Shareholder apathy is a phenomenon whereby investors remain uninvolved in the corporate governance process. This behavior is most common among retail investors, who generally own small amounts of equity in public companies. As opposed to institutional investors in the United States (who vote 82% of their shares), individual investors only vote 29% of their shares. Low levels of participation in the shareholder voting process are the most common symptom of shareholder apathy. Background The American model of corporate governance places shareholders as the ultimate owners of the corporation. Shareholders have the right to elect the board of directors and vote on other important issues, such as mergers and acquisitions. The board of directors has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of the shareholders, serving as a conduit between a company's owners and its managers. In 1999, Mark Latham had predicted that rational shareholder apathy would dissipate as a result of the internet. Latham argued that shareholders would exercise more influence due to their increased accessibility to information. Lisa M. Fairfax, law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, argues that "rational apathy" view of shareholders is waning. Fairfax notes that shareholders have become increasingly active, voting against management preferences and demanding more engagement from leaders. Causes Recent surveys indicate that retail shareholders do not vote their shares for a variety of reasons, including: Perceptions about the impact of their votes Not having enough time to vote or conduct the necessary research to be informed A lack of interest in voting Ignorance about voting methods or shareholder voting altogether Regulation and technology Technical and legal barriers, including rules for proxy voting and the availability of online voting platforms, can have a direct impact on shareholder participation in company matters. Internet voting has become increasingly popular within the context of corporate voting. In the absence of an online platform, investors may only be able to vote through less convenient methods, such as: Voting in person Voting by mail Voting by telephone Resources While institutional shareholders may afford to hire dedicated service providers or teams to handle shareholder voting for their shares, individual investors generally lack such resources. Firms such as proxy advisers may specialize in corporate voting matters, by offering third-party analysis regarding voting proposals and company profiles. For instance, these firms may advise institutional investors with regards to ESG matters that may arise during the investment or corporate voting