Engagement Dialogue as a Nordic Sustainable and Responsible Investment (SRI) Strategy

  • Lars G. Hassel
  • Natalia SemenovaEmail author


This chapter explores engagement dialogue as a sustainable and responsible investment (SRI) strategy from a Nordic investor perspective. The Nordic model of engagement dialogue is grounded in the Nordic model of corporate governance and stakeholder capitalism. Based on a proprietary database from a professional SRI agent, this chapter conducts an in-depth analysis of engagement dialogue between Nordic institutional investors and MSCI World companies regarding environmental, social, and corruption risks. The main characteristics of the Nordic model of engagement dialogue are an incident-based approach, norm-based compliance, a small number of engagement cases, and long-term emphasis on risk reduction as opposed to short-term financial gains. The chapter notes that successful forms of engagement dialogue target global companies with higher levels of pre-engagement environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance, ESG transparency, and operating performance than a matched sample. Their performance remains superior to the matched sample in the post-engagement period. The chapter consequently extends previous literature on SRI strategies in the Anglo-Saxon model of activism based on shareholder resolutions, whereby companies are targeted owing to corporate governance risks and low financial performance.


Sustainable and responsible investments (SRI) Investor activism Private engagements Environmental, social and governance (ESG) risks Transparency Performance 


  1. Allen, F., Carletti, E., & Marquez, R. (2007). Stakeholder capitalism, corporate governance and firm value. Retrieved from
  2. Blowfield, M., & Murray, A. (2014). Corporate responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bauer, R., Clark, G. L., & Viehs, M. (2013). The geography of shareholder engagement: Evidence from a large British institutional investor (SSRN Working Paper). Maastricht: Maastricht University School of Business and Economics, Maastricht University.Google Scholar
  4. Bauer, R., Moers, F., & Viehs, M. (2015). Who withdraws shareholder proposals and does it matter? An analysis of sponsor identity and pay practices. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 23(6), 472–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becht, A., Franks, J., Mayer, C., & Rossi, S. (2009). Returns to shareholder activism: Evidence from a clinical study of the Hermes UK focus fund. The Review of Financial Studies, 22(8), 3093–3129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bengtsson, E. (2008). Socially responsible investing in Scandinavia—A comparative analysis. Sustainable Development, 16, 155–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2015). Business research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Capelle-Blancard, G., & Petit, A. (2017). Every little helps? ESG news and stock market reaction. Journal of Business Ethics. Retrieved from
  9. Carleton, W., Nelson, J., & Weisbach, M. (1998). The influence of institutions on corporate governance through private negotiations: Evidence from TIAA-CREF. Journal of Finance, 53(4), 1335–1362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark, G., Salo, J., & Hebb, T. (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, 40(6), 1370–1490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. David, P., Bloom, M., & Hillman, A. (2007). Investor activism, managerial responsiveness, and corporate social performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deegan, C. (2015). Financial accounting theory. Sydney: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  13. Del Guercio, D., & Hawkins, J. (1999). The motivation and impact of pension fund activism. Journal of Financial Economics, 52, 293–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Den Hond, F., & de Bakker, F. (2007). Ideologically motivated activism: How activist groups influence corporate social change activities. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 901–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dimson, E., Karakas, O., & Li, X. (2015). Active ownership. The Review of Financial Studies, 28(12), 3225–3268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eurosif. (2016). European SRI study. Retrieved from
  17. Ferraro, F., & Beunza, D. (2014). Why talk? A process model of dialogue in shareholder engagement (SSRN Working Paper). Barcelona: IESE Business School, University of Navarra.Google Scholar
  18. Gillan, S., & Starks, L. (2000). Corporate governance proposals and shareholder activism: The role of institutional investors. Journal of Financial Economics, 57(2), 275–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gillan, S., & Starks, L. (2007). The evolution of shareholder activism in the United States. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 19(1), 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gjolberg, M. (2010). Varieties of corporate social responsibility (CSR): CSR meets the “Nordic Model”. Regulation & Government, 4, 203–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goranova, M., Abouk, R., Nystrom, P., & Ehsan, S. (2017). Corporate governance antecedents to shareholder activism: A zero-inflated process. Strategic Management Journal, 38(2), 415–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goranova, M., & Ryan, L. (2014). Shareholder activism: A multidisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 40, 1230–1266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grewal, J., Serafeim G., & Yoon, A. (2016). Shareholder activism on sustainability issues (SSRN Working Paper). Boston: Harvard Business School, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  24. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2014). Multivariate data analysis. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
  25. Harris, M., & Raviv, A. (2010). Control of corporate decisions: Shareholders vs. management (SSRN Working Paper). Chicago: University of Chicago Booth School of Business.Google Scholar
  26. Hamilton, I., & Eriksson, J. (2011). Influence strategies in shareholder engagement: A case study of all Swedish National Pension Funds. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 1(1), 44–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Henisz, W., Dorobantu, S., & Nartey, L. (2014). Spinning gold: The financial and operational returns to external stakeholder engagement. Strategic Management Journal, 35(12), 1727–1748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kruger, P. (2015). Corporate goodness and shareholder wealth. Journal of Financial Economics, 115, 304–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lekvall, P. (2014). The Nordic corporate governance model. Stockholm: TMG Sthlm.Google Scholar
  30. Mallin, C. (2016). Corporate governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. McNulty, T., & Nordberg, D. (2016). Ownership, activism and engagement: Institutional investors as active owners. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 24(3), 346–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Porter, M., & Kramer, M. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89, 62–77. Google Scholar
  33. Poulsen, T., Strand, T., & Thomsen, S. (2010). Voting power and shareholder activism: A study of Swedish shareholder meetings. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 18(4), 329–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rehbein, K., Logsdon, J., & Van Buren, H. (2013). Corporate responses to shareholder activists: Considering the dialogue alternative. Journal of Business Ethics, 112, 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reid, E., & Toffel, M. (2009). Responding to public and private politics: Corporate disclosure of climate change strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 1157–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Scholtens, B., & Sievänen, R. (2013). Drivers of socially responsible investing: A case study of four Nordic countries. Journal of Business Ethics, 115, 605–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Semenova, N., Hassel, L., & Nilsson, H. (2010). The value relevance of environmental and social performance: Evidence from Swedish SIX 300 companies. The Finnish Journal of Business Economics, 3, 265–292.Google Scholar
  38. Smith, M. P. (1996). Shareholder activism by institutional investors: Evidence from CalPERS. Journal of Finance, 51(1), 227–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Strand, R. (2014). Scandinavia can be inspiration for creating shared value. Financial Times. Retrieved from
  40. Strand, R., & Freeman, R. (2015). Scandinavian cooperative advantage: The theory and practice of stakeholder engagement in Scandinavia. Journal of Business Ethics, 127, 65–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thomsen, S., & Conyon, M. (2012). Corporate governance: Mechanisms and systems. London: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.Google Scholar
  42. Vidaver-Cohen, D., & Bronn, P. (2015). Reputation, responsibility, and stakeholder support in Scandinavian firms: A comparative analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 127, 49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wang, Y., & Mao, C. (2015). Shareholder activism of public pension funds: The political facet. Journal of Banking & Finance, 60, 138–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yamahaki, C., & Frynas, G. (2016). Institutional determinants of private shareholder engagement in Brazil and South Africa: The role of regulation. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 24(5), 509–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of GävleGävleSweden
  2. 2.School of Business and EconomicsLinnaeus UniversityVäxjöSweden

Personalised recommendations