. For example, BAIS will generally vote the holdings in Systematic Active Equity portfolios in accordance with these guidelines. We provide voting recommendations to fundamental equity portfolio managers, who may determine to vote differently based on their portfolio investment objectives and strategy.

These guidelines discuss corporate governance topics on which we may engage with management teams and board directors1 and matters that routinely come to a shareholder vote. We recognize that accepted corporate governance norms can differ across markets, and believe these guidelines represent globally applicable elements of governance that support a company’s ability to manage material risks and opportunities and deliver financial returns to investors. Generally, we believe companies should observe accepted corporate governance norms within their local markets or, particularly in markets without well-established norms, aspire to widely recognized international best practices. As one of many minority shareholders, BlackRock cannot – and does not try to – direct a company’s strategy or its implementation. We look to companies to provide disclosures that explain how their approach to corporate governance best aligns with the financial interests of their investors.

1 References to the board, board directors or non-executive directors should be understood to include supervisory boards and their members, where relevant.

BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship |  | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines | 4

Our approach to stewardship within active equities

As shareholders of public companies, BlackRock’s clients have certain fundamental rights, including the right to vote on proposals put forth by a company’s management or its shareholders. The voting rights attached to these clients’ holdings are an important mechanism for investors to express support for, or concern about, a company’s performance. As a fiduciary, BlackRock is legally required to make proxy voting determinations, on behalf of clients who have delegated voting authority to us, in a manner that is consistent with their investment objectives.

In general, we tend to support the recommendations of the board of directors and management. As indicated below, we may vote against management recommendations when we have concerns about how companies are serving the financial interests of our clients as their shareholders. We take a globally consistent approach to voting but consider the different corporate governance regulations and norms in various markets. Votes are determined on a case-by-case basis, in the context of a company’s situation and the investment mandate we have from clients. Please see page 16 for more information about how we fulfil and oversee BlackRock’s non-index equity investment stewardship responsibilities.

Our approach to stewardship within fixed income

Although fixed income investors do not have the right to vote at shareholder meetings, issuer engagement is a component of fixed income investment strategies at BlackRock, particularly those with sustainability objectives in addition to financial objectives. Most corporate governance-related fixed income engagements are undertaken in conjunction with the active investment stewardship team, and often active equity investors. In addition to the topics listed below, engagement with fixed income investment teams can help inform an issuer’s approach to structuring specialist issuances, such as green bonds, and the standard terms and information in bond documentation.

BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship |  | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines | 5

Boards of Directors

Roles and responsibilities

There is widespread consensus that the foundation of good corporate governance is an effective board of directors that is able to advise and supervise management in an independent and objective manner.2

We look to the board of directors (hereafter ‘the board’) to have an oversight role in the establishment and realization of a company’s strategy, purpose and culture. These constructs are interdependent and, when aligned, can better position a company to be resilient in the face of a changing business environment, help reduce the risks of corporate or employee misconduct, and attract and retain the caliber of workers necessary to deliver financial performance over time.

In promoting the success of the company, the board ensures the necessary resources, policies and procedures are in place to help management meet its strategic objectives within an agreed risk tolerance.

One of the most important responsibilities of the board is to appoint, and remove as necessary, the chief executive officer (CEO). In addition, the board plays a meaningful role in monitoring the performance of the CEO and other key executives, determining executive compensation, ensuring a rigorous audit, overseeing strategy execution and risk management and engaging with shareholders, and other stakeholders, as necessary.

Composition and effectiveness

Appointment process

A formal and transparent process for identifying and appointing director candidates is critical to ensuring the board is composed of directors with the appropriate mix of skills and experience. The board or a sub-committee should determine the general criteria given the company’s circumstances (e.g., sector, maturity, geographic footprint) and any additional criteria for a specific role being filled (e.g., financial expertise, industry track record). To inform the process, we encourage companies to review the skills and experience of incumbent directors to identify any gaps and whether a director candidate’s characteristics would be additive. We welcome disclosures that explain how the board considered different skills, backgrounds and experience to ensure the directors collectively can be effective in fulfilling their responsibilities. We assess a company’s board composition against that of its peer group and local market requirements.

Shareholders periodically vote to elect, remove and nominate directors to serve on the board. We may vote against the election of the most senior independent director, or the chair of the relevant committee, where a company has not demonstrated it has an appointment process that results in a high functioning board with the appropriate complement of skills, backgrounds and experience amongst the directors to support strong financial performance over time. We may vote against newly nominated directors who do not seem to have the appropriate skills or experience to contribute to the board’s effectiveness.

Independence

Director independence from management, significant shareholders or other stakeholders (e.g., government or employees) is of paramount importance to the protection of the interests of minority shareholders such as BlackRock’s clients. At least half of the directors should be independent and free

2 See the Corporate Governance Codes of Germany, Japan, and the UK, as well as the corporate governance principles of the US Business Roundtable as examples.

BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship |  | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines | 6

from conflicts of interest or undue influence.3 This ensures sufficient independent directors to have appropriately independent board committees. Companies domiciled in markets with a higher threshold for board independence should meet those requirements.

We may vote against the election of non-independent directors if the board does not have a sufficient balance of independence. We may also vote against the election of the chair of the committee responsible for board composition if this is a perennial issue.

Independent board leadership

Practices across markets differ, as do board structures, but we observe two main approaches to independent board leadership. One is a non-executive, independent chair of the board who is responsible for leading the board in the effective exercise of its duties. The other is a lead or senior independent director, who is responsible for coordinating with the other non-executive directors and working closely with the executive chair on the board agenda and other board procedures. In this case, the executive chair and the lead independent director work together to ensure the board is effectively fulfilling its responsibilities. In our view, the independent leader of the board, and/or the chair of a relevant committee, should be available to investors to discuss board governance matters such as CEO succession, executive pay, and board performance. We look to boards to explain their independent board leadership model and how it serves the interests of shareholders.

We may vote against the election of the chair of the committee responsible for board composition if there is not an identified independent leader of the board with clear responsibilities for board performance. We may vote against the most senior independent director if the board has a policy of not engaging with shareholders.

Tenure and succession

Boards should establish the length of time a director would normally be expected to serve, in line with market norms where those exist. In such markets, we find it helpful when companies disclose their approach to director tenure particularly around the contributions of directors who have served for longer periods than provided for in local practices. In our experience, long-serving directors could become less independent given their relationship with management and involvement in past board decisions.

Succession planning for board roles helps achieve the appropriate cadence of turnover that balances renewal through the regular introduction of directors with fresh perspectives and expertise with continuity through the retention of directors with long-term knowledge of the board and company.

In markets where there is not specific director tenure guidance, we may vote against the election of the chair of the committee responsible for board composition if there is not a clearly disclosed approach to director tenure and board renewal. We may vote against the election of directors who have served for longer duration than typical in markets with specific guidance, where the case for their continued service is not evident.

3 Common impediments to independence may include but are not limited to: current or recent employment at the company or a subsidiary; being, or representing, a shareholder with a substantial shareholding in the company; interlocking directorships; lengthy tenure, and having any other interest, business, or other relationship which could, or could reasonably be perceived to, materially interfere with a director’s ability to act in the best interests of the company and shareholders.

BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship |  | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines | 7

Capacity

To be effective and engaged, directors must commit appropriate time and energy to the role. A board should assess the ability of its members to maintain an appropriate focus on board matters and the company taking into consideration competing responsibilities. We recognize that board leadership roles vary across markets in responsibilities and required time commitment but note that they are generally more intensive than a standard directorship. We will take local norms and practices into consideration when making our voting determinations across markets.

We may vote against the election of directors who do not seem to have sufficient capacity to effectively fulfil their duties to the board and company.

Director elections

In support of director accountability to shareholders, directors should stand for election on a regular basis, ideally annually. A classified board structure may be justified by a company when it needs consistency and stability during a time of transition, or on the basis of its business model, e.g., a non-operating company such as closed-end funds.

Shareholders should have the opportunity to evaluate nominated directors individually rather than in bundled slates. We look to companies to provide sufficient information on each director standing for election so that shareholders can assess their capabilities and suitability. We will not support the election of directors whose names and biographical details have not been disclosed sufficiently in advance of the shareholder meeting.

Each director’s appointment should be dependent on receiving a simple majority of the votes cast at the shareholder meeting. Where a company’s practices differ, we look to the board to provide a detailed explanation as to how its approach best serves investors’ interests.

We may vote for shareholder or management proposals seeking to establish annual election of directors and/or a simple majority vote standard for director elections. We may vote against all the directors standing for election as part of a single slate if we have concerns about the profile or performance of an individual director.

Committees

Many boards establish committees to focus on specific responsibilities of the board such as audit and risk, governance and human capital, and executive compensation, amongst other matters. We do not prescribe to companies what committees they should establish but we seek to understand the board’s rationale for the committee structure it determines is appropriate. We note that, in some markets, regulation requires such committees. The responsibilities of each committee should be clear, and the board should ensure that all critical matters are assigned either to the full board or to one of the committees. The board should disclose to shareholders the structure, membership, proportion of independent directors, and responsibilities of each committee. The responsibilities we typically see assigned to the three most common committees include:

| ● |  | Audit and risk – oversight responsibilities for the integrity of financial reporting, risk management and compliance with legal and regulatory requirements; may also play an oversight role in relation to the internal audit function and whistleblowing mechanisms.

BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship |  | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines | 8

| ● |  | Nominating, governance and human capital – ensures appropriate corporate governance principles and practices including the periodic review of board performance; responsible for succession planning for CEO and key board roles, as well as the director appointment process; may also have oversight responsibilities for human capital management strategies including corporate culture and purpose.

| ● |  | Executive compensation – determines the compensation policies and programs for the CEO and other executive officers, approves annual awards and payments under the policies; may also have oversight responsibilities for firm-wide compensation policies.

We may vote against the election of the chair of the committee or other directors serving as committee members to convey our concerns and provide feedback on how a committee has undertaken its responsibilities. We may vote against the election of the most senior non-executive director if there is not a clearly disclosed approach to board committees.

Board and director evaluation

We consider it best practice for companies to conduct an annual review of the performance of the board, the committees, the chair and individual directors. Periodically, this review could be undertaken by an independent third party able to bring objective perspectives to the board on governance and performance. We encourage companies to disclose their approach to and objectives of evaluations, including any changes made to the board’s approach as a result.

Access to independent advice

To support the directors in effectively fulfilling their duties to the company and shareholders, they should have access to independent advice. When circumstances warrant, boards should be able to retain independent third parties to advise on critical matters. These might include new industry developments such as emergent and disruptive technology, operating events with material consequences for the company’s reputation and/or performance, or significant transactions. Board committees may similarly retain third parties to advise them on specialist matters such as audit, compensation and succession planning.

Executive compensation

Boards should establish compensation arrangements that enable the company to recruit, retain and reward the caliber of executive management necessary to lead and operate the company to deliver superior financial returns over time. We focus on alignment between variable pay and a company’s financial performance.

Generally, executive compensation arrangements have four components: base salary, annual bonus that rewards performance against short-term metrics, share-based incentives that reward performance against long-term metrics, and pensions and benefits. In our observation, base salary, pensions and benefits are largely set relative to market norms and benchmarks. The annual bonus and share-based incentive, or variable pay plans, tend to be tailored to the company, its sector and long-term strategy, as well as the individuals the board is seeking to recruit and motivate.

Recognizing the unique circumstances of each company, we determine whether to support a company’s approach to executive compensation on a case-by-case basis. We rely on companies providing sufficient quantitative and qualitative information in their disclosures to enable shareholders to understand the

BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship |  | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines | 9

compensation arrangements and assess the alignment with investors’ interests. Features we look for in compensation arrangements include:

| ● |  | Fixed pay components, including base salary, benefits and prerequisites that are appropriate in the context of the company’s size, sector and market.

| ● |  | Variable pay subject to performance metrics that are closely linked to the company’s short- and long-term strategic objectives.

| ● |  | Long-term incentives that motivate sustained performance across a multi-year period.

| ● |  | A balance between fixed and variable pay, short- and long-term incentives, and specific instruments (cash and equity awards) that promotes pay program durability and seldom necessitates one-off, discretionary payments.

| ● |  | Outcomes that are consistent with the returns to investors over the relevant time period.

| ● |  | Board discretion, if allowed within the variable pay arrangements, to be used sparingly, responsibly and transparently.

| ● |  | A requirement, that participants in long-term share-based incentive plans build a meaningful shareholding in the company within a defined time period, as determined by the board.

| ● |  | Change of control provisions that appropriately balance the interests of executives and shareholders.

| ● |  | Clawback or malus provisions that allow the company to recoup or hold back variable compensation from individuals whose awards were based on fraudulent activities, misstated financial reports, or executive misconduct.

| ● |  | Severance arrangements that protect the company’s interests but do not cost more than is contractual.

We may vote against proposals to introduce new share-based incentives, approve existing policies or plans, or approve the compensation report where we do not see alignment between executive compensation arrangements and our clients’ financial interests. When there is not an alternative, or where there have been multi-year issues with compensation misaligned with performance, we may vote against the election of the chair of the responsible committee, or the most senior independent director.

Non-executive director compensation

Companies generally pay non-executive directors an annual retainer or fee in cash, shares or a combination of the two. Some companies also pay additional fees for service on board committees or in board leadership roles. We do not support non-executive directors participating in performance-based incentive plans as doing so may create a conflict of interest and undermine their independence from management, whom they oversee.

Capital structure

Boards are responsible for ensuring senior executive leadership has established a capital strategy that achieves appropriate capital allocation and management in support of long-term financial resilience.

BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship |  | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines | 10

Where company practices diverge from those set out below, we look for companies to disclose why they view these practices to be aligned with shareholders’ interests. We may vote against management proposals seeking capital-related authorities or the election of the most senior independent director if we have concerns about a company’s approach. We may also support a shareholder proposal seeking conversion of shares with differentiated voting rights to a one-share, one-vote standard.

Share issuance

We assess requests for share issuance for particular transactions on a case-by-case basis. We will generally support authorities to issue shares when subject to pre-emptive rights, and up to 20% absent pre-emptive rights. Companies should seek regular approval of these authorities to allow shareholders to take into consideration how prior authorities were used, as well as the current circumstances of the company and the market environment.

Share buybacks

We assess share buyback proposals in the context of the company’s disclosed capital management strategy and management’s determination of the appropriate balance between investment that supports the long-term growth of the company and returning cash to investors. We also take into consideration the effect of a buyback program on the company’s balance sheet and executive compensation arrangements and the price at which shares are repurchased relative to market price. Companies should seek regular approval of these authorities to allow shareholders to take into consideration how prior authorities were used, as well as the current circumstances of the company and the market environment.

We would normally expect companies to cancel repurchased shares. If a company plans to retain them as treasury shares, management should provide a detailed rationale in the context of the disclosed capital management strategy.

Dividends

We generally defer to management and the board on dividend policy but may engage to seek further clarification where a proposed dividend appears out of line with the company’s financial position.

Differentiated voting rights

We prefer companies to adopt a one-share, one-vote structure for share classes with the same economic exposure. Certain companies, particularly those new to public markets, could make the case to adopt a differentiated voting rights structure, or dual class stock. In those situations, we encourage companies to evaluate and seek approval for their capital structure on a periodic basis.

Transactions and special situations

We monitor developments in transactions and special situations closely and undertake our own detailed analyses of proposals.

Mergers and acquisitions

We evaluate proposed mergers or acquisitions by assessing the financial outcome for our clients as minority shareholders. Management should provide an assessment of the proposed transaction’s strategic and financial rationale, along with its execution and operational risks. We review each transaction independently based on these factors and the degree to which the transaction enhances

BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship |  | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines | 11

shareholder value. The board should consider establishing an ad hoc transaction committee to undertake an independent assessment of a significant merger or acquisition, in advance of making its recommendation to shareholders.

We will vote against transactions that, in our assessment, do not advance our clients’ financial interests.

Anti-takeover defenses

In principle, we do not support companies using anti-takeover defenses, also known as poison pills or shareholder rights plans, as they can entrench management and boards which have not delivered long-term shareholder value. By exception, a poison pill may be supported if its purpose is to delay a takeover that is considered sub-optimal and enable management to seek an improved offer. Similarly, management could make the case to use a poison pill to block a shareholder activism campaign that may be counter to the interests of other investors. Defense mechanisms introduced in these circumstances should be limited in term and threshold, and also be closely monitored by the independent members of the board. We look for a shareholder vote for any mechanisms expected to be in place for more than 12 months.

Shareholder activism

When companies are the focus of an activism campaign, we may engage with the activist to understand their analysis and objectives, once they have gone public. We will also engage with company management and possibly board members, especially those the activist may be seeking to replace. In our assessment, we evaluate various factors, including the concerns raised by the activist and the case for change; the quality of both the activist’s and management’s plans; and the qualifications of each party’s candidates. We evaluate each contested situation by assessing the potential financial outcome for our clients as minority shareholders.

We may support board candidates nominated by a shareholder activist if the activist has demonstrated that their case for change enhances shareholder value, or if the incumbent board members do not demonstrate the relevant skills and expertise or have a poor track record of protecting shareholders’ interests.

Significant shareholders and related party transactions

Boards of companies with affiliated shareholders or directors should be able to demonstrate that the interests of all shareholders are given equitable consideration.

Transactions with related parties, such as significant shareholders or companies connected with the public company, should be disclosed in detail and conducted on terms similar to what would objectively have been agreed with a non-related party. Such transactions should be reviewed and approved by the independent members of the board, and if voted on, only disinterested shareholders should vote.

Corporate reporting, risk management and audit

Investors depend on corporate reporting, both regulatory and voluntary, to understand a company’s strategy, its implementation and financial performance, as well as to assess the quality of management and operations and potential for the company to create shareholder value over time. The board should oversee corporate reporting and the policies and procedures underpinning the internal audit function and external audit.

BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship |  | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines | 12

A company’s financial reporting should provide decision-useful information for investors and other stakeholders on its financial performance and position. It should provide an accurate and balanced assessment of the risks and opportunities the company faces in realizing its long-term strategy. Accordingly, the assumptions made by management and reviewed by the auditor in preparing the financial statements should be reasonable and justified. Financial statements should be prepared in accordance with globally developed reporting standards and any divergence from generally accepted accounting principles should be explained in detail and justified. Accounting restatements should be explained in detail and any remedial actions, and the implications of these, disclosed.

In this context, audit committees play a vital role in a company’s financial reporting system by providing independent oversight of the accounts, material financial and, where appropriate to the jurisdiction, nonfinancial information, internal control frameworks and Enterprise Risk Management systems. In our view, effective audit committee oversight strengthens the quality and reliability of a company’s financial statements and provides an important level of reassurance to shareholders. Audit committees should have a procedure in place for assessing the independence of the auditor and the quality of the external audit process annually.

Similarly, material sustainability-related factors that are integral to how a company manages risks or generates revenue should be disclosed. In our view, the standards developed by the International Sustainability Standards Board, can be helpful to companies in preparing such reports. 4

Companies should establish robust risk management and internal control processes appropriate to the company’s business, risk tolerance, and regulatory environment. A credible whistleblowing system for employees, and potentially other stakeholders, can be a useful mechanism for ensuring that senior management and the board are aware of potential misconduct or breaches in risk management and internal control processes.

A comprehensive audit conducted by an independent audit firm contributes to investor confidence in the quality of corporate reporting. It is helpful when the audit report gives some insight into the scope and focus of the audit, as well as any critical audit matters identified and how these were resolved. A comprehensive and effective audit is time and resource intensive, and the audit fee should be commensurate. Fees paid to the audit firm for non-audit consulting should not exceed the audit fee to a degree that may prompt concerns about the independence of the audit. The audit committee should explain its position on auditor tenure and how it confirmed that the auditor remained independent.

We may vote against the election of the responsible directors if corporate reporting is insufficient or there are material misstatements in financial reports. In markets where relevant, we may vote against a proposal to approve the financial statements or the discharge of the board when we are concerned about the quality of the reporting or the audit. We may vote against proposals to appoint the auditor, ratify the audit report, or approve the audit fee if we are concerned about the auditor’s independence, the quality of the audit, or there are material misstatements in financial reports and the board has not established reasonable remediation plans.

4 The objective of IFRS S1 General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information is to require an entity to disclose information about its sustainability-related risks and opportunities that is useful to primary users of general-purpose financial reports in making decisions relating to providing resources to the entity. The objective of IFRS S2 Climate-related Disclosures is to require an entity to disclose information about its climate-related risks and opportunities that is useful to primary users of general-purpose financial reports in making decisions relating to providing resources to the entity.

BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship |  | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines | 13

Shareholder rights and protections

General shareholder meetings

Companies normally have an annual general meeting of shareholders at which routine and non-routine items of business are discussed and voted on by shareholders in attendance or submitting proxy votes. Companies should disclose materials relevant to the shareholder meeting sufficiently in advance so that shareholders can take them into consideration in their voting decisions. Many companies offer shareholders the option of participating in the meeting virtually which, whilst welcome, should not limit the rights of shareholders to participate as they would during an in-person meeting.

We may vote against directors when materials related to the business of the shareholder meeting are not provided in a timely manner or do not provide sufficient information for us to take an informed voting decision. We may vote against directors if the format of the shareholder meeting does not accommodate reasonable shareholder participation.

Bylaw amendments

We review bylaw amendments proposed by management on a case-by-case basis and will generally support those that are aligned with the interests of minority shareholders. Any material changes to the bylaws should be explained in detail and put to a shareholder vote.

We may vote against bylaw amendments that reduce shareholder rights and protections. We may vote against directors if material changes are made to the bylaws without shareholder approval.

If not provided for in the relevant corporate law, company bylaws should allow shareholders, individually or as a group, with a meaningful shareholding the right to call a special meeting of shareholders. The shareholding required to exercise this right should balance its utility with the cost to the company of holding special meetings.

If not provided for in the relevant corporate law, company bylaws should allow shareholders, individually or as a group, with a meaningful shareholding the right to nominate directors to the company’s board. The threshold for this right should be set so that shareholders can exercise it without being unduly disruptive to the board’s own nomination process.

Whilst we would not use either of these rights ourselves, we see them as important accountability mechanisms. We may vote for a shareholder proposal seeking the addition of either of these provisions to a company’s bylaws.

Change of domicile

We generally defer to management on proposals to change a company’s domicile as long as the rationale for doing so is consistent with the company’s long-term strategy and business model and the related costs are immaterial.

We may vote against directors or a proposal to change a company’s domicile where it does not seem aligned with our clients’ financial interests.

Changes to a company’s purpose or the nature of its business

Plans to materially change the nature of a company’s business or its purpose should be disclosed and explained in the context of long-term strategy and business dynamics. Such changes may significantly alter an investor’s views on the suitability of a company for their investment strategy or portfolio.

BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship |  | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines | 14

Where relevant, we may vote against proposals to change a company’s purpose or the nature of its business if the board has not provided a credible argument for change.

Shareholder proposals

Shareholders in many markets, who meet certain eligibility criteria, have the right to submit proposals to the general shareholder meeting asking a company to take a particular course of action subject to the proposal being supported by a majority of votes cast at the meeting. The topics raised address a range of governance, social and environmental matters that may be relevant to a company’s business. Shareholder proposals are considered by many investors to be an escalation tool when a company is unresponsive to their engagement.

We vote on these proposals on a case-by-case basis. We assess the relevance of the topic raised to a company’s business and its current approach, whether the actions sought are consistent with shareholders’ interests, and what impact the proposal being acted upon might have on financial performance.

Our general approach where we have concerns about a company’s governance, disclosures or performance is to engage to understand the apparent difference in perspective. If we continue to believe the company is not acting in shareholders’ financial interests, we may vote against the election of directors. We may support a relevant shareholder proposal if doing so reinforces the points made in our engagement or is aligned with our clients’ financial interests. We generally do not support shareholder proposals that are legally binding on the company, seek to alter a company’s strategy or direct its operations, or are unrelated to how a company manages risk or generates financial returns.

BlackRock is subject to legal and regulatory requirements in the U.S. that place restrictions and limitations on how we can interact with the companies in which we invest on behalf of our clients, including our ability to submit shareholder proposals. We can vote on behalf of clients who authorize us to do so, on proposals put forth by others.

Corporate political activities

We seek to understand how companies ensure that their direct and indirect engagement in the policy making process is consistent with their public statements on policy matters important to the company’s long-term strategy. The board should be aware of the approach taken to corporate political activities as there can be reputational risks arising from inconsistencies. Companies should, as a minimum, meet all regulatory disclosure requirements on political activities, and ideally, provide accessible and clear disclosures to shareholders on policy positions, public policy engagement activities and political donations. To mitigate the risk of inconsistencies, companies can usefully assess the alignment between their policy priorities and the policy positions of the trade associations of which they are active members and any engagements undertaken by trade associations on behalf of members.

Generally, this is an engagement matter, although we may support a relevant shareholder proposal, or vote against directors, where a company’s disclosures are insufficient, or it becomes public that there is a material contradiction in a company’s public policy positions and its policy engagement.

BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship |  | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines | 15

Sustainability, or environmental and social, considerations

We seek to understand how companies manage the risks and opportunities inherent in their business operations. In our experience, sustainability-related factors5 that are relevant to a company’s business or material to its financial performance, are generally operational considerations embedded into day-to-day management systems. Certain sustainability issues may also inform long-term strategic planning, for example, investing in product innovation in anticipation of changing consumer demand or adapting supply chains in response to changing regulatory requirements.

We recognize that the specific sustainability-related factors that may be financially material or business relevant will vary by company business model, sector, key markets, and time horizon, amongst other considerations. From company disclosures and our engagement, we aim to understand how management is identifying, assessing and integrating material sustainability-related risks and opportunities into their business decision-making and practices. Doing so helps us undertake a more holistic assessment of a company’s potential financial performance and the likely risk-adjusted returns of an investment.

We may vote against directors or support a relevant shareholder proposal if we have concerns about how a company is managing or disclosing its approach to material sustainability-related risks that may impact financial returns.

Key stakeholders

In our view, companies should understand and take into consideration the interests of the various parties on whom they depend for their success over time. It is for each company to determine their key stakeholders based on what is material to their business and long-term financial performance. For many companies, key stakeholders include employees, business partners (such as suppliers and distributors), clients and consumers, regulators, and the communities in which they operate. Companies that appropriately balance the interests of investors and other stakeholders are, in our experience, more likely to be financially resilient over time.

5 By material sustainability-related risks and opportunities, we mean the drivers of risk and financial value creation in a company’s business model that have an environmental or social dependency or impact. Examples of environmental issues include, but are not limited to, water use, land use, waste management, and climate risk. Examples of social issues include, but are not limited to, human capital management, impacts on the communities in which a company operates, customer loyalty, and relationships with regulators. It is our view that well-managed companies will effectively evaluate and manage material sustainability-related risks and opportunities relevant to their businesses. Governance is the core means by which boards can oversee the creation of durable financial value over time. Appropriate risk oversight of business-relevant and material sustainability-related considerations is a component of a sound governance framework.

BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship |  | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines | 16

Climate and decarbonization investment objectives

Certain active BlackRock funds have climate and decarbonization objectives in addition to financial objectives. Consistent with the objectives of those investment strategies, our stewardship activity in relation to the holdings in those funds differs in some respects from BAIS’ benchmark guidelines, which are described above. Specifically, for those funds’ holdings, we look to investee companies to demonstrate that they are aligned with a decarbonization pathway that means their business model would be viable in a low-carbon economy, i.e., one in which global temperature rise is limited to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. This approach is only taken following BlackRock receiving the explicit approval from the applicable fund board.

The decarbonization stewardship guidelines focus on companies which produce goods and services that contribute to real world decarbonization or have a carbon intensive business model and face outsized impacts from the low carbon transition, based on reported and estimated scopes 1, 2, and 3 greenhouse gas emissions. These companies should provide disclosures that set out their governance, strategy, risk management processes and metrics and targets relevant to decarbonization. These disclosures should include an explanation of the decarbonization scenarios a company is using in its near- and long-term planning, as well as its scope 1, scope 2 and material scope 3 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and reduction targets for scope 1 and 2 emissions. As with the BAIS benchmark policies, we consider the climate-risk reporting standard issued by the International Sustainability Standards Board, IFRS S2, a useful reference for such reporting.

Under these climate- and decarbonization-specific guidelines, BAIS may recommend a vote against directors or support for a relevant shareholder proposal if a company does not appear to be adequately addressing or disclosing material climate-related risks. We may recommend supporting shareholder proposals seeking information relevant to a company’s stated low-carbon transition strategy and targets that the company does not currently provide and that would be helpful to investment decision-making. As under the BAIS benchmark approach, the active portfolio managers are ultimately responsible for voting consistent with their investment mandate and fund objectives.

BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship |  | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines | 17

Appendix 1: How we fulfil and oversee our active investment stewardship responsibilities

Oversight

The Global Head of BAIS has primary oversight of and responsibility for the team’s activities, including voting in accordance with the BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines (“the Guidelines”), which require the application of professional judgment and consideration of each company’s unique circumstances, as well as input from active investors. BAIS is independent from BlackRock Investment Stewardship in our engagement and voting activities, reporting lines, and oversight.

The Active Investment Stewardship Oversight Committee, comprised of senior representatives of the active investment, legal and risk teams, reviews and advises on amendments to BAIS’ Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines. The Committee also considers developments in corporate governance, related public policy, and market norms and how these might influence BAIS’ policies and practices. The Committee does not determine voting decisions, which are the responsibility of BAIS and the relevant active equity investors.

In addition, there is a standing advisory group of senior active investors who counsel BAIS on complex or high-profile votes before a recommendation is finalized and escalated to the portfolio managers with holdings in the company under consideration. This group also formally reviews any revisions to the Engagement and Voting Guidelines proposed by BAIS as part of its annual review.

BAIS carries out engagement with companies in collaboration with active investment colleagues, executes proxy votes, and conducts vote operations (including maintaining records of votes cast) in a manner consistent with the Guidelines. BAIS also conducts research on corporate governance issues and participates in industry discussions to contribute to and keep abreast of important developments in the corporate governance field. BAIS may use third parties for certain of the foregoing activities and performs oversight of those third parties (see “Use and oversight of third-party vote services providers” below).

Voting guidelines and vote execution

BlackRock votes on proxy issues when our clients authorize us to do so. We carefully consider the voting items submitted to funds and other fiduciary account(s) (Fund or Funds) for which we have voting authority. BlackRock votes (or refrains from voting) for each Fund for which we have voting authority based on our evaluation of the alignment of the voting items with the long-term economic interests of our clients, in the exercise of our independent business judgment, and without regard to the relationship of the issuer (or any shareholder proponent or dissident shareholder) to the Fund, the Fund’s affiliates (if any), BlackRock or BlackRock’s affiliates, or BlackRock employees (see “Conflicts management policies and procedures,” below).

When exercising voting rights, BAIS will normally vote on specific proxy issues in accordance with the Guidelines, although portfolio managers have the right to vote differently on their holdings if they determine doing so is more aligned with the investment objective and financial interests of clients invested in the funds they manage.

The Guidelines are not intended to be exhaustive. BAIS applies the Guidelines on a case-by-case basis, in the context of the individual circumstances of each company and the specific issue under review. As such, the Guidelines do not indicate how BAIS will vote in every instance. Rather, they reflect our view about corporate governance issues generally, and provide insight into how we typically approach issues

BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship |  | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines | 18

that commonly arise on corporate ballots. The Guidelines are reviewed annually and updated as necessary to reflect changes in market practices, developments in corporate governance and feedback from companies and clients. In this way, BAIS aims to maintain policies that explain our approach to governance practices most aligned with clients’ long-term financial interests.

In certain markets, proxy voting involves logistical issues which can affect BAIS’ ability to vote such proxies, as well as the desirability of voting such proxies. These issues include, but are not limited to: i) untimely notice of shareholder meetings; ii) restrictions on a foreigner’s ability to exercise votes; iii) requirements to vote proxies in person; iv) “share-blocking” (requirements that investors who exercise their voting rights surrender the right to dispose of their holdings for some specified period in proximity to the shareholder meeting); v) potential difficulties in translating the proxy; vi) regulatory constraints; and vii) requirements to provide local agents with unrestricted powers of attorney to facilitate voting instructions. We are not supportive of impediments to the exercise of voting rights such as share-blocking or overly burdensome administrative requirements.

BlackRock votes proxies in these situations on a “best-efforts” basis. In addition, BAIS may determine that it is generally in the interests of BlackRock’s clients not to vote proxies (or not to vote our full allocation) if the costs (including but not limited to opportunity costs associated with share-blocking constraints) associated with exercising a vote are expected to outweigh the benefit the client would derive by voting on the proposal.

Voting Choice

BlackRock offers Voting Choice, a program that provides eligible clients with more opportunities to participate in the proxy voting process where legally and operationally viable.

Voting Choice is currently available for eligible clients invested in certain institutional pooled funds in the U.S., UK, and Canada that use systematic active equity (SAE) and multi-asset strategies. In addition, institutional clients in separately managed accounts (SMAs) are eligible for BlackRock Voting Choice regardless of their investment strategies.6

As a result, the shares attributed to BlackRock in company share registers may be voted differently depending on whether our clients have authorized BAIS to vote on their behalf, have authorized BlackRock to vote in accordance with a third-party policy, or have elected to vote shares in accordance with their own policy. Our clients have greater control over proxy voting because of Voting Choice. BlackRock does not disclose client information, including a client’s selection of proxy policy, without client consent.

Use and oversight of third-party vote services providers

Third-party vote services providers – or proxy research firms - provide research and recommendations on proxy votes, as well as voting infrastructure. As mentioned previously, BlackRock contracts primarily with the vote services provider ISS and leverages its online platform to supply research and support voting, record keeping, and reporting processes. We also use Glass Lewis’ research and analysis as an input into our voting process. It is important to note that, although proxy research firms provide important data and analysis, BAIS does not rely solely on their information or follow their voting recommendations. A

6 With Voting Choice, SMAs have the ability to select from a set of voting policies from third-party proxy advisers the policy that best aligns with their views and preferences. BlackRock can then use its proxy voting infrastructure to cast votes based on the client’s selected voting policy.

BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship |  | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines | 19

company’s disclosures, our past engagements and voting, investment colleagues’ insights and our voting guidelines are important inputs into our voting decisions on behalf of clients.

Given the large universe of actively held companies, BAIS employs the proxy services provider to streamline the voting process by making voting recommendations based on BAIS’ voting guidelines when the items on a shareholder meeting agenda are routine. Agenda items that are not routine are referred back to BAIS to assess, escalate as necessary to the relevant portfolio managers and vote. BAIS reviews and can override the recommendations of the vote services provider at any time prior to the vote deadline. Both BAIS and the vote services provider actively monitor securities filings, research reports, company announcements, and direct communications from companies to ensure awareness of supplemental disclosures and proxy materials that may require a modification of votes.

BAIS closely monitors the third-party vote services providers we contract with to ensure that they are meeting our service level expectations and have effective policies and procedures in place to manage potential conflicts of interest. Our oversight of service providers includes regular meetings with client service teams, systematic monitoring of vendor operations, as well as annual due diligence meetings in accordance with BlackRock’s firmwide policies.

Conflicts management policies and procedures

BAIS maintains policies and procedures that seek to prevent undue influence on BlackRock’s proxy voting activity. Such influence might stem from any relationship between the investee company (or any shareholder proponent or dissident shareholder) and BlackRock, BlackRock’s affiliates, a Fund or a Fund’s affiliates, or BlackRock employees. The following are examples of sources of perceived or potential conflicts of interest:

| ● |  | BlackRock clients who may be issuers of securities or proponents of shareholder resolutions

| ● |  | BlackRock business partners or third parties who may be issuers of securities or proponents of shareholder resolutions

| ● |  | BlackRock employees who may sit on the boards of public companies held in Funds managed by BlackRock

| ● |  | Significant BlackRock, Inc. investors who may be issuers of securities held in Funds managed by BlackRock

| ● |  | Securities of BlackRock, Inc. or BlackRock investment funds held in Funds managed by BlackRock

| ● |  | BlackRock, Inc. board members who serve as senior executives or directors of public companies held in Funds managed by BlackRock

BlackRock has taken certain steps to mitigate perceived or potential conflicts including, but not limited to, the following:

| ● |  | Adopted the Guidelines which are designed to advance our clients’ long-term economic interests in the companies in which BlackRock invests on their behalf

| ● |  | Established a reporting structure that separates BAIS from employees with sales, vendor management, or business partnership roles. In addition, BlackRock seeks to ensure that all engagements with corporate issuers, dissident shareholders or shareholder proponents are managed consistently and without regard to BlackRock’s relationship with such parties. Clients or

BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship |  | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines | 20

| business partners are not given special treatment or differentiated access. BAIS prioritizes engagements based on factors including, but not limited to, our need for additional information to make a voting decision or our view on the likelihood that an engagement could lead to positive outcome(s) over time for the economic value of the company. Within the normal course of business, BAIS may engage directly with BlackRock clients, business partners and/or third parties, and/or with employees with sales, vendor management, or business partnership roles, in discussions regarding our approach to stewardship, general corporate governance matters, client reporting needs, and/or to otherwise ensure that proxy-related client service levels are met

| ● |  | Determined to engage, in certain instances, an independent third-party voting service provider to make proxy voting recommendations as a further safeguard to avoid potential conflicts of interest, to satisfy regulatory compliance requirements, or as may be otherwise required by applicable law. In such circumstances, the independent third-party voting service provider provides BlackRock with recommendations, in accordance with the Guidelines, as to how to vote such proxies. BlackRock uses an independent third-party voting service provider to make proxy voting recommendations for shares of BlackRock, Inc. and companies affiliated with BlackRock, Inc. BlackRock may also use an independent third-party voting service provider to make proxy voting recommendations for:

| ○ |  | public companies that include BlackRock employees on their boards of directors

| ○ |  | public companies of which a BlackRock, Inc. board member serves as a senior executive or a member of the board of directors

| ○ |  | public companies that are the subject of certain transactions involving BlackRock Funds

| ○ |  | public companies that are joint venture partners with BlackRock, and

| ○ |  | public companies when legal or regulatory requirements compel BlackRock to use an independent third-party voting service provider

In selecting an independent third-party voting service provider, we assess several characteristics, including but not limited to: independence, an ability to analyze proxy issues and make recommendations in the economic interest of our clients in accordance with the Guidelines, reputation for reliability and integrity, and operational capacity to accurately deliver the assigned recommendations in a timely manner. We may engage more than one independent third-party voting service provider, in part to mitigate potential or perceived conflicts of interest at a single voting service provider. The Active Investment Stewardship Oversight Committee appoints and reviews the performance of the independent third-party voting service providers, generally on an annual basis.

Securities lending

When so authorized, BlackRock acts as a securities lending agent on behalf of Funds. Securities lending is a well-regulated practice that contributes to capital market efficiency. It also enables funds to generate additional returns while allowing fund providers to keep fund expenses lower.

With regard to the relationship between securities lending and proxy voting, BlackRock cannot vote shares on loan and may determine to recall them for voting, as guided by our fiduciary duty as an asset manager to our clients in helping them achieve their investment goals. While this has occurred in a limited number of cases, the decision to recall securities on loan as part of BlackRock’s securities lending program in order to vote is based on an evaluation of various factors that include, but are not limited to,

BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship |  | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines | 21

assessing potential securities lending revenue alongside the potential long-term financial value to clients of voting those securities (based on the information available at the time of recall consideration). BAIS works with active portfolio managers, as well as colleagues in the Securities Lending and Risk and Quantitative Analysis teams, to evaluate the costs and benefits to clients of recalling shares on loan.

In almost all instances, BlackRock anticipates that the potential long-term financial value to clients of voting shares would not warrant recalling securities on loan. However, in certain instances, BlackRock may determine, in our independent business judgment as a fiduciary, that the value of voting outweighs the securities lending revenue loss to clients and would therefore recall shares to be voted in those instances.

Periodically, BlackRock reviews our process for determining whether to recall securities on loan in order to vote and may modify it as necessary.

Reporting and vote transparency

BAIS is committed to transparency in the stewardship work we do on behalf of clients. We inform clients about our engagement and voting policies and activities through direct communication and disclosure on our website.

BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship |  | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines | 22

Want to know more?

blackrock.com/stewardship | ContactActiveStewardship@blackrock.com

The document is provided for information purposes only and is subject to change. Reliance upon this information is at the sole discretion of the reader.

Prepared by BlackRock, Inc.

©2024 BlackRock, Inc. All rights reserved. BLACKROCK is a trademark of BlackRock, Inc., or its subsidiaries in the United States and elsewhere. All other trademarks are those of their respective owners.

BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship |  | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines | 23