IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i2p532-d307442.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Company Receptivity in Private Dialogue on Sustainability Risks

Author

Listed:
  • Natalia Semenova

    (School of Business and Economics, Linnaeus University, 351 95 Växjö, Sweden)

Abstract

This study examines empirically the efficiency of private collaborative dialogues between Nordic institutional investors and companies included in the MSCI (Morgan Stanley Capital International) World stock market index. It contributes to an understanding of the conditions that allow active institutional investors to elect to work with more receptive and progressive companies and improve the efficiency of private engagement and dialogue. Stakeholder silence theory and Gond et al.’s model of company perceptions of enablers and barriers to the success of engagement are introduced to analyse the efficiency of private dialogue. The study investigates a proprietary dataset covering the characteristics of 109 complete dialogue processes related to material environmental, social, and corruption issues. The dialogues are led by a professional engagement agent in collaboration with its Nordic clients. The multivariate regression analysis shows that sustainability risk, bureaucracy, and experience are the specific conditions under which the target company can become more receptive to activism by making more progress to address institutional investors’ requests during the hidden dialogue process.

Suggested Citation

  • Natalia Semenova, 2020. "Company Receptivity in Private Dialogue on Sustainability Risks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-14, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:2:p:532-:d:307442
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/2/532/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/2/532/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sandra A. Waddock & Samuel B. Graves, 1997. "The Corporate Social Performance–Financial Performance Link," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(4), pages 303-319, April.
    2. Fabrizio Ferraro & Daniel Beunza, 2018. "Creating Common Ground: A Communicative Action Model of Dialogue in Shareholder Engagement," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(6), pages 1187-1207, December.
    3. Noushi Rahman & Corinne Post, 2012. "Measurement Issues in Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility (ECSR): Toward a Transparent, Reliable, and Construct Valid Instrument," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 105(3), pages 307-319, February.
    4. Nadja Guenster & Rob Bauer & Jeroen Derwall & Kees Koedijk, 2011. "The Economic Value of Corporate Eco†Efficiency," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 17(4), pages 679-704, September.
    5. Jill Frances Solomon & Aris Solomon, 2006. "Private social, ethical and environmental disclosure," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 19(4), pages 564-591, July.
    6. McDonnell, Mary-Hunter & King, Brayden & Soule, Sarah A., 2015. "A Dynamic Process Model of Private Politics: Activist Targeting and Corporate Receptivity to Social Challenges," Research Papers 3319, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    7. E. Gifford, 2010. "Effective Shareholder Engagement: The Factors that Contribute to Shareholder Salience," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 92(1), pages 79-97, April.
    8. Jennifer Goodman & Céline Louche & Katinka Cranenburgh & Daniel Arenas, 2014. "Social Shareholder Engagement: The Dynamics of Voice and Exit," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 125(2), pages 193-210, December.
    9. Jacob Brower & Vijay Mahajan, 2013. "Driven to Be Good: A Stakeholder Theory Perspective on the Drivers of Corporate Social Performance," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 117(2), pages 313-331, October.
    10. Krüger, Philipp, 2015. "Corporate goodness and shareholder wealth," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 304-329.
    11. Solomon, Jill F. & Solomon, Aris & Joseph, Nathan L. & Norton, Simon D., 2013. "Impression management, myth creation and fabrication in private social and environmental reporting: Insights from Erving Goffman," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 195-213.
    12. Stephen J. Brammer & Stephen Pavelin, 2006. "Corporate Reputation and Social Performance: The Importance of Fit," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(3), pages 435-455, May.
    13. Jeanne Logsdon & Harry Buren, 2009. "Beyond the Proxy Vote: Dialogues Between Shareholder Activists and Corporations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 87(1), pages 353-365, April.
    14. Gordon L Clark & James Salo & Tessa Hebb, 2008. "Social and Environmental Shareholder Activism in the Public Spotlight: US Corporate Annual Meetings, Campaign Strategies, and Environmental Performance, 2001–04," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 40(6), pages 1370-1390, June.
    15. Parthiban David & Matt Bloom & Amy J. Hillman, 2007. "Investor activism, managerial responsiveness, and corporate social performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 91-100, January.
    16. Gordon L Clark & Tessa Hebb, 2005. "Why Should They Care? The Role of Institutional Investors in the Market for Corporate Global Responsibility," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 37(11), pages 2015-2031, November.
    17. Duncan McLaren, 2004. "Global Stakeholders: corporate accountability and investor engagement," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(2), pages 191-201, April.
    18. Kathleen Rehbein & Jeanne Logsdon & Harry Buren, 2013. "Corporate Responses to Shareholder Activists: Considering the Dialogue Alternative," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 112(1), pages 137-154, January.
    19. Tracy Artiach & Darren Lee & David Nelson & Julie Walker, 2010. "The determinants of corporate sustainability performance," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 50(1), pages 31-51, March.
    20. Jill F. Solomon & Aris Solomon & Simon D. Norton & Nathan L. Joseph, 2011. "Private climate change reporting: an emerging discourse of risk and opportunity?," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 24(8), pages 1119-1148, October.
    21. Chris Mason & John Simmons, 2014. "Embedding Corporate Social Responsibility in Corporate Governance: A Stakeholder Systems Approach," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 119(1), pages 77-86, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Natalia Semenova, 2023. "The Public Effect of Private Sustainability Reporting: Evidence from Incident-Based Engagement Strategy," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 182(2), pages 559-572, January.
    2. Jennifer Goodman & Céline Louche & Katinka Cranenburgh & Daniel Arenas, 2014. "Social Shareholder Engagement: The Dynamics of Voice and Exit," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 125(2), pages 193-210, December.
    3. Rachelle Belinga & Blanche Segrestin, 2016. "Proxy voting policies as tools for shareholder engagement in CSR: an exploratory study," Post-Print hal-01312918, HAL.
    4. Hadani, Michael & Doh, Jonathan P. & Schneider, Marguerite, 2019. "Social movements and corporate political activity: Managerial responses to socially oriented shareholder activism," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 156-170.
    5. Fabrizio Ferraro & Daniel Beunza, 2018. "Creating Common Ground: A Communicative Action Model of Dialogue in Shareholder Engagement," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(6), pages 1187-1207, December.
    6. Caroline Flammer & Michael W. Toffel & Kala Viswanathan, 2021. "Shareholder activism and firms' voluntary disclosure of climate change risks," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(10), pages 1850-1879, October.
    7. Al-Shaer, Habiba & Uyar, Ali & Kuzey, Cemil & Karaman, Abdullah S., 2023. "Do shareholders punish or reward excessive CSR engagement? Moderating effect of cash flow and firm growth," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    8. Natalia Semenova, 2021. "Management control systems in response to social and environmental risk in large Nordic companies," International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-11, December.
    9. Shahid Ali & Junrui Zhang & Muhammad Usman & Muhammad Kaleem Khan & Farman Ullah Khan & Muhammad Abubakkar Siddique, 2020. "Do tournament incentives motivate chief executive officers to be socially responsible?," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 35(5), pages 597-619, February.
    10. Saeed Janani & Ranjit M. Christopher & Atanas Nik Nikolov & Michael A. Wiles, 2022. "Marketing experience of CEOs and corporate social performance," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 50(3), pages 460-481, May.
    11. Tamas Barko & Martijn Cremers & Luc Renneboog, 2022. "Shareholder Engagement on Environmental, Social, and Governance Performance," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 180(2), pages 777-812, October.
    12. Francisco Javier Forcadell & Antonio Lorena & Elisa Aracil, 2023. "The firm under the spotlight: How stakeholder scrutiny shapes corporate social responsibility and its influence on performance," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 1258-1272, May.
    13. Jun Li & Di (Andrew) Wu, 2020. "Do Corporate Social Responsibility Engagements Lead to Real Environmental, Social, and Governance Impact?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(6), pages 2564-2588, June.
    14. John D’Arcy & Idris Adjerid & Corey M. Angst & Ante Glavas, 2020. "Too Good to Be True: Firm Social Performance and the Risk of Data Breach," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 1200-1223, December.
    15. Daniel L Gamache & François Neville & Jonathan Bundy & Cole E Short, 2020. "Serving differently: CEO regulatory focus and firm stakeholder strategy," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(7), pages 1305-1335, July.
    16. Maria Ruiz‐Castillo & Juan Alberto Aragón‐Correa & Nuria Esther Hurtado‐Torres, 2024. "Independent directors and environmental innovations: How the visibility of public and private shareholders' environmental activism moderates the influence of board independence," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 424-440, February.
    17. Hongquan Chen & Saixing Zeng & Han Lin & Hanyang Ma, 2017. "Munificence, Dynamism, and Complexity: How Industry Context Drives Corporate Sustainability," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 125-141, February.
    18. Abraham, Santhosh & Bamber, Matthew, 2017. "The Q&A: Under surveillance," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 15-31.
    19. Kais Bouslah & Abdelmajid Hmaittane & Lawrence Kryzanowski & Bouchra M’Zali, 2023. "CSR Structures: Evidence, Drivers, and Firm Value Implications," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 185(1), pages 115-145, June.
    20. Ayşe Cingöz & A. Asuman Akdoğan, 2019. "A Study on Determining the Relationships Among Corporate Social Responsibility, Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Ethical Leadership," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(04), pages 1-19, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:2:p:532-:d:307442. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.