Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Executives’ Behaviour and Innovation in Corporate Governance: The Case of Internet Voting at Shareholders’ General Meetings in French Listed Companies

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper analyses the behaviour of French corporate executives towards the adoption of Internet voting at shareholders’ general meetings. The research extends the studies of legitimation strategies and institutional theory to a new topic and a new instrument of corporate governance. Taking a qualitative approach, the paper examines the particular case of a technology that is adopted by a company for the benefit of its shareholders. It contributes theoretically by showing how executives respond to institutional pressures when responding could affect their own interests. The findings illustrate the nature and extent of six legitimation strategies used by executives when confronted by Internet shareholder voting. Interestingly, the results highlight the prevalence of manipulation and coalition-building strategies. A typology of adoption behaviours is also proposed. Interestingly, the results show how executives worry about the risk that Internet voting may lead to a loss of control. Overall, the paper argues that the relationship between shareholders and executives with regard to corporate governance is partially reversed by the adoption of Internet voting. Some theoretical and managerial implications of the paper for the literature on corporate governance and business ethics are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Our field study indicates exactly 22 listed firms among which twelve are listed in the CAC40.

  2. Half of the rejected resolutions among the SBF80 firms dealt either with the risk for shareholders of equity dilution (take over-bid, request for approval of equity increase without maintaining the preferential right of subscription by existing shareholders), and one fourth dealt with executives’ remunerations (Dessaint, 18 December 2014).

  3. We focus on the decision-makers who are involved/potentially involved in the adoption of an new voting system.

  4. For example, BNP Paribas had around half million shareholders in 2015, according to internal data.

  5. In France, beneficial holders are called bearer shareholders (‘actionnaires au porteur’). This is the case if they hold shares in a stock brokerage account, in a bank or with another nominee. In contrast, if the shares are registered directly with the issuer or the issuer’s agent, then the holders are called registered shareholders (‘actionnaires au nominatif’). The latter (1) have their names and addresses recorded in the company's share registry and (2) are kept directly informed about the issuer’s financial status by the issuer.

  6. Each strategy has three underlying tactics.

  7. One of the few pioneers to have adopted Internet voting in 2003 won an innovation prize at the time of the annual shareholders’ general meetings competition thanks to its adoption of the new voting system.

  8. This is done through a certificate issued by a financial intermediary holding the title account of a bearer shareholder. The certification of immobilization is given at her/his request to the investor to allow her/him to participate in a general meeting. It attests that the investor is a shareholder of a given company.

References

  • Baum, J. A. C., & Oliver, C. (1991). Institutional linkages and organizational mortality. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 187–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckert, J. (1999). Agency, entrepreneurs and institutional change. The role of strategic choice and institutionalized practices in organizations. Organization Studies, 20, 777–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinkerhoff, D. W. (2005). Organizational legitimacy, capacity, and capacity development. Discussion paper n° 58A. European Centre for Development Policy Management.

  • Butler, T. (2003). An institutional perspective on developing and implementing intranet and internet Internet-based information systems. Information Systems Journal, 13(3), 209–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, V. L., & Feroz, E. H. (2001). Institutional theory and accounting rule choice: An analysis of four US state governments’ decisions to adopt generally accepted accounting principles. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26, 565–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, J. W., & Demirag, I. (2006). US financial regulatory change: The case of the Californian energy crisis. Journal of Banking Regulation, 7(1), 75–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clemens, B. W., Bamford, C. E., & Douglas, T. (2008). Choosing strategic responses to address emerging environmental regulations: Size, perceived influence and uncertainty. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(8), 493–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clemens, B. W., & Douglas, T. J. (2005). Understanding strategic responses to institutional pressures. Journal of Business Research, 58(9), 1205–1213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 63–82). Chicago, CA: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dooley, Greg. (2008). The emergence of online voting in Australia. Keeping Good Companies, 60(7), 388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elbe, J., & Emmoth, A. (2014). The use of rhetoric in legitimation strategies when mobilizing destination stakeholders. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 3(4), 210–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erkama, N., & Vaara, E. (2010). Struggles over legitimacy in global organizational restructuring: A rhetorical perspective on legitimation strategies and dynamics in a shutdown case. Organization Studies, 31(7), 813–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Escobar, L. F., & Vredenburg, H. (2011). Multinational oil companies and the adoption of sustainable development: A resource-based and institutional theory interpretation of adoption heterogeneity. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 39–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiss, P. C., & Zajac, E. J. (2004). The diffusion of ideas over contested terrain: The (non)adoption of a shareholder value orientation among German firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(4), 501–534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiss, P. C., & Zajac, E. J. (2006). The symbolic management of strategic change: Sense-giving via framing and decoupling. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1173–1193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, E., Chattopadhyay, P., Sitkin, S. B., & Barden, J. (2006). Cognitive underpinnings of institutional persistence and change: A framing perspective. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 347–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C. R. (2002). Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 58–80.

  • Harris, M., & Raviv, A. (2010). Control of corporate decisions: Shareholders vs. management. Review of Financial Studies, 23(11), 4115–4147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess, D., & Warren, D. E. (2008). The meaning and meaningfulness of corporate social initiatives. Business and Society Review, 113(2), 163–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, Q., Hart, P., & Cooke, D. (2007). The role of external and internal influences on information systems security: A neoinstitutional perspective. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 16(2), 153–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jepperson, R. L. (1991). Institutions, institutional effects, and institutionalization. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 143–163). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joffe, H., & Yardley, L. (2004). 4. Content and thematic analysis. Research methods for clinical and health psychology (pp. 56–68). California: Sage.

  • Jones, C. D., Li, M., & Cannella, A. A. (2015). Responses to a governance mandate: The adoption of governance committees by NYSE firms. Journal of Management, 41(7), 1873–1897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joutsenvirta, M. (2013). Executive pay and legitimacy: Changing discursive battles over the morality of excessive manager compensation. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(3), 459–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalton, G. (1983). Introduction to survey sampling. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Krenn, M. (2014). Decoupling as a sustainable firm response to pressures for convergence and divergence in corporate governance: The case of codes of good corporate governance. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 15(4), 103.

    Google Scholar 

  • L’Huillier, J. B. (2015). Le cyber-actionnaire: adaptation du droit des sociétés à l’évolution des technologies d’information et de communication. Étude en droits européen, français et allemand comparés (Doctoral dissertation in business law, Paris 10).

  • Lander, M. W., Koene, B. A. S., & Linssen, S. N. (2013). Committed to professionalism: Organizational responses of mid-tier accounting firms to conflicting institutional logics. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 38, 130–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latham, M. (2000). The Internet will drive corporate monitoring. Corporate Governance: An International Revue, 3, June, 4–11.

  • Latham, M. (2003). Democracy and infomediaries. Corporate Governance: An International Revue, 11(2), 91–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lattemann, C. (2005). The use of ICT in annual shareholder meetings and investor relations: An examination of the German stock market. Corporate Reputation Review, 8(2), 110–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, T. B., Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (2002). Institutional effects of inter-organizational collaboration: The emergence of proto-institutions. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 281–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, T. B., Winn, M. I., & Devereaux Jennings, P. (2001). The temporal dynamics of institutionalization. Academy of Management Review, 26(4), 624–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Galès, Y. (2009). L'Adam et proxinvest lancent une pétition pour le vote des actionnaires sur internet. (Translation: The Adam and Proxinvest launched a petition for the vote of shareholders on the internet) Le Figaro, October.

  • Le Galès, Y. (2011). Les actionnaires français de plus en plus contestataires, (Translation: “French shareholders are protesting more and more”) Le Figaro, February.

  • Leroi, P. H. (2011). Speech in Boumard. P., La Tribune, Mais où sont passés les actionnaires individuels ? (Translation: But where have been the individual shareholders?).

  • Li, Y., & Yermack, D. (2016). Evasive shareholder meetings. Journal of Corporate Finance, 38, 318–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q., & Xue, Y. (2007). Assimilation of enterprise systems: The effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS Quarterly, 31(1), 59–87.

  • Lincoln, J. R. (1995). Book review—Walter W. Powell & Paul DiMaggio (Eds.): The new institutionalism in organizational research. Social Forces, 73, 1147–1148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lounsbury, M. (2001). Institutional sources of practice variation: Staffing college and university recycling programs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 29–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lounsbury, M. (2008). Institutional rationality and practice variation: New directions in the institutional analysis of practice. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33, 349–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansion, Y. (Ed.). (2005). Improving the exercise of shareholder voting rights at general meetings in France. Report of AMF’s working group, 55 pp.

  • Marais, M. (2012). CEO rhetorical strategies for corporate social responsibility (CSR). Society and Business Review, 7(3), 223–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mignerat, M., & Rivard, S. (2010). Entre acquiescence et manipulation: Réponses des gestionnaires de projet de SI aux pratiques institutionnalisées. Systèmes d’Information et Management, 15(2), 9–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munir, R., Perera, S., & Baird, K. (2011). An analytical tablework to examine changes in performance measurement systems within the banking sector. Australasian Accounting Business & Finance Journal, 5(1), 93–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myner, P. (2007). “Review of the impediments on voting UK shares”, Report to the Shareholders Voting Working Group: an update on progress – three years on”, July.

  • Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J. (1993). CASE Tools as organizational change: Investigating incremental and radical changes in systems development. MIS Quarterly, 17(3), 309–340.

  • Orlikowski, W. J., & Barley, S. R. (2001). Technology and institutions: What can research on information technology and research on organizations learn from each other? MIS Quarterly, 25(2), 145–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proxinvest. (2012). Rapport sur les assemblées générales des sociétés cotées en France (translation: Report on the general meetings of listed companies in France), 16th report, 340 p.

  • Ramiller, N. C., & Swanson, E. B. (2003). Organizing visions for information technology and the information systems. Executive response. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(1), 13–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rautiainen, A., & Jarvenpaa, M. (2012). Institutional logics and responses to performance measurement systems. Financial Accountability & Management, 28(2), 164–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renneboog, L., & Szilagyi, P. G. (2011). The role of shareholder proposals in corporate governance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 17(1), 167–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riaz, S. (2009). The global financial crisis: An institutional theory analysis. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 5(1/2), 26–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, A. J. (1987). Accounting as legitimating institution. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12(4), 341–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richter, U. H. (2001). Drivers of change: A multiple-case study on the process of institutionalization of corporate responsibility among three multinational companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 102, 261–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, C. (2012). The new European shareholder rights directive: Removing barriers and creating opportunities for more shareholder activism and democracy. Journal of Management and Governance, 16(2), 269–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royer, I., & Zarlowski, P. (2001). Sampling. In Raymond-Alain Thiétart (Ed.), Doing management research: A comprehensive guide (pp. 147–171). London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. Towards a theoretical synthesis. In W. R. Scott, J. W. Meyer, et al. (Eds.), Institutional environments and organization (pp. 55–80). California, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. W., & Meyer, J. W. (1991). The organization of societal sectors: Propositions and early evidence. In W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 108–149). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidl, D., Sanderson, P., & Roberts, J. (2013). Applying the ‘comply-or-explain’ principle: Discursive legitimacy tactics with regard to codes of corporate governance. Journal of Management and Governance, 17(3), 791–826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seo, M. G., & Creed, W. E. D. (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 222–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Share. (2012). Shareholder Association on Research and Education, www.share.ca.

  • Sonpar, K., Pazzaglia, F., & Kornijenko, J. (2010). The paradox and constraints of legitimacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strätling, R. (2003). General meetings: a dispensable tool for corporate governance of listed companies? Corporate Governance, vol. 11, n° 1, janvier, 74–82

  • Strenger, C., & Zetzsche, D. A. (2013). Corporate governance, cross-border voting and the (draft) principles of the European securities law legislation—Enhancing investor engagement through standardisation. Journal of Corporate Law Studies, 13(2), 503–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suddaby, R. (2010). Challenges for institutional theory. Journal of Management Inquiry, 19(1), 14–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. (2005). Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1), 35–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, E. B., & Ramiller, N. C. (1997). The organizing vision in information systems innovation. Organization Science, 8(5), 458–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P. H. (2002). The rise of the corporation in a craft industry: Conflict and conformity in institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 81–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1983). Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reform, 1880–1935. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(1), 22–39.

  • Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1996). The institutionalization of institutional theory. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 175–190). London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaara, E., Tienari, J., & Laurila, J. (2006). Pulp and paper fiction: On the discursive legitimation of global industrial restructuring. Organization studies, 27(6), 789–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Burg, T., & Prinz, A. (2006). Empowering small shareholders: A comparison of three instruments. Corporate Governance, 14(5), 406–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weerakkody, V., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Irani, Z. (2009). The diffusion and use of institutional theory: A cross disciplinary longitudinal literature survey. Journal of Information Technology, 24(4), 354–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Accounting, College of Business and Economics, UAE University, Al Ain, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

    Walid Cheffi

  2. Institut d’Administration des Entreprises (IAE), University of Rouen, Rouen, France

    Sonia Abdennadher

  3. Higher Colleges of Technology, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates

    Sonia Abdennadher

Authors
  1. Walid Cheffi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sonia Abdennadher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Walid Cheffi.

Appendices

Appendix 1: List of Acronyms and Their Explanations

ADAM: Association pour la Défense des Actionnaires Minoritaires (the Association for Minor Shareholder Protection)

AFG: Association Française de Gestion financière (the French Asset Management Association)

AFTI: Association Française des Professionnels des Titres (French Association of Securities Professionals)

AMF: Autorité des Marchés Financiers (the Financial Market Authority)

ANSA: Association Nationale de Sociétés Anonymes (the National Association of Incorporated Companies)

LSF: Loi Sécurité Financière (Financial Security Law)

MEDEF: Mouvement des Entreprises de France (the Movement of the Enterprises of France)

NRE: Nouvelle Régulation Economique (New Economic Regulation)

Appendix 2: Interview Guides

Interview Guide Used with Directors of Designer and Issuing Companies that have Adopted the Internet Voting System)

  1. 1.

    Identification of company (area of activity, ownership structure, distribution of shareholders, shareholder strategy/policy, experience of Internet voting at shareholder general meetings)

  2. 2.

    Identification of interviewee (post held, extent of authority, competences, professional experience)

  3. 3.

    Degree of importance attached to vote at shareholders’ general meetings (voting habits, is vote seen as a practice or an activity of strategic importance to the company?)

  4. 4.

    The main reasons for the introduction of Internet shareholder voting (regulatory environment, technological developments, management decision, shareholder demand to issuers, observation of competition, etc.)

  5. 5.

    Expression of needs and dysfunctional nature of previous voting system that drove or at least encouraged the company to adopt Internet voting.

  6. 6.

    The decision-making process leading to the development/purchase of the Internet voting system (interviewee’s role in the decision, management level and teams that played a part)

  7. 7.

    Actors on whom the company called to help set up the Internet voting system (IT service providers, other similar providers, regulatory bodies, etc.)

  8. 8.

    Attendance at meetings held by ANSA, AFTI, AMF, etc. as part of the effort to improve the implementation of the electronic voting system (habits, points of view, roles)

  9. 9.

    Conditions for developing the system in France (context, technologies, etc.)

  10. 10.

    Communication policy regarding the launch/existence of the system (communication to whom, by what means, annually at the shareholders’ general meeting periodically or other?)

  11. 11.

    Impact of the new information and communication technologies on management practices and corporate governance: their advantages and disadvantages

  12. 12.

    Satisfaction, perceptions of the experience of Internet voting and prospects for development.

Interview Guide Used with Directors of Firms that have not Yet Adopted the New System

  1. 1.

    Identification of company (area of activity, ownership structure, distribution of shareholders, shareholder strategy/policy, experience of shareholder general meetings)

  2. 2.

    Is corporate governance strategic for your group? Are you considering improving or modernizing it? By what means?

  3. 3.

    Are you considering introducing new technologies as an important or supplementary means of improving shareholders’ exercising of their voting rights and your shareholder relations?

  4. 4.

    By way of example, what do you think about Internet voting at shareholders’ general meetings as a tool? Are you considering other tools or other means of improving your shareholder relations?

  5. 5.

    The number of companies that have adopted the Internet voting system since 2003 has reduced. How do you explain that? Are you thinking of adopting it and offering it to your shareholders? On what conditions? What do you think about its role in your shareholder relations and your corporate governance policy?

  6. 6.

    If you are thinking of offering it to your shareholders, are you going to consult them beforehand in order to find out what they think of it and to make them aware that this system will be available to them in future?

  7. 7.

    Do you have particular difficulties in attaining a quorum and getting your meetings to run smoothly?

  8. 8.

    We assume you have the financial resources to introduce such systems, but why have you not done so in the past, even when the regulations were relaxed?

  9. 9.

    Are you following the development of Internet voting in France or abroad and if so by what means (press, participation in working groups, formal and informal meetings with various actors)?

  10. 10.

    Can we speak of e-governance in France (its future development, with what technical resources and in what conditions?)

Interview Guide Used with Individual and/or Institutional Shareholders

  1. 1.

    How do you assess the importance and role of the vote at shareholders’ general meetings? Tell us about your participation at shareholders’ general meetings or the participation of the fund (voting habits and methods, responsibility for the vote and voting policies).

  2. 2.

    Do you favour the introduction of Internet voting as a supplementary voting method offered to shareholders? What do you think of its usefulness?

  3. 3.

    Are there any examples of previous dysfunctions likely to encourage the use of Internet voting?

  4. 4.

    What are the reasons for encouraging shareholders to use distance voting through the Internet?

  5. 5.

    Does Internet voting help to improve shareholder activism? If it does, how does it do so?

  6. 6.

    Please tell us the characteristics you judge to be necessary for the success of Internet voting?

  7. 7.

    When you attend meetings and consultations organized by the AMF, ANSA and AFG, are you on the side of shareholders and unit holders and do you look after their interests? If so, how do you so this?

  8. 8.

    Please say if you make use of electronic voting platforms.

  9. 9.

    Are there any points you would particularly like to single out as likely to improve the implementation of Internet voting?

  10. 10.

    In general terms, are you satisfied with the Internet voting system as it currently exists?

Appendix 3: Example of Interview Data Analysis—The Issuer Wants to Adopt Internet Voting Collective Interview with the Legal Director and Investment Relations Director

Category/theme

Importance

Analysis and interpretation of verbatim extracts

Institutional pressures

Legal factor influencing adoption by managers

M

When one is asked about the reasons that enticed the group to adopt Internet voting in the future, the legal factor is first of all mentioned: “this system is part of the corporate law reforms to develop employee shareholding by using Internet communication tools”

Imitation tactic

H

Comparing oneself, drawing conclusions regarding the targets and actions carried out: “The feedback we had is that few companies adopt it and above all, the number of people that actually used the pre-meeting vote by the Internet is really ridiculously low. It definitely proves that it is not an expectation today”

Firm’s reputation

H

Be the first to modify by-laws to test Internet voting

Institutional pressures/legitimation strategy

Imitation to face uncertainty

H

Being cautious, “like other companies, we are also going to work to adopt this new communication tool”; “once the system is more reliable and cheaper, we will implement it”

Lead action: compromising strategy

H

An anticipation policy, “like every other company so that we may receive the legal capacity to adopt it if ever one day we consider it necessary. It is part of good anticipation management”

⇒ Tightening institutional influences and looking for a balance between stakeholders ‘expectations and the company´s interests

Number of adopters and big names

H

“It definitely represents very few people. We will implement the vote via the Internet, if ever this type of practice becomes widespread and more and more firms use it”

To look like practices that showed their reliabilities

Acquiescence strategy

H

There is a double role: companies will adopt Internet voting if it becomes widespread. In this case, they will follow the trend and imitate their counterparts to be legitimate and be in accordance with existing practices; institutional and legitimation roles are interlinked

Companies need to implement a legitimation strategy

Legitimation strategy

Manipulation strategy

W (N)

“It is not the fact of being a pioneer in implementing innovative tools but if Internet voting is just for a hundred people for a cost of 300,000 euros, I do not really see the point ». A total absence of manipulation strategy (it is not chosen to elaborate symbolic actions and create an image)

  1. Degree of importance of the theme: high (H), moderate (M), weak (W), non-existent (N)
  2. H: If repeated more than twice or reported only once in a detailed way
  3. M: If reported twice in a non-detailed way
  4. W: If reported once in a non-detailed way
  5. N: If the speech clearly shows negation with regard to this theme

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cheffi, W., Abdennadher, S. Executives’ Behaviour and Innovation in Corporate Governance: The Case of Internet Voting at Shareholders’ General Meetings in French Listed Companies. J Bus Ethics 156, 775–798 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3586-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3586-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation