Vote Scores

Home / Companies / Starbucks Corporation

Company · votes reported on Form N-PXSBUX · SEC company no. 829224

Starbucks Corporation

How funds and institutional managers reported voting their shares, year to 30 June 2026

Filers reporting
1,742year to 30 June 2026
Against management on pay
21.4%347 of 1,623 reporting filers
Same, by reported shares
6.7%shares reported on Form N-PX
Meetings on file
6across 3 seasons
72.6% for21.1% against6.2% other21.4% against management1,714 filers on say-on-pay

foragainstabstain, withhold or otheramber tick: the portion cast against management

1,742 Form N-PX filers reported votes at Starbucks Corporation for the year to 30 June 2026, across 3 meetings.

On the advisory vote on executive pay, 347 of the 1,623 filers that reported a position voted against management (21.4%), 14.8 percentage points above the median company on this site (6.6%). By reported shares the figure is 6.7% (median 2.9%). These are shares of the filers reporting on Form N-PX, not of all votes cast at the meeting.

Meetings

Meeting dateSeasonFilers reportingItemsAgainst management on pay
25 Mar 2026year to 30 June 20261,7261021.4%
16 Jan 2026year to 30 June 20263150.0%
3 Dec 2025year to 30 June 2025310.0%
12 Mar 2025year to 30 June 20251,7221023.9%
13 Mar 2024year to 30 June 20241,648910.4%
5 Jan 2024year to 30 June 2024320.0%

Meetings with 20 or more reporting filers have their own page with every item. Dates are as filers typed them; dates up to three days apart are treated as one meeting.

Say-on-pay: this company and the median

year to 30 June 2026Starbucks CorporationMedian company
Reporting filers voting against management21.4%6.6%
Reported shares voted against management6.7%2.9%

Among filers reporting on Form N-PX. The median is over 3,799 companies with a say-on-pay item reported by 20 or more filers.

How the largest families voted

Meeting of 25 Mar 2026: say-on-pay and each shareholder proposal that could be told apart.

FamilySay-on-payProposal AProposal BProposal CProposal DProposal EProposal F
VanguardForAgainstFor *AgainstAgainstAgainstAgainst
BlackRock and iSharesForAgainstForAgainstAgainstAgainstAgainst
FidelityForAgainstForAgainstAgainstAgainstAgainst
DimensionalAgainst *AgainstForAgainstAgainstAgainstAgainst
State Street and SPDRForAgainstForAgainstAgainstAgainstAgainst
American CenturyAgainst *AgainstForAgainstAgainstAgainstAgainst
Franklin TempletonForAgainstForAgainstAgainstAgainstAgainst
InvescoForAgainstForAgainstAgainstAgainstAgainst
EquitableForAgainstForAgainstAgainstAgainstAgainst
Charles SchwabForAgainstForAgainstAgainstAgainstAgainst
Nuveen and TIAAForAgainstForAgainstAgainstAgainstAgainst
ProShares and ProFundsForAgainstForAgainstAgainstAgainstAgainst
John Hancock and ManulifeForAgainstForAgainstAgainstAgainstAgainst
Morgan Stanley, Eaton Vance and CalvertAgainst *AgainstForAgainstAgainstAgainstAgainst
J.P. MorganAgainst *AgainstForAgainstAgainstAgainstAgainst
Goldman SachsForAgainstForAgainstAgainstAgainstAgainst
WisdomTreeForAgainstForAgainstAgainstAgainstAgainst
PGIM and PrudentialAgainst *AgainstForAgainstFor *AgainstAgainst
Jackson National fundsForAgainstForAgainstAgainstAgainstAgainst
Northern Trust and FlexSharesForAgainstForAgainstAgainstAgainstAgainst
SEIAgainst *AgainstForAgainstFor *AgainstAgainst
T. Rowe PriceForAgainstForAgainstAgainstAgainstAgainst
ThriventForAgainstForAgainstAgainstAgainstAgainst
Lincoln FinancialForAgainstForAgainstAgainstAgainstAgainst
VoyaForAgainstForAgainstAgainstAgainstAgainst
First TrustForAgainstForFor *AgainstAgainstAgainst
Russell InvestmentsAgainst *AgainstForAgainstFor *AgainstAgainst
NationwideForAgainstForAgainstAgainstAgainstAgainst
Victory CapitalForAgainstForAgainstAgainstAgainstAgainst
Brighthouse FundsForAgainstForAgainstAgainst *AgainstAgainst
Guggenheim and RydexForAgainstForAgainstAgainstAgainstAgainst
Columbia ThreadneedleForAgainstForAgainstFor *AgainstAgainst
BNY MellonForAgainstForAgainstAgainstAgainstAgainst
PrincipalForAgainstForAgainstAgainstAgainstAgainst
Capital Group and American FundsForAgainstForAgainstAgainstAgainstAgainst
Pacific Life fundsForAgainstForAgainstAgainstAgainstAgainst
Global XAgainst *AgainstForAgainstFor *AgainstAgainst
MFSForAgainstForAgainstAgainstAgainstAgainst
TransamericaForAgainstForAgainstAgainstAgainstAgainst
Federated HermesForAgainstForAgainstFor *AgainstAgainst
AllianceBernsteinForAgainstForAgainstAgainstAgainstAgainst
Hartford FundsAgainst *AgainstForAgainstAgainstAgainstAgainst
DWSForAgainstForAgainstAgainstAgainstAgainst
PIMCOForFor *ForAgainstFor *AgainstAgainst
AllspringForAgainstForAgainstAgainstAgainstAgainst
MassMutualForAgainstForAgainstFor *AgainstAgainst
VirtusForAgainstForAgainstAgainstAgainstAgainst
VanEckAgainst *AgainstForAgainstFor *AgainstAgainst
Macquarie and Delaware FundsForNo reportNo reportNo reportNo reportNo reportNo report
Janus HendersonForNo reportNo reportNo reportNo reportNo reportNo report
Neuberger BermanAgainst *No reportNo reportNo reportNo reportNo reportNo report
American BeaconForAgainstForAgainstAgainstAgainstAgainst
Natixis and Loomis SaylesForAgainstForAgainstFor *AgainstAgainst
Lord AbbettForNo reportNo reportNo reportNo reportNo reportNo report
Harris Associates and OakmarkForNo reportNo reportNo reportNo reportNo reportNo report
BairdForNo reportNo reportNo reportNo reportNo reportNo report

* against management. A family's position is the way most of its reported shares were voted across its filers; "split" means no single position led. "No report" means none of the family's filers listed the item.

By season

SeasonFilers reportingAgainst management on pay, filersBy reported sharesSay-on-pay split
year to 30 June 20241,65610.4%withheld
year to 30 June 20251,74723.9%8.8%
year to 30 June 20261,74221.4%6.7%

Category mix

Share of the vote records reported for this company, by the category filers chose.

CategoryVote recordsShare
DIRECTOR ELECTIONS31,61455.3%
SECTION 14A SAY-ON-PAY VOTES9,04715.8%
OTHER SOCIAL ISSUES6,49111.4%
AUDIT-RELATED2,9155.1%
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE2,9145.1%
ENVIRONMENT OR CLIMATE2,2103.9%
HUMAN RIGHTS OR HUMAN CAPITAL/WORKFORCE9431.6%
DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION9121.6%
COMPENSATION1380.2%

Questions

How did large funds vote at Starbucks Corporation?

For the year to 30 June 2026, 1,623 Form N-PX filers reported a say-on-pay vote at Starbucks Corporation; 347 voted against management (21.4%). The table on this page lists the position of each of the largest fund families on say-on-pay and on each shareholder proposal that could be told apart in the filings.

Were there shareholder proposals at Starbucks Corporation?

Filers reported 6 proposals from security holders that could be told apart in the year to 30 June 2026. Across them, 1.9% of reporting filers voted for at the median proposal.

Is this the meeting result?

No. The figures are shares of the funds and managers that file Form N-PX, and of the shares they reported. Holders that do not file the form (individuals, most foreign investors, insiders) are not included, so the split here can differ widely from the certified result, which Starbucks Corporation reports on Form 8-K.

Where does the data come from?

From Form N-PX filings on the SEC's EDGAR system, grouped by company. Filers type company names and meeting dates themselves; this site groups spellings of the same company and folds meeting dates up to three days apart. Data runs through 23 Sep 2026; the median compares 3,799 companies.

Provenance: SEC EDGAR, Form N-PX and N-PX/A filings that list Starbucks Corporation, grouped by company. The name is the most common spelling among filers; the ticker and SEC company number come from the SEC company tickers file, matched on the exact name. Not verified by the SEC. Filings read through 23 Sep 2026; page built 26 Sep 2026.