IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v125y2014i2p193-210.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social Shareholder Engagement: The Dynamics of Voice and Exit

Author

Listed:
  • Jennifer Goodman
  • Céline Louche
  • Katinka Cranenburgh
  • Daniel Arenas

Abstract

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. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Suggested Citation

  • Jennifer Goodman & Céline Louche & Katinka Cranenburgh & Daniel Arenas, 2014. "Social Shareholder Engagement: The Dynamics of Voice and Exit," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 125(2), pages 193-210, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:125:y:2014:i:2:p:193-210
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-013-1890-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10551-013-1890-0
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10551-013-1890-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wim Vandekerckhove & Jos Leys & Dirk Braeckel, 2008. "A Speech-Act Model for Talking to Management. Building a Framework for Evaluating Communication within the SRI Engagement Process," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 82(1), pages 77-91, September.
    2. Parrino, Robert & Sias, Richard W. & Starks, Laura T., 2003. "Voting with their feet: institutional ownership changes around forced CEO turnover," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 3-46, April.
    3. Anat R. Admati & Paul Pfleiderer, 2009. "The "Wall Street Walk" and Shareholder Activism: Exit as a Form of Voice," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 22(7), pages 2445-2485, July.
    4. Doron Levit & Nadya Malenko, 2011. "Nonbinding Voting for Shareholder Proposals," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 66(5), pages 1579-1614, October.
    5. Cynthia J. Campbell & Stuart L. Gillan & Cathy M. Niden, 1999. "Current Perspectives on Shareholder Proposals: Lessons from the 1997 Proxy Season," Financial Management, Financial Management Association, vol. 28(1), Spring.
    6. Willard T. Carleton & James M. Nelson & Michael S. Weisbach, 1998. "The Influence of Institutions on Corporate Governance through Private Negotiations: Evidence from TIAA-CREF," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 53(4), pages 1335-1362, August.
    7. Daniel Arenas & Pablo Sanchez & Matthew Murphy, 2013. "Different Paths to Collaboration Between Businesses and Civil Society and the Role of Third Parties," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 115(4), pages 723-739, July.
    8. Dhir, Aaron A., 2012. "Shareholder Engagement in the Embedded Business Corporation: Investment Activism, Human Rights, and TWAIL Discourse," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 99-118, January.
    9. Ruth V. Aguilera & Cynthia A. Williams & John M. Conley & Deborah E. Rupp, 2006. "Corporate Governance and Social Responsibility: a comparative analysis of the UK and the US," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(3), pages 147-158, May.
    10. Céline Louche & Daniel Arenas & Katinka C. van Cranenburgh, 2012. "From Preaching to Investing: Attitudes of Religious Organisations Towards Responsible Investment," Post-Print hal-01098144, HAL.
    11. E. Gifford, 2010. "Effective Shareholder Engagement: The Factors that Contribute to Shareholder Salience," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 92(1), pages 79-97, April.
    12. Jeanne Logsdon & Harry Buren, 2009. "Beyond the Proxy Vote: Dialogues Between Shareholder Activists and Corporations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 87(1), pages 353-365, April.
    13. Marco Becht & Julian Franks & Colin Mayer & Stefano Rossi, 2010. "Returns to Shareholder Activism: Evidence from a Clinical Study of the Hermes UK Focus Fund," NBER Chapters, in: Corporate Governance, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Andrew M. Pettigrew, 1990. "Longitudinal Field Research on Change: Theory and Practice," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(3), pages 267-292, August.
    15. Steven Lydenberg, 2007. "Universal Investors and Socially Responsible Investors: a tale of emerging affinities," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 467-477, May.
    16. Céline Louche & Daniel Arenas & Katinka Cranenburgh, 2012. "From Preaching to Investing: Attitudes of Religious Organisations Towards Responsible Investment," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 110(3), pages 301-320, October.
    17. Parthiban David & Matt Bloom & Amy J. Hillman, 2007. "Investor activism, managerial responsiveness, and corporate social performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 91-100, January.
    18. Stuart L. Gillan & Laura T. Starks, 2007. "The Evolution of Shareholder Activism in the United States," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 19(1), pages 55-73, January.
    19. Duncan McLaren, 2004. "Global Stakeholders: corporate accountability and investor engagement," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(2), pages 191-201, April.
    20. Kathleen Rehbein & Jeanne Logsdon & Harry Buren, 2013. "Corporate Responses to Shareholder Activists: Considering the Dialogue Alternative," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 112(1), pages 137-154, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Natalia Semenova, 2020. "Company Receptivity in Private Dialogue on Sustainability Risks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-14, January.
    2. Amos M. Kimunya & Amos Njuguna & Francis Wambalaba, 2019. "Shareholder loyalty and firm value creating outcomes in Kenya," International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), Center for the Strategic Studies in Business and Finance, vol. 8(5), pages 212-219, September.
    3. Salome Zimmermann, 2019. "Same Same but Different: How and Why Banks Approach Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-20, April.
    4. Joel Diener & André Habisch, 2022. "Developing an Impact-Focused Typology of Socially Responsible Fund Providers," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    5. Fabrizio Ferraro & Daniel Beunza, 2018. "Creating Common Ground: A Communicative Action Model of Dialogue in Shareholder Engagement," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(6), pages 1187-1207, December.
    6. Rachelle Belinga & Blanche Segrestin, 2016. "Proxy voting policies as tools for shareholder engagement in CSR: an exploratory study," Post-Print hal-01312918, HAL.
    7. Incheol Kim & Hong Wan & Bin Wang & Tina Yang, 2019. "Institutional Investors and Corporate Environmental, Social, and Governance Policies: Evidence from Toxics Release Data," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(10), pages 4901-4926, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rachelle Belinga & Blanche Segrestin, 2016. "Proxy voting policies as tools for shareholder engagement in CSR: an exploratory study," Post-Print hal-01312918, HAL.
    2. Helwege, Jean & Intintoli, Vincent J. & Zhang, Andrew, 2012. "Voting with their feet or activism? Institutional investors’ impact on CEO turnover," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 22-37.
    3. Maria Goranova & Rahi Abouk & Paul C. Nystrom & Ehsan S. Soofi, 2017. "Corporate governance antecedents to shareholder activism: A zero-inflated process," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 415-435, February.
    4. Katinka C. van Cranenburgh & Daniel Arenas & Jennifer Goodman & Céline Louche, 2014. "Religious organisations as investors: a Christian perspective on shareholder engagement," Post-Print hal-01067933, HAL.
    5. Natalia Semenova, 2020. "Company Receptivity in Private Dialogue on Sustainability Risks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-14, January.
    6. Renneboog, L.D.R. & Szilagyi, P.G., 2009. "Shareholder Activism through the Proxy Process," Other publications TiSEM cc25d736-2965-4511-b100-1, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    7. Tamas Barko & Martijn Cremers & Luc Renneboog, 2022. "Shareholder Engagement on Environmental, Social, and Governance Performance," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 180(2), pages 777-812, October.
    8. Alex Edmans, 2014. "Blockholders and Corporate Governance," Annual Review of Financial Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 23-50, December.
    9. Renneboog, Luc & Szilagyi, Peter G., 2011. "The role of shareholder proposals in corporate governance," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 167-188, February.
    10. Incheol Kim & Hong Wan & Bin Wang & Tina Yang, 2019. "Institutional Investors and Corporate Environmental, Social, and Governance Policies: Evidence from Toxics Release Data," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(10), pages 4901-4926, October.
    11. Marco Becht & Julian Franks & Jeremy Grant & Hannes F. Wagner, 2017. "Returns to Hedge Fund Activism: An International Study," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 30(9), pages 2933-2971.
    12. Vincent C. Ma & John S. Liu, 2016. "Exploring the research fronts and main paths of literature: a case study of shareholder activism research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(1), pages 33-52, October.
    13. Edmans, Alex & Holderness, Clifford, 2016. "Blockholders: A Survey of Theory and Evidence," CEPR Discussion Papers 11442, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    14. Hadani, Michael & Doh, Jonathan P. & Schneider, Marguerite, 2019. "Social movements and corporate political activity: Managerial responses to socially oriented shareholder activism," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 156-170.
    15. Fabrizio Ferraro & Daniel Beunza, 2018. "Creating Common Ground: A Communicative Action Model of Dialogue in Shareholder Engagement," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(6), pages 1187-1207, December.
    16. Harford, Jarrad & Kecskés, Ambrus & Mansi, Sattar, 2018. "Do long-term investors improve corporate decision making?," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 424-452.
    17. Khan, Zazy, 2015. "Activist Hedge Funds: Evidence from the Recent Financial Crisis," MPRA Paper 72025, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 27 May 2016.
    18. Oehler, Andreas & Schmitz, Jonas Tobias, 2021. "Does intensified communication of hedge funds with letters affect abnormal returns?," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 127-142.
    19. Jiang, George J. & Liu, Chang, 2021. "Getting on board: The monitoring effect of institutional directors," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    20. Thomas Smythe & Chris McNeil & Philip English, 2015. "When does CalPERS’ activism add value?," Journal of Economics and Finance, Springer;Academy of Economics and Finance, vol. 39(4), pages 641-660, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:125:y:2014:i:2:p:193-210. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.