.png)
Introduction:
Shareholder activism has surged in influence, transforming from a niche practice into a powerful force in corporate governance. This shift is driven by the rise of institutional investors, increased focus on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues, and enhanced shareholder organisation through digital platforms.
Historically, shareholder activism focused on financial returns—efforts to improve profitability, cut costs, or alter capital structures. Activists would push for asset sales, mergers, or increased dividends. Today, however, activism encompasses a broader range of issues, particularly ESG concerns. Investors are now advocating for long-term sustainability and responsible business practices, reflecting a shift in societal expectations of corporate behaviour.
Institutional investors like pension funds and hedge funds, with their significant stakes in companies, are major drivers of this trend. They recognize the impact of ESG factors on financial performance and are increasingly supporting campaigns that promote sustainable practices. Additionally, the internet and social media have democratised information, allowing smaller shareholders to unite and exert collective pressure.
The impact of shareholder activism is substantial, leading to changes in corporate governance, strategy, and sustainability practices. This blog will explore how shareholder activism reshapes corporate decision-making, the mechanisms involved, and the challenges and criticisms it faces.
The Evolution of Shareholder Activism
Shareholder activism has transformed from a niche practice into a powerful force shaping corporate governance and strategy. Initially focused on financial returns, early activism aimed to improve profitability through tactics like proxy fights and hostile takeovers. Activists like Carl Icahn and T. Boone Pickens became well-known for their aggressive strategies, often targeting inefficiencies or pursuing asset sales to boost stock prices.
The late 1990s and early 2000s saw institutional investors, such as pension funds and hedge funds, play a more significant role. These investors, with their substantial stakes and resources, began challenging corporate management not only on financial performance but also on governance practices, emphasising transparency and accountability. Hedge funds like Elliott Management and Pershing Square used high-profile campaigns to influence board decisions and strategic direction.
The 2010s introduced a new dimension to activism with a strong focus on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues. Investors recognized that ESG factors could materially impact long-term performance, leading to campaigns demanding sustainable practices and social responsibility. For example, Engine No. 1’s campaign against ExxonMobil in 2021 highlighted how even small investors could drive significant change by addressing climate risk.
The rise of technology and social media has democratised activism, allowing smaller investors to coordinate efforts and amplify their voices. Platforms like Reddit’s r/WallStreetBets exemplify how retail investors can influence markets, challenging traditional power dynamics.
Looking forward, shareholder activism is expected to remain a global phenomenon, with increasing emphasis on ESG issues and the influence of technology. Companies will need to navigate these evolving pressures, balancing shareholder demands with broader stakeholder interests and long-term strategic goals.
Mechanisms of Shareholder Activism
Shareholder activism has evolved into a sophisticated and influential force in the corporate world, with activists deploying a wide range of strategies and tools to effect change in companies. These mechanisms vary in their approach, intensity, and public visibility, but they all share a common goal: to influence corporate decision-making in ways that align with the interests of shareholders. Below, we explore the key mechanisms of shareholder activism, including proxy voting, public campaigns, legal actions, and behind-the-scenes negotiations.
Proxy Voting: Influencing Board Decisions
Proxy voting is one of the most fundamental and widely used tools of shareholder activism. It allows shareholders to vote on corporate matters without attending the company's annual general meeting (AGM) in person. Through proxy voting, shareholders can influence a wide range of issues, including the election of board members, executive compensation, mergers and acquisitions, and other significant corporate policies.
Activists often use proxy voting to challenge the existing board of directors by proposing their own slate of candidates, known as a "proxy contest" or "proxy fight." This approach is particularly common when activists believe that the current board is not acting in the best interests of shareholders or is resistant to necessary changes. By rallying other shareholders to vote in favour of their proposed candidates, activists can potentially gain control or influence over the board, thereby directing the company towards a new strategic direction.
A famous example of a successful proxy contest is the one initiated by Carl Icahn at Yahoo in 2008. Icahn, a well-known activist investor, sought to replace Yahoo’s board after the company rejected a takeover bid from Microsoft. Although Icahn’s campaign did not succeed in replacing the entire board, it did result in a settlement that allowed Icahn to nominate several directors, ultimately leading to significant changes in Yahoo’s strategy and leadership.
In recent years, the use of proxy voting has expanded beyond financial concerns to include environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues. Shareholders are increasingly using their votes to push for greater corporate responsibility on matters such as climate change, diversity, and human rights. For example, in 2021, a small activist hedge fund named Engine No. 1 won a landmark proxy contest at ExxonMobil, securing three seats on the board by arguing that the company needed to do more to address climate-related risks.
Public Campaigns: Leveraging Media and Public Opinion
Public campaigns are another powerful mechanism of shareholder activism. These campaigns typically involve activists taking their case to the media and the broader public to put pressure on the target company. By generating public scrutiny and negative publicity, activists can influence a company’s reputation, customer base, and stock price, thereby compelling the company to address their demands.
Public campaigns often start with the release of a detailed report or letter outlining the activist’s concerns and proposals. These documents are usually made publicly available through press releases, social media, or dedicated websites. Activists may also engage in interviews with financial media, participate in industry conferences, and use social media platforms to amplify their message.
A well-known example of a public campaign is the one led by Daniel Loeb’s hedge fund, Third Point, against Sotheby’s in 2013. Loeb publicly criticised Sotheby’s management for what he perceived as poor financial performance and lack of strategic direction. He also targeted the company’s CEO, alleging that he was out of touch with the contemporary art market. Loeb’s campaign was highly publicised, drawing significant media attention and putting pressure on Sotheby’s to make changes. Ultimately, the campaign resulted in a settlement that gave Loeb and his allies seats on the board, leading to a reshaping of the company’s strategy.
Public campaigns are particularly effective when they resonate with broader societal concerns or when the company’s reputation is at stake. For instance, activists focused on ESG issues often use public campaigns to highlight a company’s environmental or social failings, mobilising public opinion and advocacy groups to support their cause. This was evident in the 2021 campaign by the investor group ShareAction, which targeted several major European banks for their financing of fossil fuel projects. The campaign garnered widespread media coverage and public support, pressuring the banks to reconsider their lending practices.
Legal Actions: Enforcing Shareholder Rights
Legal actions are another mechanism available to activist shareholders, particularly when they believe that a company’s management or board of directors has violated its fiduciary duties or engaged in misconduct. Activists may file lawsuits to challenge specific corporate actions, seek to block mergers or acquisitions they believe are not in the best interest of shareholders, or demand greater transparency and disclosure.
One common form of legal action is the derivative lawsuit, where a shareholder sues on behalf of the company against its executives or directors for alleged wrongdoing. These lawsuits can result in significant settlements, corporate governance reforms, or even the removal of directors or executives.
A notable example of legal activism is the 2018 lawsuit filed by the New York State Common Retirement Fund against Facebook, seeking to hold the company accountable for failing to protect user data in the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Although the lawsuit was part of a broader wave of legal challenges against Facebook, it highlighted the growing willingness of institutional investors to use the courts to enforce corporate accountability and transparency.
In addition to lawsuits, activists may also use legal actions to gain access to corporate records, such as board minutes or internal communications, which can provide evidence of mismanagement or other issues. This tactic, known as a “books and records” demand, can be a powerful tool for activists to gather information and build their case.
While legal actions can be effective, they are also time-consuming and expensive, and the outcome is often uncertain. As a result, activists typically resort to litigation only when other methods have failed or when they believe that the legal route offers the best chance of success.
Behind-the-Scenes Negotiations: Engaging with Management
Not all activist campaigns are fought in the public eye. In many cases, activists prefer to engage with company management and the board of directors behind the scenes, seeking to influence decisions through private negotiations and dialogue. This approach can be less confrontational and more collaborative, potentially leading to mutually beneficial outcomes without the need for a public battle.
Behind-the-scenes negotiations often begin with private meetings between the activist and company executives, where the activist presents their concerns and proposals. If the company is receptive, these discussions can lead to changes in strategy, governance, or leadership without the need for a proxy contest or public campaign.
A prime example of successful behind-the-scenes activism is the involvement of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway in Coca-Cola’s 2014 compensation plan. When Coca-Cola proposed a controversial equity compensation plan that Buffett felt was excessive, he chose not to publicly oppose the plan. Instead, he engaged in private discussions with Coca-Cola’s management, which ultimately led to a scaled-back version of the plan being implemented. Buffett’s approach demonstrated how a soft-touch, private engagement could achieve desired outcomes without the potential fallout of a public confrontation.
Similarly, many hedge funds and institutional investors prefer private negotiations as they allow for more direct and focused discussions. This approach also minimises the risk of damaging the company’s reputation or stock price, which could be counterproductive for long-term investors. By working behind the scenes, activists can often achieve their goals more efficiently and with less resistance from management and other stakeholders.
Shareholder Proposals: Directly Addressing Key Issues
Another key mechanism of shareholder activism is the submission of shareholder proposals. These are formal suggestions or demands that shareholders can submit for consideration at the company’s annual general meeting (AGM). Shareholder proposals typically address specific issues such as corporate governance, executive compensation, or ESG practices, and they require a vote by all shareholders.
While shareholder proposals are often non-binding (meaning the company is not legally required to implement them even if they receive majority support), they can still have a significant impact. A proposal that receives strong backing from shareholders can send a clear message to the board and management about investor priorities and concerns. In some cases, companies may choose to adopt the proposal voluntarily, particularly if the issue is gaining widespread attention or if failing to act could lead to further activist pressure.
For example, in recent years, there has been a surge in shareholder proposals related to climate change. Investors have increasingly pushed companies to disclose their carbon emissions, set targets for reducing their environmental impact, and align their business practices with the goals of the Paris Agreement. In 2021, shareholder proposals on climate-related issues received record levels of support at companies like Chevron and ConocoPhillips, signalling a growing consensus among investors that climate risk is a material concern.
The mechanisms of shareholder activism are diverse and multifaceted, reflecting the evolving nature of the practice and the changing priorities of investors. Whether through proxy voting, public campaigns, legal actions, behind-the-scenes negotiations, or shareholder proposals, activists have a variety of tools at their disposal to influence corporate decision-making. As shareholder activism continues to evolve, these mechanisms will likely become even more sophisticated, with activists finding new ways to leverage their influence and drive change in the companies they target. Understanding these mechanisms is crucial for both investors and corporate leaders as they navigate the complex dynamics of modern corporate governance.
Impact on Corporate Governance
Shareholder activism has a profound impact on corporate governance, reshaping how companies are managed and held accountable. As shareholders exert increasing pressure on boards and executives, the dynamics of corporate governance are evolving in ways that reflect a more engaged and proactive investor base. This influence extends across various aspects of governance, including board composition, executive compensation, transparency and disclosure, strategic decision-making, and the alignment of corporate policies with shareholder interests. Below, we explore these key areas of impact in detail.
Board Composition and Accountability
One of the most direct and significant impacts of shareholder activism on corporate governance is the influence on board composition. Activists often target boards they perceive as ineffective, complacent, or misaligned with shareholder interests. Through proxy contests and public campaigns, activists can push for the removal of underperforming directors and the appointment of new board members who are more likely to advocate for change and drive shareholder value.
The push for board changes often stems from concerns about the independence, diversity, and expertise of directors. Activists may argue that boards dominated by long-tenured directors or insiders are less likely to challenge management and are more prone to groupthink. By advocating for the inclusion of independent directors, activists seek to create a board that is more objective and willing to hold executives accountable.
For instance, in 2018, activist investor Trian Partners, led by Nelson Peltz, successfully won a board seat at Procter & Gamble (P&G) after a highly publicised proxy fight. Train argued that P&G’s board was too slow to adapt to changing market conditions and that new perspectives were needed to revitalise the company’s strategy. Peltz’s appointment to the board marked a significant shift in P&G’s governance, signalling to other companies the importance of board refreshment and the value of independent oversight.
Moreover, shareholder activism has also heightened the focus on board diversity, particularly in terms of gender, ethnicity, and professional backgrounds. Activists are increasingly advocating for boards that reflect a broader range of perspectives and experiences, which they argue can lead to more robust decision-making and better risk management. As a result, many companies are making concerted efforts to diversify their boards, not just as a response to activist pressure but as a proactive governance strategy.
Executive Compensation and Performance Incentives
Executive compensation is another critical area where shareholder activism has made a significant impact. Activists often scrutinise executive pay packages, arguing that they should be closely tied to company performance and shareholder returns. When compensation is perceived as excessive or misaligned with performance, activists may launch campaigns to push for changes in pay structures, such as tying bonuses and stock options more directly to specific financial or operational targets.
Say-on-pay votes, which allow shareholders to cast advisory votes on executive compensation, have become a powerful tool for activists. Although these votes are non-binding, they provide a clear signal to the board about shareholder sentiment regarding executive pay. A significant vote against a pay package can lead to substantial changes in how a company structures its compensation plans.
For example, in 2018, the CEO of pharmaceutical giant Novartis, Vasant Narasimhan, faced criticism from activist investors over a $66 million pay package. The opposition led to a significant portion of shareholders voting against the pay plan in the company’s say-on-pay vote. Although the vote was advisory, it sent a strong message to the board, resulting in adjustments to future compensation packages that better aligned with shareholder expectations.
In addition to addressing the level of pay, activists often advocate for the implementation of performance-based incentives that encourage long-term value creation rather than short-term gains. This might include linking a significant portion of executive compensation to metrics such as return on equity, earnings per share growth, or specific strategic milestones. By pushing for these changes, activists aim to ensure that executives are incentivized to focus on sustainable growth and align their interests more closely with those of shareholders.
Enhancing Transparency and Disclosure
Transparency and disclosure are fundamental to effective corporate governance, and shareholder activism has played a crucial role in pushing companies to improve in these areas. Activists often demand greater transparency around key issues such as financial performance, risk management, ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) practices, and executive decision-making processes. By increasing transparency, activists seek to reduce information asymmetry between management and shareholders and enable more informed decision-making by investors.
One of the areas where transparency has become particularly important is in ESG reporting. As shareholder activism increasingly focuses on sustainability and corporate responsibility, there is growing pressure on companies to disclose detailed information about their environmental impact, social initiatives, and governance practices. This includes reporting on greenhouse gas emissions, labour practices, board diversity, and political contributions.
The push for greater ESG disclosure was highlighted in the case of BP, where activist investors, led by a coalition called Climate Action 100+, successfully pressured the company to improve its climate-related disclosures. In response to the activism, BP committed to greater transparency in reporting its carbon emissions and outlining how its business strategy aligns with the goals of the Paris Agreement. This level of disclosure not only helps shareholders assess the risks and opportunities associated with ESG factors but also holds the company accountable to its sustainability commitments.
Beyond ESG, activists often demand clearer and more detailed financial disclosures, particularly in complex areas like accounting practices, tax strategies, and contingent liabilities. Greater financial transparency can help shareholders better understand a company’s true financial health and risk profile, leading to more accurate valuations and investment decisions.
Influence on Strategic Decision-Making
Shareholder activism significantly influences corporate strategy, often driving companies to reassess and realign their long-term plans. Activists typically target companies they believe are underperforming or failing to capitalise on growth opportunities. Through their campaigns, they push for strategic changes that they argue will unlock shareholder value, such as divestitures, mergers and acquisitions, restructuring, or entering new markets.
A common activist strategy is to advocate for the divestiture of non-core assets. Activists argue that companies should focus on their core businesses and dispose of underperforming or unrelated divisions that may be dragging down overall performance. This was evident in the case of DuPont, where activist investor Nelson Peltz’s Trian Partners pushed for the separation of DuPont’s specialty chemicals business from its other operations. The campaign ultimately led to the merger of DuPont with Dow Chemical and the subsequent separation of the merged entity into three independent companies, each focused on distinct market sectors.
Similarly, activists may push for mergers or acquisitions if they believe such actions will create synergies and enhance shareholder value. For example, in 2019, activist hedge fund Elliott Management played a key role in advocating for the merger of telecommunications companies Sprint and T-Mobile, arguing that the combination would create a stronger competitor in the wireless market. The merger was eventually completed, illustrating how activist pressure can drive significant strategic decisions.
Activists also influence corporate strategy by advocating for increased capital returns to shareholders, often through share buybacks or special dividends. They may argue that a company is sitting on excess cash or that its shares are undervalued, making buybacks an effective way to boost shareholder returns. While this approach can be controversial, as it may come at the expense of reinvestment in the business, it reflects the activist emphasis on maximising immediate shareholder value.
Aligning Corporate Policies with Shareholder Interests
At the heart of shareholder activism is the push to align corporate policies with shareholder interests. Activists argue that companies should prioritise decisions that enhance shareholder value and that governance structures should be designed to ensure that management is accountable to shareholders.
One way activists achieve this alignment is by advocating for changes to corporate governance policies, such as the adoption of majority voting standards for the election of directors, the elimination of staggered boards (where only a portion of the board is up for election each year), and the implementation of shareholder rights plans or “poison pills” in a manner that protects shareholder interests without entrenching management.
For instance, activists have successfully pushed many companies to adopt majority voting, which requires directors to receive a majority of votes cast to be elected. This contrasts with the traditional plurality voting system, where a director can be elected with only a plurality of votes, even if the majority of shareholders oppose them. Majority voting enhances board accountability by making it easier for shareholders to remove underperforming directors.
Activists also often push for the separation of the roles of CEO and chairman of the board, arguing that these positions should be held by different individuals to ensure effective oversight of management. This governance change is intended to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure that the board can more effectively hold the CEO accountable.
Additionally, shareholder activism has led to increased use of shareholder proposals as a way to directly influence corporate policies. These proposals can cover a wide range of issues, from governance reforms to social and environmental concerns. While many proposals are advisory, their adoption can signal strong shareholder support for particular changes, prompting boards to take action.
The impact of shareholder activism on corporate governance is profound and far-reaching. By influencing board composition, executive compensation, transparency, strategic decision-making, and corporate policies, activists play a crucial role in shaping how companies are managed and held accountable. As activism continues to evolve, its influence on corporate governance is likely to grow, driving further changes in how companies operate and respond to the interests of their shareholders. For both corporate leaders and investors, understanding and navigating the dynamics of shareholder activism is essential in today’s complex and rapidly changing business environment.
Impact on Corporate Strategy
Shareholder activism profoundly influences corporate strategy by pushing companies to reassess their strategic direction, capital allocation, and M&A activities. Activists often challenge management to refine or overhaul their strategic plans, advocating for a focus on core businesses or emerging trends. For example, Elliott Management pressured AT&T to refocus on telecommunications by divesting media assets, which aligned the company’s strategy with its core competencies.
Activists also impact capital allocation, urging companies to prioritise shareholder returns through increased dividends and share buybacks. This was seen when Starboard Value convinced Darden Restaurants to expand its share buyback program and enhance dividends, boosting shareholder value.
In mergers and acquisitions, activists may push for specific deals or strategic shifts, arguing for transactions that create synergies or unlock value. Activists like Third Point have influenced companies such as Sony to reevaluate their asset portfolios and focus on high-return projects, leading to significant changes in business strategy and improved financial performance.
Overall, shareholder activism drives companies to align their strategies with shareholder interests, leading to more focused and value-driven corporate decisions.
Challenges, Criticism, and the Future of Shareholder Activism
Shareholder activism, while influential, faces several challenges and criticisms that shape its current and future impact on corporate governance and strategy. Understanding these aspects is crucial for grasping the full scope of shareholder activism and its evolving role in the corporate landscape.
Challenges
One major challenge is the potential for short-termism. Activists are often criticised for focusing on immediate shareholder returns, such as share buybacks or dividend increases, at the expense of long-term investments and sustainable growth. This can lead to strategic decisions that boost short-term stock prices but may undermine long-term value creation. For instance, aggressive cost-cutting or asset sales can improve financial metrics in the short term but may harm a company's prospects.
Another challenge is the risk of activism leading to increased corporate instability. Frequent changes in strategy or leadership, driven by activist demands, can create uncertainty and disrupt a company's operations. This instability can be particularly damaging in industries requiring steady, long-term planning and investment. Additionally, the contentious nature of some activist campaigns can lead to public disputes that harm a company's reputation and employee morale.
Criticism
Critics argue that shareholder activism can sometimes prioritise the interests of a few powerful investors over the broader stakeholder community, including employees, customers, and the environment. For instance, while activists may push for cost reductions to boost shareholder returns, these cuts can adversely affect employees through layoffs or reduced benefits, leading to social and ethical concerns.
There is also criticism about the transparency and motives behind some activist campaigns. Activists may have their own agendas or financial interests that are not always aligned with the broader interests of all shareholders or the long-term health of the company. This can lead to conflicts of interest and decisions that benefit a small group of investors at the expense of others.
Future of Shareholder Activism
Looking ahead, shareholder activism is likely to become more focused on long-term value creation and broader ESG issues. As investors increasingly demand that companies address climate change, diversity, and corporate responsibility, activism will likely evolve to incorporate these concerns into its strategies. Activists are expected to push for more sustainable and ethical business practices, reflecting a growing trend toward integrating ESG considerations into corporate governance.
Furthermore, shareholder activism may increasingly involve collaborative approaches. Rather than engaging in adversarial tactics, activists might work more closely with management and boards to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes. This collaborative style could help mitigate some of the challenges and criticisms associated with traditional activism, fostering a more constructive dialogue between shareholders and companies.
Overall, while shareholder activism faces challenges and criticism, its evolution towards long-term value creation and ESG integration suggests a future where it plays a crucial role in shaping responsible and sustainable corporate strategies.
Conclusion
Shareholder activism has evolved from a niche practice into a formidable force reshaping corporate governance and strategy. What began as efforts to boost financial performance has expanded to include significant concerns about environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues. As institutional investors and technology democratise activism, even small shareholders can drive substantial changes. Looking ahead, activism will likely continue to emphasise ESG factors and leverage new technological tools, challenging companies to balance shareholder demands with broader stakeholder interests. Understanding this evolving landscape is crucial for navigating the complex dynamics of modern corporate governance and achieving sustainable success.
Our Directors’ Institute- World Council of Directors can help you accelerate your board journey by training you on your roles and responsibilities to be carried out efficiently, helping you make a significant contribution to the board and raise corporate governance standards within the organization.
Comentarios