IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/crepre/v19y2016i1d10.1057_crr.2015.27.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Good Reputation: Protection against Shareholder Activism

Author

Listed:
  • Christian Pieter Hoffmann

    (Institute of Communication and Media Studies, Leipzig University)

  • Peggy Simcic Brønn

    (Norwegian Business School (BI))

  • Christian Fieseler

    (Norwegian Business School (BI))

Abstract

When shareholders become dissatisfied with a public company’s policies or actions, they may resort to activist interventions. Shareholder activism has been described as an attempt to resolve agency conflicts by directly influencing management or board decisions. Shareholder activism may be incited by a lack of focus on shareholder value, a misalignment of corporate governance or a number of social and environmental policy issues. Over recent years, shareholder activism has become more frequent, professional and costly to corporations. Large, visible companies are held to be most susceptible to activist interventions, potentially damaging their corporation reputation. In this study, we analyze the effect of a good corporate reputation on the susceptibility of public companies to shareholder interventions in the form of proxy fights. We consider both the frequency and success of shareholder proposals and differentiate the effect of corporate reputation by issues context. Our findings indicate that a good corporate reputation serves as a two-fold inoculation against shareholder interventions, reducing both the frequency and success of proxy fights.

Suggested Citation

  • Christian Pieter Hoffmann & Peggy Simcic Brønn & Christian Fieseler, 2016. "A Good Reputation: Protection against Shareholder Activism," Corporate Reputation Review, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 19(1), pages 35-46, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:crepre:v:19:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1057_crr.2015.27
    DOI: 10.1057/crr.2015.27
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/crr.2015.27
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/crr.2015.27?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. Alchian, Armen A & Demsetz, Harold, 1972. "Production , Information Costs, and Economic Organization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 62(5), pages 777-795, December.
    2. Dodd, Peter & Warner, Jerold B., 1983. "On corporate governance : A study of proxy contests," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1-4), pages 401-438, April.
    3. Bebchuk, Lucian A. & Cohen, Alma, 2005. "The costs of entrenched boards," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 409-433, November.
    4. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
    5. Richard A. D'Aveni & Idalene F. Kesner, 1993. "Top Managerial Prestige, Power and Tender Offer Response: A Study of Elite Social Networks and Target Firm Cooperation during Takeovers," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(2), pages 123-151, May.
    6. Alon Brav & Wei Jiang & Frank Partnoy & Randall Thomas, 2008. "Hedge Fund Activism, Corporate Governance, and Firm Performance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 63(4), pages 1729-1775, August.
    7. Roberta Romano, 2000. "Less Is More: Making Shareholder Activism A Valued Mechanism Of Corporate Governance," Yale School of Management Working Papers ysm140, Yale School of Management, revised 01 Nov 2001.
    8. Guercio, Diane Del & Hawkins, Jennifer, 1999. "The motivation and impact of pension fund activism," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 293-340, June.
    9. Donald C. Hambrick & Richard A. D'Aveni, 1992. "Top Team Deterioration as Part of the Downward Spiral of Large Corporate Bankruptcies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(10), pages 1445-1466, October.
    10. Fama, Eugene F & Jensen, Michael C, 1983. "Separation of Ownership and Control," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(2), pages 301-325, June.
    11. Jennifer E. Bethel & Julia Porter Liebeskind & Tim Opler, 1998. "Block Share Purchases and Corporate Performance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 53(2), pages 605-634, April.
    12. Wu, YiLin, 2004. "The impact of public opinion on board structure changes, director career progression, and CEO turnover: evidence from CalPERS' corporate governance program," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 199-227, January.
    13. Judy Larkin, 2003. "Strategic Reputation Risk Management," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-0-230-51141-5.
    14. Fama, Eugene F, 1980. "Agency Problems and the Theory of the Firm," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 88(2), pages 288-307, April.
    15. Roberta Romano, 2001. "Less is More: Making Shareholder Activism a Valuable Mechanism of Corporate Governance," CeRP Working Papers 12, Center for Research on Pensions and Welfare Policies, Turin (Italy).
    16. Smith, Michael P, 1996. "Shareholder Activism by Institutional Investors: Evidence for CalPERS," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 51(1), pages 227-252, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ertimur, Yonca & Ferri, Fabrizio & Stubben, Stephen R., 2010. "Board of directors' responsiveness to shareholders: Evidence from shareholder proposals," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 53-72, February.
    2. Del Guercio, Diane & Seery, Laura & Woidtke, Tracie, 2008. "Do boards pay attention when institutional investor activists "just vote no"?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 84-103, October.
    3. Szilagyi, P.G., 2007. "Corporate governance and the agency costs of debt and outside equity," Other publications TiSEM 9520d40a-224f-43a8-9bf9-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Raluca Roman, 2015. "Shareholder activism in banking," Research Working Paper RWP 15-9, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
    5. 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.
    6. Denes, Matthew R. & Karpoff, Jonathan M. & McWilliams, Victoria B., 2017. "Thirty years of shareholder activism: A survey of empirical research," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 405-424.
    7. 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.
    8. Jean-Sebastien Lantz & Sophie Montandrau & Jean-Michel Sahut, 2014. "Activism of Institutional Investors, Corporate Governance Alerts and Financial Performance," Working Papers 2014-353, Department of Research, Ipag Business School.
    9. Barbara Voußem & Utz Schäffer & Denis Schweizer, 2015. "Top management turnover under the influence of activist investors," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 19(3), pages 709-739, August.
    10. Becker, Bo & Cronqvist, Henrik & Fahlenbrach, Rüdiger, 2011. "Estimating the Effects of Large Shareholders Using a Geographic Instrument," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(4), pages 907-942, August.
    11. Nicole Boyson & Robert Mooradian, 2011. "Corporate governance and hedge fund activism," Review of Derivatives Research, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 169-204, July.
    12. Jiang, George J. & Liu, Chang, 2021. "Getting on board: The monitoring effect of institutional directors," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    13. Erenburg, Grigori & Smith, Janet Kiholm & Smith, Richard, 2016. "Which institutional investors matter for firm survival and performance?," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 348-373.
    14. Adegbite, Emmanuel, 2015. "Good corporate governance in Nigeria: Antecedents, propositions and peculiarities," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 319-330.
    15. Matsusaka, John G. & Ozbas, Oguzhan & Yi, Irene, 2017. "Why Do Managers Fight Shareholder Proposals? Evidence from SEC No-Action Letter Decisions," Working Papers 262, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State.
    16. Bethel, Jennifer E. & Hu, Gang & Wang, Qinghai, 2009. "The market for shareholder voting rights around mergers and acquisitions: Evidence from institutional daily trading and voting," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 129-145, February.
    17. Bajo, Emanuele & Barbi, Massimiliano & Bigelli, Marco & Hillier, David, 2013. "The role of institutional investors in public-to-private transactions," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(11), pages 4327-4336.
    18. Abe Jong & Gerard Mertens & Peter Roosenboom, 2006. "Shareholders’ Voting at General Meetings: Evidence from the Netherlands," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 10(4), pages 353-380, November.
    19. Eugene Kang & Mark Kroll, 2014. "Deciding Who Will Rule: Examining the Influence of Outside Noncore Directors on Executive Entrenchment," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 1662-1683, December.
    20. 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.

    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:pal:crepre:v:19:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1057_crr.2015.27. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.palgrave.com .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.