Close Search
 
MEDIA, JOBS & RESOURCES for the COMMON GOOD

Shareholder activism might sound good, but it’s delusional to think it will change anything much


12 November 2019 at 8:42 am
Contributor
Don't expect institutional investors to become activists for change to make corporations more responsible. More direct approaches are urgently needed, write Warren Staples and Andrew Linden from RMIT University.


Contributor | 12 November 2019 at 8:42 am


0 Comments


 Print
Shareholder activism might sound good, but it’s delusional to think it will change anything much
12 November 2019 at 8:42 am

Don’t expect institutional investors to become activists for change to make corporations more responsible. More direct approaches are urgently needed, write Warren Staples and Andrew Linden from RMIT University.

In the wake of systemic corporate misconduct scandals such as those brought to light in the banking royal commission, and issues such as income inequality and climate change, there are growing public demands for increased corporate accountability and less emphasis on shareholder returns.

Corporate governance reform has become a hot button political issue and big business is feeling nervous.

“Social licence to operate” and “trust” are now popular buzzwords in board land.

While company annual general meetings (AGMs) have long been the forum for individual vocal and activist shareholders to embarrass boards, large shareholders are increasingly being criticised for not pressuring company boards enough to be more socially and environmentally responsible.

But relying on shareholders to make corporations more accountable and socially responsible is misguided. There are far more direct and systemically effective measures available to do that.

What are institutional investors?

Large shareholders can be wealthy individuals and other corporations, but so-called institutional investors are now by far the most dominant shareholders in terms of total funds under management, and in most cases, voting power at corporate AGMs.

Institutional investors are a mix of commercial, state and not-for-profit entities such as investment banks, unit trusts, insurance companies, pension funds, hedge funds, sovereign wealth funds, and charitable organisations that invest on behalf of, or for the benefit of others.

Because they’re intermediaries it’s argued institutional investors are morally responsible where they invest and how they vote at corporate AGMs. Because they invest widely, a whole advisory industry has grown to guide institutional investors. Stock exchange corporate governance codes encourage boards and senior executives to “engage” and have a “meaningful dialogue” with institutional investors because of their perceived expertise and knowledge.

In this context, institutional investors are seen as pivotal actors to influence corporate boards. Shareholder activism by institutional investors is seen as the way to improve corporate accountability.

That’s why institutional investors are being pressured by high profile shareholder activists, others in the wider community and politicians to be more active and exercise their voice to pressure boards on an increasingly diverse range of issues. This includes things like executive pay, carbon intensive investments and social issues.

Some institutional investors, such as the Rockefeller Foundation, do have a growing record of advocacy on important issues such as climate change. This activism, while laudable, is not a systemically effective solution.

Shareholder activism won’t work

Aside from the fact most shareholder resolutions are non-binding, the interests of institutional investors are not always the same. As well-intentioned US and Canadian pension funds discovered in their campaign to stop Google using tax havens, fellow institutional investors sided with Google’s founders to vote down their shareholder proposal.

Institutional investors are large, sometimes foreign entities, often with their own shareholders. It’s not always clear whose interests an institutional investor is representing when it meets with CEOs and boards.

Most shareholders, including institutional investors, remain largely uninterested unless they are being hurt financially. This is exemplified in the pattern of voting at Australian bank AGMs.

In the decade preceding the Banking Royal Commission, few institutional investors questioned why Australian banks were consistently among the most profitable in the world. Shareholders have only cared about runaway CEO salaries when things aren’t going their way.

And unfortunately, giving shareholders more voice will create perverse problems.

First, the mechanisms allowing well-intentioned institutional investors more influence over boards will also allow other large investors greater say. For example, Gina Rinehart’s controversial foray into newspaper publishing may well have succeeded in a more shareholder activist-friendly environment.

Second, allowing greater shareholder voice will undermine the responsibilities and duties public companies and their directors already have. For example, the public interest duties of directors include ensuring corporations do not trade while insolvent.

What has to happen instead

Institutional shareholder activism is not likely to systemically improve governance and accountability because they’re primarily concerned with returns. And there’s no evidence they will consistently work together in ways that promote the wider community interest.

Instead what we really need is real corporate governance reform, better leadership from government, and regulatory oversight.

We already know from GFC research that well designed corporate governance including two-tiered boards and worker/union representation on boards improves accountability. Stricter lobbying prohibitions can prevent corporations undermining attempts to tackle issues like climate change.

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority is already re-emphaising directors’ duties in mitigating climate change risk. These duties should be strengthened rather than being undermined by unaccountable and un-elected institutional investors trying to exert greater influence which may or may not coincide with the public interest.

Greater oversight by key public agencies to improve corporate accountability is also important.

Finally, better regulation designed to directly address issues such as climate change, wage theft and inequality and more intense enforcement of those regulations will be much more effective than the theatre created by encouraging shareholder activism.

The Conversation

About the authors: Warren Staples is a senior lecturer in management at RMIT University and Andrew Linden is a sessional lecturer for PhD (management) candidate in the School of Management at RMIT University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.



PB Careers
Get your biweekly dose of news, opinion and analysis to keep you up to date with what’s happening and why it matters for you, sent every Tuesday and Thursday morning.

Got a story to share?

Got a news tip or article idea for Pro Bono News? Or perhaps you would like to write an article and join a growing community of sector leaders sharing their thoughts and analysis with Pro Bono News readers? Get in touch at news@probonoaustralia.com.au or download our contributor guidelines.

Advertisement

CFRE

Get more stories like this

FREE SOCIAL
SECTOR NEWS

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

Why enter the Oscars of purpose-led business?

Contributor

Thursday, 17th September 2020 at 8:00 am

New corporate reporting approach to unite impact and profit

Maggie Coggan

Monday, 14th September 2020 at 6:11 pm

Corporate philanthropy: Community benefit or reputation washing

Maggie Coggan

Thursday, 13th August 2020 at 8:00 am

Bridging the digital divide, one desktop computer at a time

Sue Karzis

Monday, 10th August 2020 at 3:29 pm

pba inverse logo
Subscribe Twitter Facebook
×