Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 82, Issue 1, pp 77–91 | Cite as

A Speech-Act Model for Talking to Management. Building a Framework for Evaluating Communication within the SRI Engagement Process

  • Wim Vandekerckhove
  • Jos Leys
  • Dirk Van  Braeckel


Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) has grown considerably over the past three decades. One form of SRI, engagement-SRI, is today by far the most practiced form of SRI (in assets managed) and has the potential to mainstream SRI even further. However, lack of formalized engagement procedures and evaluation tools leave the engagement practice too opaque for such a mainstreaming. This article can be considered as a first step in the development of a standard for the engagement practice. By developing an engagement heuristic, this article offers a more transparent engagement dialog. Drawing on Stevenson’s and Austin’s speech-act theories, this article develops a classification of management’s responses to the signaling of allegations and controversies on two dimensions: a factual dimension concerning (dis)agreements on factual claims and an attitudinal dimension concerning (dis)agreements on responsibilities, values, and norms. On the basis of the distinctions this article develops, the authors provide for a synoptic table and offer a next-step heuristic for the engagement process that started with signaling a concern to management. The article uses an engagement logic that, while keeping the exit option for the investor open, allows management to address signaled concerns without having to let down or to opt out at the first setback in the dialog process between investor and investee corporation.


SRI engagement speech act active shareholdership 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Austin J. 1962. How to do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  2. Carroll A. B. 1979. A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4):497–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clark G. L., T. Hebb. 2004. Pension Fund Corporate Engagement. The fifth stage of capitalism. Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 59(1):142–171Google Scholar
  4. Clarkson M. B. E. 1995. A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1):92–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collier J. 2004. Responsible Shareholding and Investor Engagement in the UK. In: Brenkert G. (ed) Corporate Integrity and Accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 238–252Google Scholar
  6. Cowton C. J. 1999a. Playing by the Rules: Ethical Criteria at an Ethical Investment Fund. Business Ethics: A European Review, 8(1):60–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cowton C. J. 1999b. Accounting and Financial Ethics: From Margin to Mainstream? Business Ethics: A European Review, 8(2):99–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crook, C.: 2005. ‹The Good Company. A survey of Corporate Social Responsibility’, The Economist, 01/22/2005Google Scholar
  9. Davis, I.: 2005. ‹What is the Business of Business? By Building Social Issues Into Strategy, Big Companies can Recast the Debate About their Role in Society’, The McKinsey Quarterly 2005(3)Google Scholar
  10. Elliston F. A. 1982. Anonymity and Whistleblowing. Journal of Business Ethics, 1(3):167–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Forum for the Future: 2002, Sustainability Pays (Co-operative Insurance Society, Manchester)Google Scholar
  12. Hockerts K., L. Moir 2004. Communicating Corporate Responsibility to Investors: The Changing Role of The Investor Relations Function. Journal of Business Ethics, 52(1):85–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holland J. 1998. Private Voluntary Disclosure, Financial Intermediation and Market Efficiency. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 25(1&2):29–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaler J. 2002. Responsibility, Accountability and Governance. Business Ethics: A European Review, 11(4):327–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lewis A., C. MacKenzi 2000. Support for Investor Activism among U.K. Ethical Investors. Journal of Business Ethics, 24(3):215–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Marston C. 2006. A Survey of European Investor Relations. Edinburgh: ICASGoogle Scholar
  17. McLaren D. 2004. Global Stakeholders: Corporate Accountability and Investor Engagement. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 12(2):191–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Solomon A., J. Solomon, M. Suto 2004. Can the UK Experience Provide Lessons for the Evolution of SRI in Japan? Corporate Governance: An International Review, 12(4):552–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sparkes R., C. J. Cowton 2004. The Maturing of Socially Responsible Investment: A Review Of The Developing Link With Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 52(1):45–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Stevenson C. L. 1944. Ethics and Language. New Haven: Yale University PressGoogle Scholar
  21. Van Braeckel D., J. Leys 2004. Portfolio21: opbouw, ethiek en kenmerken. De Gids op Maatschappelijk Gebied, 95(10):10–23Google Scholar
  22. Vandekerckhove, W., J. Leys and D. Van Braeckel: 2007, ‹That’s Not What Happened And It’s Not My Fault Anyway! An Exploration of Management Attitudes towards SRI-Shareholder Engagement’, Business Ethics: A European Review 16(4), 403–418Google Scholar
  23. Wartick S. L., P. L. Cochran 1985. The Evolution of the Corporate Social Performance Model. Academy of Management Review, 10(4):758–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wim Vandekerckhove
    • 1
  • Jos Leys
    • 2
  • Dirk Van  Braeckel
    • 3
  1. 1.Ghent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.DexiaBelgium
  3. 3.Vigeo Group S.A.Belgium

Personalised recommendations