Social Shareholder Engagement: The Dynamics of Voice and Exit
- 1k Downloads
Investors concerned about the social and environmental impact of the companies they invest in are increasingly choosing to use voice over exit as a strategy. This article addresses the question of how and why the voice and exit options (Hirschman 1970) are used in social shareholder engagement (SSE) by religious organisations. Using an inductive case study approach, we examine seven engagements by three religious organisations considered to be at the forefront of SSE. We analyse the full engagement process rather than focusing on particular tools or on outcomes. We map the key stages of the engagement processes and the influences on the decisions made at each stage to develop a model of the dynamics of voice and exit in SSE. This study finds that religious organisations divest for political rather than economic motives using exit as a form of voice. The silent exit option is not used by religious organisations in SSE, exit is not always the consequence of unsatisfactory voice outcomes, and voice can continue after exit. We discuss the implications of these dynamics and influences on decisions for further research in engagement.
KeywordsEngagement process Religious organisations Responsible investment Social shareholder engagement Voice and exit
Annual General Meeting
Campaign Against Arms Trade
Church Investors Group
Ethical Investment Advisory Group
Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility
Investor Responsibility Research Center
Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation
Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
Securities and Exchange Commission
Social Shareholder Engagement
United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment
The authors would like to offer their thanks to all the interviewees who took part in this research and to 3iG which facilitated and supported the research process. This work was funded in part by grant 2013FI_B1 00206 (Goodman J.), DEC SUR Government of Catalonia.
- Arenas, D., Sanchez, P., & Murphy, M. (2013). Different paths to collaboration between businesses and civil society and the role of third parties. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(4), 723–739. Google Scholar
- Clark, G. L., Salo, J., & Hebb, T. (2008). Social and environmental shareholder activism in the public spotlight: US Corporate Annual Meetings, campaign strategies, and environmental performance. Environment and Planning A, 40(6), 1370–1390.Google Scholar
- EIAG. (2007). Fairtrade begins at home: Supermarkets and the effect on British farming livelihoods. November 2007, 1–40.Google Scholar
- Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.Google Scholar
- Engle, E. A. (2006). What you don’t know can hurt you: Human rights, shareholder activism and sec reporting requirements. Syracuse Law Review, 57, 63–96.Google Scholar
- Eurosif. (2006). European SRI study. Retrieved July 29, 2012, from http://www.eurosif.org/images/stories/pdf/eurosif_sristudy_2006_complete.pdf.
- Eurosif. (2010). European SRI study. Retrieved April 11, 2012, from http://www.eurosif.org/research/eurosif-sri-study/2010.
- Eurosif. (2012). European SRI study. Retrieved December 1, 2012, from http://www.eurosif.org/research/eurosif-sri-study/sri-study-2012.
- Glac, K. (2010). The influence of shareholders on corporate social responsibility. Center for Ethical Business Cultures, pp. 1–38.Google Scholar
- Goldstein, M. (2011). The state of engagement between US corporations and shareholders (pp. 1–30). New York: IRRC Institute.Google Scholar
- Guyatt, D. J. (2006). Identifying and overcoming behavioural impediments to long term responsible investments—A focus on UK Institutional Investors. Bath: Department of Psychology, University of Bath.Google Scholar
- Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Hoffman, A. J. (1996). A strategic response to investor activism. MIT Sloan Management Review, 37(2), 51–64.Google Scholar
- Kay, J. (2012). The Kay review of UK equity markets and long-term decision making. Retrieved May 16, 2013, from http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-kay-review-of-uk-equity-markets-and-long-term-decision-making-final-report.
- Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691–710.Google Scholar
- Mackenzie, C. (1993). The shareholder action handbook. Newcastle: New Consumer Ltd.Google Scholar
- Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- PETA. (2012). Shareholder campaigns. Retrieved January 8, 2013, from http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/shareholder-campaigns.aspx.
- Ryan, L. V., & Schneider, M. (2002). The antecedents of institutional investor activism. Academy of Management Review, 27(4), 554–573.Google Scholar
- Tkac, P. (2006). One proxy at a time: Pursuing social change through shareholder proposals. Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 91(3), 1–20.Google Scholar
- USSIF. (2012). Report on sustainable and responsible investment trends in the United States. Retrieved December 1, 2012, from http://ussif.org/resources/pubs/.
- Van Cranenburgh, K. C., Arenas, D., Louche, C., & Vives, J. (2010). From faith to faith consistent investing: Religious institutions and their investment practices. Amsterdam: 3iG ESADE Vlerick.Google Scholar
- Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar