Shareholder activism is the way in which
shareholders can assert their power as owners of the company to influence its
behaviour. Activism covers a broad spectrum of activities. Activism includes
“voting with ones feet” (exit), private discussion or public communication with
corporate boards and management, press campaigns, blogging and other e-ways of
public “naming and shaming”, openly talking to other shareholders, putting
forward shareholder resolutions, calling shareholder meetings and – ultimately
- seeking to replace individual directors or the entire board.
In some cases shareholder activism is directed against
other large shareholders, not against directors. Shareholder activism can be
collaborative, in particular when it is conducted in private.
Shareholder activism is controversial. Proponents argue
that companies with active and engaged shareholders are more likely to be
successful in the long term than those that are left to do what they choose.
Vigilant shareholders are said to play the role of fire alarms and their mere
presence can alleviate managerial or boardroom complacency. When companies
perform poorly, shareholders activists are said to play the role of fire
brigades that bring about change and more quickly than would have been the case
had the fire brigade been on strike.
Opponents say that "shareholder activism" is a euphemism for
disruptive, uninformed, populist ranting or "take the money and run".
In its extreme forms activism is said to be an extortion scheme that weakens
strong companies. More fundamentally, there is disagreement about how much
power shareholders should delegate to corporate boards and when direct
shareholder action becomes necessary and on what terms. In some countries,
organized labour is accused of using shareholder activism tactics as a
capitalist tool in the class struggle.
When stakeholder protection is
left to the voluntary initiative of managers, relations with social activists
may become an effective entrenchment strategy for inefficient CEOs. We thus
argue that managerial turnover and firm value are increased when explicit
stakeholder protection is introduced so as to deprive incumbent CEOs of
This finding provides a rationale
for the emergence of specialized methodologies that help firms commit to
stakeholder protection even in case of managerial replacement.
resilience of the organizational strategy, people and operations will result in
a requisite organization and hence aligning the shareholder and management’s
agenda. The BIOSS methodology is therefore an excellent tool based on over 40 years of academic research.
Believers in the Boardroom
Active shareholder engagement by religious investors can influence corporate behaviour toward being more responsible companies.
Despite the fact that many faith institutions feel they are too small to actually change a company’s social and environmental practices, examples of religious shareholder engagement practices do show successes.
Religious institutions are widely considered to be the pioneers of responsible investment, and make up the third largest demographic of investors globally.
Besides investment portfolio decision-making, based on negative and positive screening of companies, faith traditions seem to inspire believers to actively own their shares and confront the management of the companies which they invest in, forcing them to acknowledge their responsibilities towards society.
With growing global investment strategies and increasing collaboration structures, faith investors are dominant stakeholders to be taken seriously by companies. Religious shareholders’ interests go beyond profits, and collectively they have a major opportunity for practicing their faith whilst enhancing corporate responsibility.
The aim is to contribute to a just and sustainable society through responsible investment in a spirit of genuine interfaith dialogue and co-operation.
The productivity of wisdom and knowledge is for sure not as measurable as the productivity of manufacturing consumer goods, but African wisdom reminds us that when an older man dies, a library disappears. This reminds us of the vital role older people play as intermediaries between the past, the present and the future; of the veritable lifeline they provide in society. Another aspect of this solidarity: parents and families provide often a fall back for young unemployed. Family cohesion is a support of social cohesion. That is why we need to systematise solidarity between the young and senior generations.
And to analyse in greater depth how meeting the needs of an ageing population (healthcare; elderly homes; equipment) can create jobs and business opportunities for other generations. Each group forms part of the solution for the other group. People of all ages give meaning to each other, bringing and adding meaning to each other. We need collective infrastructure but we need also direct care of children vis-à-vis their parents. Sophisticated societies as ours can learn a lot of less developed societies.