IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rfinst/v25y2012i1p187-226.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Corporate Governance Objectives of Labor Union Shareholders: Evidence from Proxy Voting

Author

Listed:
  • Ashwini K. Agrawal

Abstract

Labor union pension funds have become increasingly vocal in governance matters; however, their motives are subject to fierce debate. I examine the proxy votes of AFL-CIO union funds around an exogenous change in the union representation of workers across firms. AFL-CIO-affiliated shareholders become significantly less opposed to directors once the AFL-CIO labor organization no longer represents a firm's workers. Other institutional investors, including mutual funds and public pension funds, do not exhibit similar voting behavior. Union opposition is also associated with negative valuation effects. The data suggest that some investors pursue worker interests, rather than maximize shareholder value alone. The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Society for Financial Studies. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com., Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Ashwini K. Agrawal, 2012. "Corporate Governance Objectives of Labor Union Shareholders: Evidence from Proxy Voting," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 25(1), pages 187-226.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rfinst:v:25:y:2012:i:1:p:187-226
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/rfs/hhr081
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Agrawal, Anup & Mandelker, Gershon N., 1990. "Large Shareholders and the Monitoring of Managers: The Case of Antitakeover Charter Amendments," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(2), pages 143-161, June.
    2. Matvos, Gregor & Ostrovsky, Michael, 2010. "Heterogeneity and peer effects in mutual fund proxy voting," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 90-112, October.
    3. Bernard S. Black, 1992. "Institutional Investors And Corporate Governance: The Case For Institutional Voice," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 5(3), pages 19-32, September.
    4. Richard J. Zeckhauser & John Pound, 1990. "Are Large Shareholders Effective Monitors? An Investigation of Share Ownership and Corporate Performance," NBER Chapters, in: Asymmetric Information, Corporate Finance, and Investment, pages 149-180, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Freeman, Richard B, 1986. "The Effect of the Union Wage Differential on Management Opposition and Union Organizing Success," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(2), pages 92-96, May.
    6. Davis, Gerald F. & Kim, E. Han, 2007. "Business ties and proxy voting by mutual funds," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 552-570, August.
    7. Fischer, Paul E. & Gramlich, Jeffrey D. & Miller, Brian P. & White, Hal D., 2009. "Investor perceptions of board performance: Evidence from uncontested director elections," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(2-3), pages 172-189, December.
    8. Barry T. Hirsch, 1991. "Labor Unions and the Economic Performance of Unions," Books from Upjohn Press, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, number luepf.
    9. Benjamin E. Hermalin & Michael S. Weisbach, 1988. "The Determinants of Board Composition," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 19(4), pages 589-606, Winter.
    10. Guercio, Diane Del & Hawkins, Jennifer, 1999. "The motivation and impact of pension fund activism," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 293-340, June.
    11. Franklin Allen & Antonio E. Bernardo & Ivo Welch, 2000. "A Theory of Dividends Based on Tax Clienteles," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 55(6), pages 2499-2536, December.
    12. Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld & Thomas Kochan, 2004. "Taking Stock: Collective Bargaining at the Turn of the Century," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 58(1), pages 3-26, October.
    13. Stephen L. Nesbitt, 1994. "LONG‐TERM REWARDS FROM SHAREHOLDER ACTIVISM: A STUDY OF THE “CalPERS EFFECT”," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 6(4), pages 75-80, January.
    14. Gomez, Rafael & Tzioumis, Konstantinos, 2006. "What do unions do to executive compensation?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 19865, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. repec:bla:jfinan:v:53:y:1998:i:4:p:1335-1362 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Del Guercio, Diane & Seery, Laura & Woidtke, Tracie, 2008. "Do boards pay attention when institutional investor activists "just vote no"?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 84-103, October.
    17. Milton Harris & Artur Raviv, 2010. "Control of Corporate Decisions: Shareholders vs. Management," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 23(11), pages 4115-4147, November.
    18. Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1986. "Large Shareholders and Corporate Control," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(3), pages 461-488, June.
    19. Mitchell A. Petersen, 2009. "Estimating Standard Errors in Finance Panel Data Sets: Comparing Approaches," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 22(1), pages 435-480, January.
    20. Marco Becht & Julian Franks & Colin Mayer & Stefano Rossi, 2010. "Returns to Shareholder Activism: Evidence from a Clinical Study of the Hermes UK Focus Fund," NBER Chapters, in: Corporate Governance, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    21. Brickley, James A. & Lease, Ronald C. & Smith, Clifford Jr., 1988. "Ownership structure and voting on antitakeover amendments," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1-2), pages 267-291, January.
    22. Borokhovich, Kenneth A & Brunarski, Kelly & Harman, Yvette S & Parrino, Robert, 2006. "Variation in the Monitoring Incentives of Outside Stockholders," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 49(2), pages 651-680, October.
    23. Chen, Xia & Harford, Jarrad & Li, Kai, 2007. "Monitoring: Which institutions matter?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 279-305, November.
    24. Wu, YiLin, 2004. "The impact of public opinion on board structure changes, director career progression, and CEO turnover: evidence from CalPERS' corporate governance program," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 199-227, January.
    25. Smith, Michael P, 1996. "Shareholder Activism by Institutional Investors: Evidence for CalPERS," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 51(1), pages 227-252, March.
    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. Renneboog, L.D.R. & Szilagyi, P.G., 2009. "Shareholder Activism through the Proxy Process," Other publications TiSEM cc25d736-2965-4511-b100-1, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    2. Szilagyi, P.G., 2007. "Corporate governance and the agency costs of debt and outside equity," Other publications TiSEM 9520d40a-224f-43a8-9bf9-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    3. Nain, Amrita & Yao, Tong, 2013. "Mutual fund skill and the performance of corporate acquirers," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(2), pages 437-456.
    4. Renneboog, Luc & Szilagyi, Peter G., 2011. "The role of shareholder proposals in corporate governance," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 167-188, February.
    5. Helwege, Jean & Intintoli, Vincent J. & Zhang, Andrew, 2012. "Voting with their feet or activism? Institutional investors’ impact on CEO turnover," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 22-37.
    6. Dasgupta, Amil & Fos, Vyacheslav & Sautner, Zacharias, 2021. "Institutional investors and corporate governance," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112114, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Farizo, Joseph D., 2022. "(Black)Rock the vote: Index funds and opposition to management," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    8. Denes, Matthew R. & Karpoff, Jonathan M. & McWilliams, Victoria B., 2017. "Thirty years of shareholder activism: A survey of empirical research," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 405-424.
    9. Harris, Oneil & Madura, Jeff & Glegg, Charmaine, 2010. "Do managers make takeover financing decisions that circumvent more effective outside blockholders?," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 180-190, May.
    10. Pombo, Carlos & De la hoz, María Camila, 2015. "Institutional Investors and Firm Valuation: Evidence from Latin America," Galeras. Working Papers Series 040, Universidad de Los Andes. Facultad de Administración. School of Management.
    11. Richard Chung & Scott Fung & Szu-Yin Hung, 2012. "Institutional Investors and Firm Efficiency of Real Estate Investment Trusts," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 171-211, June.
    12. Henrik Cronqvist & Rüdiger Fahlenbrach, 2009. "Large Shareholders and Corporate Policies," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 22(10), pages 3941-3976, October.
    13. Hadani, Michael & Goranova, Maria & Khan, Raihan, 2011. "Institutional investors, shareholder activism, and earnings management," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(12), pages 1352-1360.
    14. Jing Huang & Steven R. Matsunaga & Z. Jay Wang, 2020. "The Role of Pension Business Benefits in Institutional Block Ownership and Corporate Governance," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 1959-1989, December.
    15. Chen, Xia & Harford, Jarrad & Li, Kai, 2007. "Monitoring: Which institutions matter?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 279-305, November.
    16. Igor Filatotchev & Oksana Dotsenko, 2015. "Shareholder activism in the UK: types of activists, forms of activism, and their impact on a target’s performance," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 19(1), pages 5-24, February.
    17. Bajo, Emanuele & Barbi, Massimiliano & Bigelli, Marco & Hillier, David, 2013. "The role of institutional investors in public-to-private transactions," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(11), pages 4327-4336.
    18. Alan D. Crane & Andrew Koch, 2018. "Shareholder Litigation and Ownership Structure: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 5-23, January.
    19. Jiekun Huang, 2023. "Thy Neighbor’s Vote: Peer Effects in Proxy Voting," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(7), pages 4169-4189, July.
    20. Balachandran, Balasingham & Williams, Barry, 2018. "Effective governance, financial markets, financial institutions & crises," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 1-15.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • G30 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - General
    • G32 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Financing Policy; Financial Risk and Risk Management; Capital and Ownership Structure; Value of Firms; Goodwill
    • G34 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Mergers; Acquisitions; Restructuring; Corporate Governance
    • G38 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Government Policy and Regulation
    • J51 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor-Management Relations, Trade Unions, and Collective Bargaining - - - Trade Unions: Objectives, Structure, and Effects
    • K22 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Business and Securities Law

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:rfinst:v:25:y:2012:i:1:p:187-226. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sfsssea.html .

    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.