Emma Sjöström

We examine how the authority of investors to speak about climate change with corporations is established. Leveraging the ‘communication as constitutive of organisations’ (CCO) perspective, we analyse who speaks on behalf of whom (or what) in shareholder engagement on corporate carbon emissions. Based on access to private dialogues between an engager acting on behalf of a pool of investors with 20 utility corporations, we identify how three authoritative personae—that of diplomat, advocate, and coach—convey climate change concerns. We find that the mirroring of these authoritative personae by corporations may lead to deliberation, evasion, or rejection of the suggested courses of action. We theorise how relational authority is communicatively constituted in shareholder engagement through a process of mirroring and switching between authoritative personae. Our framework contributes to the study of CCO and relational authority by highlighting how meta-figures are used by external actors in an attempt to author appropriate corporate actions. We discuss the implications of our framework for the role of shareholder engagement in current attempts at greening financial capitalism.

Abstract [en] This article advances the idea that shareholders who seek to influence corporate behaviour can be understood analytically as norm entrepreneurs. These are actors who seek to persuade others to adopt a new standard of appropriateness. The article thus goes beyond studies which focus on the influence of shareholder activism on single instances of corporate conduct, as it recognises shareholders' potential as change agents for more widely shared norms about corporate responsibilities. The article includes the empirical example of US internet technology companies who, in their Chinese operations, face conflicts of norm systems in regard to freedom of expression on the internet. Shareholders have been active in seeking to persuade these companies to adopt a norm of adhering to global standards for human rights over restrictions implied by authoritarian regimes to which they deliver services.

Through the practice of socially responsible investment (SRI), shareholders are involved in influencing corporations with regard to their social and environmental responsibilities. This paper focuses on SRI in one of the world's most prominent financial centers, Hong Kong. It explores why the role of SRI as a way of influencing corporate social responsibility in Hong Kong is limited. The study finds that many of the aspects that have facilitated SRI in North America and Europe are not in place in Hong Kong, and gives examples of such factors. It also suggests that the institutional logic that dominates Hong Kong's corporate and financial sectors has not been receptive to the logic that underlies environmental protection and social justice, and that this is an impediment to SRI to gain a foothold in Hong Kong and the Asian region more generally.

A common method for shareholders with a ’Socially Responsible Investment’ (SRI) approach is to systematically avoid controversial sectors, such as alcohol, weapons, gambling and tobacco. This article seeks to understand why the avoidance method is so prevalent among SRI funds and indices even though it can be argued that it is not efficient in influencing corporations’ social responsibility. Based on neo-institutional theory, the study finds that the widespread use of the method can be understood as a way to comply with society’s expectations, reduce ambiguity, and enhance legitimacy, and thereby improve the prospects of survival.

There is a growing body of research on shareholder activism for corporate social and environmental responsibility. This paper maps and synthesizes research on this topic during 1983-2007. Five key themes emerge. (1) Several studies address shareholder proposals in the US, including proposal topics, voting results, and typical targets for such activism. (2) Other studies focus on the effects of shareholder activism on corporate policy and practice. Further, studies have been conducted on shareholder activism by (3) NGOs, (4) unions and (5) pension funds respectively. Based on this review, missing perspectives are identified and suggestions are made for future research directions.

Civil society organisations are increasingly using the financial market to put pressure on corporations regarding issues such as environmental protection, occupational health and safety and respect for human rights. The purpose of this paper is to explore and explain how this is done and how agreement can be reached despite the often-times differing world-views, ideologies and agendas between civil society organisations on the one hand and financial actors and corporations on the other. One of the main conclusions from this paper is that less powerful actors can achieve a sought-after change by translating the problem so that it fits the ideology of actors who do have power to resolve it.

Cross-sectoral partnerships have increasingly been promoted as a solution to environmental and social problems. This presupposes participation of civil society organizations (CSOs). The article probes whether the partnership idea is prevailing among CSOs. The purpose of the study is to explore what underlies CSOs' approaches to interaction with business.

The study finds that, based on their background and tactics for business interaction, CSOs can be divided into Preservers, Protesters, Modifiers and Scrutinizers. Among these, solely the Preservers have a strategy of engaging in partnerships with business. The Protesters, Modifiers and Scrutinizers, on the other hand, take on a strategy of independence. This finding indicates that corporations that seek to successfully partner with CSOs should be wary that such collaboration is not in line with the strategy of all CSOs, and that for the same reasons the prevailing partnership promotion might be problematic.