Three myths about engagement and exclusion in responsible investment
There is a move towards more use of engagement strategies in responsible investment. This change in strategies is motivated by a number of claims about the effectiveness of engagement versus exclusion of companies from the investment universe. This paper examines the basis for three central claims: i) That engagement, in contrast to exclusion, does not reduce the investment universe; ii) That exclusion reduces an investor’s influence on a company; and iii) That engagement with exclusion is necessarily a more effective means of influencing companies than pure exclusion. All three claims are argued to be open to challenge. It is possible that the move towards more engagement reflects bureaucratic incentives and political considerations among institutional investors, rather than arguments about the effectiveness and efficiency of engagement.
|Date of creation:||2014|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: P.O. Box 6033, N-5020 Bergen|
Phone: +47 55 57 40 00
Fax: +47 55 57 41 66
Web page: https://www.cmi.no
More information through EDIRC
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:chm:wpaper:wp2014-3. 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: (Robert Sjursen)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.