New information and evidence challenge equilibrium models. Fluctuations among livestock in African rangelands and northern fur seals in the Pacific Ocean do not conform to models of competition for resources maintaining populations in equilibrium. Rather than the self-interested competition for resources predicted by the tragedy of the commons, many societies regulate resource use through cooperative arrangements. Evidence from several disciplines undermines the concept of a stable climax association that perpetuates itself indefinitely. Some so-called climax communities depend on disturbances, including natural or anthropogenic burning. Some ecosystems have multiple stable states, and some reach irreversible tipping points, which are becoming more likely because of climate change. Viewing nature as in flux rather than in balance addresses these issues, while the current scale of environmental change infuses a sense of urgency into these discussions.

The failure of stewardship by many colonialists is so profound that their blunder and neglect essentially mirror the same political and market forces that drive the climate crisis. Decolonising climate action thus requires the recognition, acknowledgement, and closure of histories of racism and greed.

The early seventh-century papyrus from the St Sergius Monastery at Nessana in Roman Third Palestine (Negev desert, Israel) illustrates how early byzantine monastic stewards categorized and handled lay donations. Called an ‘Account of Church Offerings’, P.Ness. III 79 preserves registers that formally separate gifts called ‘blessings’ (eulogiai) from ‘offerings’ (prosphorai). Though unique in the papyrus record, such categorical distinctions are also implied by contemporary hagiography; P.Ness III 79 confirms that monks formally recognized a categorical difference between these two types of gifts, as implied by hagiography. Moreover, hagiography indicates that blessings were considered gifts that did not oblige their recipients to give anything in return, while offerings expected recipients to provide some sort of service. Marks placed next to entries of offerings in P.Ness III 79 suggest that concern for obligation guided monastic stewardship practices. Such monastic practices and concerns may be illuminated by distinctions drawn between restricted and unrestricted gifts by modern non-profits.

Although the dominant meaning of virtue today concerns human ethical capacity, the word had a much broader scope in Aristotle’s natural philosophy and in early-modern herbal and agricultural literature. This chapter tackles this ecological sense of “vertue” (as it was often spelled in the period), unpacking the resilient force it named in natural matter and the skill and virtue of stewardship it solicited from the humans entangled in its management in household, garden, or apothecary. As this chapter shows through readings of examples from Shakespeare, early modern practical texts, and modern environmental thinking, stewardship and resilience promise to capture the skills and virtues of household management in its broadest sense, to include care for the oikos shared by human and nonhuman creatures and systems – especially, in contemporary settings, in times of catastrophe. As keywords of contemporary environmental ethics, however, they have also been criticized for individualizing environmental virtue, undermining necessary structural change in favor of personal care and tenacity. This chapter suggests we might clarify this debate through a return to early modern vertues, by engaging the powers of nonhuman virtues and the legacy of these mixed and distributed agencies in the present.

This chapter interrogates trends in how the natural world is taken up, governed and constituted by international law, in particular the growing marketisation of environmental governance. This chapter suggests it is fruitful to understand these contemporary forms of governance as constituted by the co-articulation of two older anthropocentric modalities of exercising power over nature: appropriative domination and stewardship. It provides a background to both these modalities, showing that though these are often understood as opposites, on a deeper level they are similar. It suggests that the ‘offset’ relation is the paradigmatic example of the co-articulation of these two modalities, as the ‘offset’ establishes a relationship between activities that damage the environment at one site and activities intended to protect, repair, or improve the environment elsewhere. This chapter situates such mechanisms as one element of a broader project to make nature legible in economic terms. In closing, this chapter considers the effects of the rise of ‘green governmentality’ and maps the terrain against which struggles for different nature/human relations take place.

Distinguishing between kinds of anthropocentrism and of biocentrism helps to disclose that White’s critique of theistic religions as anthropocentric and despotic miscarries, as does the different critique on the part of Passmore of ‘Greco-Christian arrogance’. The longstanding stewardship tradition of Christianity, Judaism and Islam facilitates an eco-friendly approach to the environment, particularly in its biocentric versions, and can be defended against criticisms from Palmer and Lovelock. Southgate, who misunderstands biocentrism as synonymous with Deep Ecology, favours both co-creation and stewardship; these approaches can be combined with each other and with Bauckham’s theme of the community of God’s creatures. Northcott does well to trace back modern ecological problems to seventeenth-century anti-communal and possessive individualism and the attitudes and practices emerging therefrom, but his communitarian and nature-friendly approach, while rightly understanding humanity as ‘dependent rational animals’ (MacIntyre), needs to become more cosmopolitan if these global problems are to be solved.

By distancing creation from nature Christianity rejected freer notions of nature as pagan or pantheist, while imposing a gender hierarchy that rivaled in orthodox fixity creation-from-nothing. Despite the advance of scientific rationalism, Enlightenment culture did not overthrow Christian gender hierarchy. While the ecofeminist movement seized on the liberation of women to bring about ecological change, its agenda stagnated when its activism decreased. Applying a critical-theological reading, this article sees gender hierarchy as subtly read into the Christian exegesis of Genesis rather than flowing from biblical revelation. Acknowledging our current culture as interreligious, it points to two movements forwards, pertaining to gender and creation. First, by locating gender roles in the Trinity, we can loosen the ties with creation and link them to the issue of difference. Second, based on the medieval theological parallelism of nature and scripture one can argue that, in an era where scriptural literacy has lost much of its force, nature can assume a prophetic role. This allows us to reconceive the nature complex insofar as it calls not only for the unity of all creatures as well as of all genders, but ultimately also for the unity of creation with the Creator, what Eriugena called, the unity of all natures.

The landscape of contemporary religious ecology is presented in this article as a variety of responses to disenchantment and what Lynn White identified as the theological roots of environmental ruin (Biblical divine transcendence and human exceptionality). The various positions are mapped in terms of those who deny divine transcendence and make nature, either as actually or only potentially infinite, the highest (pantheists); those who deny divine unicity and return to a pre-Christian, “enchanted” nature (neo-pagans); and those who defend in various ways the ecology of the Biblical account of creation (Jewish, Muslim, and Christian monotheists).

This chapter frames the historical and theological development of American Protestant understandings of work and vocation around three themes. First, American Protestant theologies of work and vocation reflect an ongoing tension between the spiritual and temporal planes. Second, American Protestant practices and articulations of work and vocation are interwoven with prevailing American Protestant theologies: eschatology, doctrines of God, anthropology, and soteriology. Yet, despite this, American Protestant understandings of work and vocation frequently exhibit theological inconsistency. Finally, a third theme prompting consideration is the heightened and somewhat unique context of consumerism that shapes American Protestant understandings of work and vocation. Consumerism presents an especially potent challenge for contemporary American Protestants who must resist the subtle co-opting of theologically informed understandings of work and vocation by the “consumerist machine.”

This Chapter outlines the broader Brazilian stewardship framework by assessing both the public and private rules applicable to investment and pension funds considering their fiduciary duties. It analyses the background and rules of the first and only Brazilian Stewardship Code, launched in 2016 by AMEC. Note that the Brazilian companies have historically concentrated ownership amongst a few companies with managerial control and institutional investors are usually minority shareholders, with a limited influence on the investee companies’ corporate governance. The chapter argues that despite the existence of various stewardship initiatives, there is no sound effort by public and private regulators to monitor and to enforce these rules and principles. There is also no clear endeavour from the public and private regulators to align their norms in relation to stewardship related duties.

The nature of stewardship varies based on shareholder structures. In the Nordic region (similar to many Asian jurisdictions), the role of states, sovereign holding companies and wealth funds, other public market actors such as public pension funds, families, family-controlled investment companies and family-based foundations is significant compared to (other) national and international institutional investors. In this chapter, we discuss the peculiarities of Nordic stewardship as a backdrop for our analysis of Norwegian stewardship, which is dominated by the state and the municipalities, but also to some extent by private investors. In Part II we discuss the Nordic stewardship in light of international stewardship discussion, before concentrating on Norway and the current regulatory framework of stewardship there in Part III, reflecting on the Norwegian choices concerning stewardship in light of global challenges. Part IV reflectss on why a stewardship code is not needed in Norway. What Norway does need, is a clear and mandatory regulation to ensure that Norwegian business and finance contribute to the transition to sustainability. A stewardship code would not be a sufficiently strong measure. Conversely, it could hold Norwegian business and finance back in the face of the rapid developments on EU and international level.

Regulators and commentators around the world are increasingly demanding that institutional investors engage in stewardship with respect to their portfolio companies. Further, the demand for stewardship has broadened from an expectation that investors engage to reduce agency costs and promote economic value to a call for investors to demand that companies serve a broader range of societal interests and objectives. This chapter considers calls for stewardship in the context of the U.S. capital markets specifically as applied to index funds. It argues that, irrespective of the merits of institutional stewardship generally, the structure of index funds and the business environment in which they operate limit their ability to engage in effective stewardship. Although index fund sponsors have had a powerful influence on their portfolio companies, well-intentioned calls for them to play a more significant role and, in particular, claims that they should incorporate non-economic objectives more broadly into their engagement strategy, are in tension with the valuable role that index funds serve in the U.S. markets by providing a low-cost diversified investment option for an increasing segment of ordinary citizens. The chapter concludes by considering the possibility of using pass-through voting to enhance the stewardship potential of index funds.

The chapter analyses the market for stewardship, as it has been developing in the UK. The 2020 UK Stewardship Code more clearly than previous stewardship codes (both in the UK and elsewhere) articulates the concept of a market for stewardship. The UK Code 2020 takes into account the position of end-investors and beneficiaries. The hope is that stewardship will be delivered because those whose money is invested ask for it. We agree that stewardship does start with those who contribute the funds invested in the market. The focus on end-investors and beneficiaries is, however, not enough. By limiting the analysis to these groups, the UK government overlooks the fact that it is itself a financial contributor to the market. A study commissioned by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) finds, for example, that 90% of the revenue of investment consultants and fiduciary managers derives from pensions. The government contributes to pension investments through the provision of tax credit. It is a significant financial investor in the market. Tax credit also deprives end-investors and beneficiaries of a financial incentive to oversee asset owners, asset managers and other service providers. We suggest that the UK government should act as a steward in relation to its own investment and tailor tax credit to investments that are stewardship-active.

The United Kingdom’s idea to adopt a stewardship code sparked a global shareholder stewardship movement. Unsurprisingly, Singapore as a corporate governance leader in Asia, adopted a stewardship code. Based on a superficial textual analysis, the Singapore Code appears to be a near carbon copy of the UK Code. However, this Article, which provides the first in-depth comparative analysis of stewardship in Singapore, demonstrates how Singapore has turned the UK model of stewardship on its head. Rather than enhancing the shareholder voice of institutional investors, shareholder stewardship has been used in Singapore as a mechanism for entrenching its successful state-controlled and family-controlled system of corporate governance. This development has been entirely overlooked by prominent international observers and would be beyond the wildest imaginations of the original architects of the UK Code. Viewed through an Anglo–American lens, this use of “stewardship” may suggest that Singapore has engaged in a corporate governance sham. However, this Article argues the opposite: it appears to be a secret to Singapore’s continued corporate governance success and provides a much-needed Asian (as opposed to Anglo–American) model of good corporate governance for Asia.

Within less than twenty years the idea of shareholder stewardship has become a global phenomenon. In 2010, the United Kingdom released the world’s first stewardship code to cure what was perceived to be the UK’s primary corporate governance malady: rationally passive institutional investors in a country characterised by a dispersed ownership structure. Today, UK-style stewardship codes exist in 20 jurisdictions, on 6 continents, and are embedded in a panoply of legal systems, shareholder markets, and corporate cultures. This introductory Chapter to the Global Shareholder Stewardship edited book explains why shareholder stewardship around the world is far more complex than the existing literature suggests and how this complexity impacts current theories and existing practices. To explain complexity, the Chapter provides a loose taxonomy of global shareholder stewardship and examines stewardship from multiple perspectives. This complexity, which has largely been overlooked in the literature, creates distinct varieties of stewardship. Based on the distinct varieties of stewardship in jurisdictions around the world, this Chapter concludes by illuminating the challenges and possibilities of global shareholder stewardship. The taxonomy also serves as a useful lens for observing the common themes and points of intersection that make the whole of this Book greater than the sum of its individual Chapters.

Hong Kong’s Principles of Responsible Ownership offer a telling example of what it means to be an international financial centre (IFC) in twenty-first-century Asia. The point of this stewardship code is to nudge institutional investors towards responsible voice and away from careless action and exit. This meets problems seen nearly a century ago by Berle and Means, and perhaps also displayed by aggressive activist shareholders in the 2010s. However, none of these motivational maladies are real for Hong Kong, where listed companies tend to be controlled by ‘entrepreneurial’ owners – families or very large holding companies. Such owners are active, informed and long-term-oriented, three adjectives associated with responsible ownership. Thus, a stewardship code fits Hong Kong poorly but for the fact that it is an IFC. The business of an IFC is to attract capital and listings from the entire world. The business model demands use of globally popular standards, even if poorly matched to local needs. This chapter examines how the signal sent by HK stewardship to London or New York financial institutions is more important than its real impact on market behaviour in Hong Kong.