Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T03:21:32.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

35 - Addressing the participation gap in institutional investment: an assessment framework and preliminary results

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2014

By
Tim Cadman  and
Tek Maraseni
Edited by
James P. Hawley ,
Andreas G. F. Hoepner ,
Keith L. Johnson ,
Joakim Sandberg  and
Edward J. Waitzer
Tim Cadman
Affiliation:
Griffith University
Tek Maraseni
Affiliation:
University of Southern Queensland
James P. Hawley
Affiliation:
St Mary's College, California
Andreas G. F. Hoepner
Affiliation:
ICMA Centre, Henley Business School, University of Reading
Keith L. Johnson
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Joakim Sandberg
Affiliation:
University of Gothenburg
Edward J. Waitzer
Affiliation:
York University, Toronto
Get access

Summary

Introduction

This chapter shows how fiduciary duty and the governance quality of investment can be understood using a stakeholder-based approach. In the past, stakeholders were effectively passive economic actors, who were supposed to just sit back and reap rewards. This view is increasingly being challenged by the assertion that large investors should care about governance as well as economic outcomes, and have both a right and a responsibility to ensure that assets are managed in a way that is socially and environmentally beneficial for all stakeholders. Contemporary governance theory argues for a wider understanding of stakeholders, which, in the case of investment, encompasses both financial and nonfinancial interests. This chapter examines the changing nature of “stakeholderism,” and explores its tensions and contradictions, using responsible investment as a case study. A survey of stakeholders involved in responsible investment follows. The results reveal interesting views about the governance quality of some central aspects of the sector’s architecture, and thus provide useful learning points for institutional investment and fiduciary duty in general.

Changing conceptions of stakeholder rights and responsibilities

It has been argued that developments in institutional governance in the wake of the 1992 Rio “Earth” Summit, with its emphasis on sustainable development, necessitate a fundamental rethink of what constitutes a “stakeholder” in investment that claims to be truly “responsible.” The definition has become far more all-encompassing, and now includes non-governmental organizations (NGOs, sometime also referred to as civil society or civil society organizations – CSOs), the general public and local communities, unions, private business, ethical shareholder groups and small shareholders, as well as traditional interests such as governments, regulatory authorities and large-scale investors (Cadman 2011a). If it is accepted that the investment community is made up of a wide range of participants, from traditional “internal” interests (e.g., banks, financial advisors and asset managers) to “external” groups in civil society, and that these interests all have a “stake” in investment activities, it is necessary to look beyond “corporate” governance as a means of determining the legitimacy of current financial practice (Cadman 2011b).

Type
Chapter
Information
Cambridge Handbook of Institutional Investment and Fiduciary Duty , pp. 452 - 465
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Accountability. 2005. Stakeholder Engagement Standard Exposure Draft. London: Accountability.Google Scholar
Bebchuk, L. and Hamdani, A.. 2009. “The Elusive Quest for Global Governance Standards,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 157 (5): 1263–317.Google Scholar
Burns, A. and Burns, R.. 2008. Basic Marketing Research, 2nd edn. New Jersey: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Cadman, T. 2011a. “The Legitimacy of ESG Standard as an Analytical Framework for Responsible Investment,” in Vanderkerckhove, W., Leys, J., Alm, K., Scholtens, B., Signori, S. and Schäfer, H. (eds.) Responsible Investment in Times of Turmoil. London and New York: Springer, pp. 35–54.Google Scholar
Cadman, T. 2011b. “Evaluating the Governance of Responsible Investment,” Journal of Sustainable Finance and Investment 1 (1): 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cadman, T. 2011c. Quality and Legitimacy of Global Governance: Case Lessons from Forestry. Houndmills and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clapp, J. 2005. “Global Environmental Governance for Corporate Responsibility and Accountability,” Global Environmental Politics 5 (3): 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Detomasi, D. 2006. “International Regimes: The Case of Western Corporate Governance,” International Studies Review 8: 225–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, T. and Preston, L. E.. 1995. “The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications,” Academy of Management Review 20 (1): 65–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falkner, R. 2003. “Private Environmental Governance and International Relations: Exploring the Links,” Global Environmental Politics 3 (2): 72–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorino, D. 1996. “Environmental Policy and the Participation Gap in Democracy and the Environment,” in Lafferty, W. M. and Meadowcroft, J. (eds.) Democracy and the Environment: Problems and Prospects. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 194–201.Google Scholar
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P. and Norberg, J.. 2005. “Adaptive Governance of Social-ecological Systems,” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30: 441–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. 2005. A Legal Framework for the Integration of Environmental, Social and Governance Issues into Institutional Investment. Geneva: UNEP FI.Google Scholar
Garten, J. 1999. “Lessons for the Next Financial Crisis,” Foreign Affairs 78 (2): 76–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Global Compact and UNEP FI. 2009a. The Principles for Responsible Investment. .Google Scholar
Global Compact and UNEP FI 2009b. Signatories to the Principles for Responsible Investment. .Google Scholar
Global Corporate Governance Forum. 2010. Global Corporate Governance Forum: Better Companies, Better Societies. .Google Scholar
Global Corporate Governance Forum and International Finance Corporation. Undated. Stakeholder Engagement and the Board: Integrating Best Governance Practices. Washington, DC: Global Corporate Governance Forum and International Finance Corporation.
Global Reporting Initiative. 2008. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines & Financial Services Sector Supplement. Amsterdam: GRI.Google Scholar
Hamilton, I. and Eriksson, J.. 2010. Influence Strategies in Shareholder Engagement – A Study of Five Swedish National Pension Funds’ Approaches to Responsible Investment. Paper presented at PRI Academic Conference, May 5–7, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
Hawley, J. and Williams, A.. 2000. The Rise of Fiduciary Capitalism: How Institutional Investors Can Make Corporate America More Democratic. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Hawley, J. and Williams, A. 2005. “Shifting Ground: Emerging Global Corporate-governance Standards and the Rise of Fiduciary Capitalism,” Environment and Planning 37: 1995–2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilb, M. 2009. “New Corporate Governance in the Post-crisis World,” Private Sector Opinion 16: 3–11.Google Scholar
Jänicke, M. 1992. “Conditions for Environmental Policy Success: An International Comparison,” The Environmentalist 12: 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jänicke, M. 1996. “Democracy as a Condition for Environmental Policy Success: The Importance of Non-institutional Factors,” in Lafferty, W. M. and Meadowcroft, J. (eds.) Democracy and the Environment: Problems and Prospects. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 71–85.Google Scholar
Jordan, A., Wurzel, R. and Zito, A.. 2005. “The Rise of ‘New’ Policy Instruments in Comparative Perspectives: Has Governance Eclipsed Government?” Political Studies 53: 441–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerwer, D. 2006. “Governing Financial Markets by International Standards,” in Koenig-Archibugi, M. and Zürn, M. (eds.) New Modes of Governance in the Global System: Exploring Publicness, Delegation and Inclusiveness. Basingstoke and London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 77–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koenig-Archibugi, M. 2006. “Introduction: Institutional Diversity in Global Governance,” in Koenig-Archibugi, M. and Zürn, M. (eds.) New Modes of Governance in the Global System: Exploring Publicness, Delegation and Inclusiveness. Basingstoke and London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kooiman, J. 1993. “Social-Political Governance: Introduction,” in Kooiman, J. (ed.) Modern Governance: New Government Society Interactions. London: Sage, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
Lammerts van Beuren, E. and Blom, E.. 1997. Hierarchical Framework for the Formulation of Sustainable Forest Management Standards. Leiden, Netherlands: The Tropenbos Foundation.Google Scholar
Manfreda, K. L., Batagelj, Z. and Vehovar, V.. 2002. “Design of Web Survey Questionnaires: Three Basic Experiments,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 7 (3).Google Scholar
Meidinger, E. 2006. “The Administrative Law of Global Private-public Regulation: The Case of Forestry,” European Journal of International Law 17 (1): 47–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R. and Wood, D. J.. 1997. “Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts,” Academy of Management Review 22 (4): 853–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierre, J. and Peters, B.. 2000. Governance, Politics and the State. Houndmills: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Ransome, W. and Sampford, C.. 2010. Ethics and Socially Responsible Investment. Farnham and Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Richardson, B. 2010. From Fiduciary Duties to Fiduciary Relationships for Socially Responsible Investment. Paper presented at PRI Academic Conference, May 5–7, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
Ruggie, J. 1998. “What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge,” International Organization 52 (4): 855–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruggie, J. 2003. “Taking Embedded Liberalism Global: The Corporate Connection,” in Koenig-Archibugi, M. and Zürn, M. (eds.) New Modes of Governance in the Global System: Exploring Publicness, Delegation and Inclusiveness. Basingstoke and London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 93–129.Google Scholar
Skjærseth, J., Stokke, O. and Wettestad, J.. 2006. “Soft Law, Hard Law, and Effective Implementation,” Global Environmental Politics 6 (3): 104–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiglitz, J. 2003. “Globalization and Development,” in Koenig-Archibugi, M. and Zürn, M. (eds.) New Modes of Governance in the Global System: Exploring Publicness, Delegation and Inclusiveness. Basingstoke and London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 47–67.Google Scholar
UNEP FI. 2009a. Sustainability Reporting. .Google Scholar
UNEP FI 2009b. Our Signatories. .Google Scholar
UNEP FI and Mercer. 2007. Demystifying Responsible Investment Performance. Geneva: UNEP FI and Mercer.Google Scholar
UNGC and GCGF. 2009. Corporate Governance: The Foundation for Corporate Citizenship and Sustainable Businesses. New York and Washington, DC: UNGC and GCGF.Google Scholar
Utting, P. and Marques, P. C.. 2010. “Introduction: The Intellectual Crisis of CSR,” in Utting, P. and Marques, J. C. (eds.) Corporate Social Responsibility and Regulatory Governance. London and Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Selm, M. and Jankowski, N. W.. 2006. “Conducting Online Surveys,” Quality and Quantity 40 (3): 435–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Vliet, M. 1993. “Environmental Regulation of Business: Options and Constraints for Communicative Governance,” in Kooiman, J. (ed.) Modern Governance: New Government Society Interactions. London: Sage, pp. 105–18.Google Scholar
Waddock, S. 2008. “Building a New Institutional Infrastructure for Corporate Responsibility,” The Academy of Management Perspectives 22 (3): 87–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitman, J. 2005. The Limits of Global Governance. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Yaron, G. 2003. “Canadian Institutional Shareholder Activism in an Era of Globalisation,” in Sarra, J. P. (ed.) Corporate Governance in Global Capital Markets. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×