Skip to main content

Shareholder Empowerment: An Introduction

  • Chapter

Abstract

Recent trends in shareholder empowerment have spurred a heated debate about whether empowered shareholders will ultimately cure corporate ills or adversely affect corporate fortunes. Publicly traded corporations are uniquely positioned to facilitate financial risk bearing, due to their dispersed ownership and liquidity and shareholders’ ability to diversify their financial risk (Easterbrook & Fischel, 1985). They have not only served as “the main engine of economic progress” in the twentieth century (Jensen, 1989: 61), but have also driven social progress by facilitating professionalism, upward mobility, and meritocracy, as well as by providing job stability, and retirement and health care benefits (Davis, 2011, 2013; Demsetz, 1983). The United States “owed everything to the corporation,” writes Beatty (2001), tracing the very development of democracy in the United States to the morphing of early settler companies into a commonwealth. Yet views on corporations have polarized from “the basis of the prosperity of the West and the best hope for the future of the rest of the world” (Micklethwait & Wooldridge, 2003) to the critical query, “are corporations evil?” (Litowitz, 2003).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Ackman, W. 2012. Bill Ackman on seeking a new CEO at Canadian Pacific. Bloomberg BusinessWeek, April 26. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-04-26/bill-ackman-on-seeking-a-new-ceo-at-canadian-pacific. Accessed July 11, 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • AFL-CIO. 2012. CEO-to-worker pay gap in the United States. http://www.aflcio.org/Corporate-Watch/Paywatch-Archive/CEO-Pay-and-You/CEO-to-Worker-Pay-Gap-in-the-United-States. Accessed July 30, 2014.

  • Agrawal, A. K. 2012. Corporate governance objectives of labor union shareholders: Evidence from proxy voting. Review of Financial Studies, 25: 187–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahmedjian C. L., & Robbins, G. E. 2005. A clash of capitalisms: Foreign shareholders and corporate restructuring in 1990s Japan. American Sociological Review, 70: 451–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alchian, A., & Demsetz, H. 1972. Production, information costs and economic organization. American Economic Review, 62: 777–795.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anabtawi, I., & Stout, L. 2008. Fiduciary duties for activist shareholders. Stanford Law Review, 60: 1255–1308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashraf, R., Jayaraman, N., & Ryan, H. E. 2012. Do pension-related business ties influence mutual fund proxy voting? Evidence from shareholder proposals on executive compensation. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 47: 567–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bainbridge, S. M. 2006. Director primacy and shareholder disempowerment. Harvard Law Review, 119: 1735–1758.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bainbridge, S. M. 2012. Corporate governance after the financial crisis. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Baldenius, T., Melamud, N., & Meng, X. 2014. Board composition and CEO power. Journal of Financial Economics, 112(1): 53–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balsam, S. 2012. Taxes and executive compensation. Economic Policy Institute, August 14. http://www.epi.org/publication/taxes-executive-compensation/. Accessed July 30, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, F., & Matzler, K. 2014. Antecedents of M&A success: The role of strategic complementarity, cultural fit, and degree and speed of integration. Strategic Management Journal, 35(2): 269–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baysinger, B., & Hoskisson, R. E. 1990. The composition of boards of directors and strategic control: Effects on corporate strategy. Academy of Management Review, 15(1): 72–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beatty, J. 2001. Colossus: How the corporation changed America. Crown Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beatty, R. P., & Zajac, E. J. 1994. Managerial incentives, monitoring and risk bearing: A study of executive compensation, ownership, and board structure in initial public offerings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 313–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bebchuk, L. A. 2005. The case for increasing shareholder power. Harvard Law Review, 118: 833–917.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bebchuk, L. A. 2006. Letting shareholders set the rules. Harvard Law Review, 119: 1784–1813.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bebchuk, L. A. 2007. The myth of the shareholder franchise. Virginia Law Review, 93: 675–732.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bebchuk, L. A. 2013. The myth that insulating boards serves long-term value. Columbia Law Review, 113: 1637–1694.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bebchuk, L. A., Cohen, A., & Spamann, H. 2010. The wages of failure: Executive compensation at Bear Stearns and Lehman 2000–2008. Yale Journal on Regulation, 27: 257–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bebchuk, L. A, & Fried, J. M. 2004. Pay without performance: The unfulfilled promise of executive compensation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bebchuk, L. A, Hirst, S., & Rhee, J. 2013. Towards the declassification of S&P 500 boards. Harvard Business Law Review, 3: 157–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bebchuk, L. A, & Spamann, H. 2010. Regulating bankers’ pay. Georgetown Law Journal, 98(2): 247–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becht, M., Franks, J., Mayer, C., & Rossi, S. 2009. Returns to shareholder activism: Evidence from a clinical study of the Hermes UK Focus Fund. Review of Financial Studies, 22: 3093–3129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berle, A., & Means, G. C. 1932. The Modern Corporation and Private Property. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. 2001. Are CEOs rewarded for luck? The ones without principals are. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116: 901–932.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bessler, W., Drobetz, W., & Holler, J. 2015. The returns to hedge fund activism in Germany. European Financial Management, 21(1): 106–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhagat, S., & Romano, R. 2009. Reforming executive compensation: Focusing and committing to the long-term. Yale Law & Economics Research Paper No. 374.

    Google Scholar 

  • BlackRock. 2014. Proxy voting and shareholder engagement FAQ. http://www.blackrock.com/corporate/en-is/literature/fact-sheet/blk-responsible-investment-faq-global.pdf. Accessed August 29, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, M. 1999. The performance effects of pay dispersion on individuals and organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1): 25–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloomberg. 2013. Top CEO pay ratios. Interactive graphic by Whiteaker, C., reporting by Smith, E. B., Kuntz, P. Nike comment by Remuzzi, M. http://go.bloomberg.com/multimedia/ceo-pay-ratio/. Accessed September 27, 2014.

  • Bogle, J. C. 2005. The battle for the soul of capitalism. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borges, M., & Silverman, C. 2003. All equity plans now need shareholder approval. Mercer Perspective Alert, July 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandes, P., Goranova, M., & Hall, S. 2008. Navigating shareholder influence: Compensation plans and the shareholder approval process. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22: 41–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bratton, W. W. 2007. Hedge funds and governance targets. Georgetown Law Journal, 95: 1375–1433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bratton, W. W., & Wachter, M. L. 2010. The case against shareholder empowerment. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 158: 653–728.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brav, A., Jiang, W., Partnoy, F., & Thomas, R. 2008. Hedge fund activism, corporate governance, and firm performance. Journal of Finance, 63: 1729–1775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brickley, J. A, Lease, R. C., & Smith, C. W. 1988. Ownership structure and voting on anti-takeover amendments. Journal of Financial Economics, 20: 267–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bushee, B. J. 1998. The influence of institutional investors on myopic R&D investment behavior. Accounting Review, 73: 305–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Business Roundtable and Chamber of Commerce v. SEC. 2011. U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, July 22. http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf. Accessed November 28, 2012.

  • Campbell, J. T, Campbell, T. C, Sirmon, D. G, Bierman, L., & Tuggle, C. S. 2012. Shareholder influence over director nomination via proxy access: Implications for agency conflict and stakeholder value. Strategic Management Journal, 33: 1431–1451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chasan, E. 2013. Last gasp for stock options? Wall Street Journal (August 26). http://blogs.wsj.com/cfo/2013/08/26/last-gasp-for-stock-options/. Accessed July 22, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee, S., Harrison, J., & Bergh, S. 2003. Failed takeover attempts, corporate governance and refocusing. Strategic Management Journal, 24: 87–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheffins, B. R, & Armour, J. 2011. The past, present, and future of shareholder activism by hedge funds. Journal of Corporation Law, 37: 51–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, T. S, & Hambrick, D. 2006. Attention patterns as mediators between top management team characteristics and strategic change: The case of airline deregulation. Organization Science, 17: 453–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, S. 2000. Proxy issue proposals: Impact of the 1992 SEC proxy reforms. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 16: 233–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, S., Fisch, J., & Kahan, M. 2010. The power of proxy advisors: Myth or reality? Emory Law Journal, 59: 869–918.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christoffersen, S. E. K., Geczy, C. C., Musto, D. K, & Reed, A. V. 2007. Vote trading and information aggregation. Journal of Finance, 62: 2897–2929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coffee, J. C., & Palia, D. 2014. The impact of hedge fund activism: Evidence and implications. Columbia Law and Economics working paper 489. Available at SSRN: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2496518. Accessed October 15, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comolli, R., & Starykh, S. 2014. Recent trends in securities class action litigation: 2013 full-year review, NERA economic consulting. http://www.nera.com/nera-files/PUB_2013_Year_End_Trends_1.2014.pdf. Accessed July 24, 2014.

  • Connelly, B. L., Haynes, K. T., Tihanyi, L., Gamache, D. L., & Devers, C. E. 2013. Minding the gap: Antecedents and consequences of top management-to-worker pay dispersion. Journal of Management. doi:10.1177/0149206313503015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connelly, B. L., Tihanyi, L., Certo, S. T., & Hitt, M. A. 2010. Marching to the beat of different drummers: The influence of institutional owners on competitive actions. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 723–742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conyon, M., Judge, W. Q., & Useem, M. 2011. Corporate governance and the financial crisis. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 19(5): 399–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunat, V., Gine, M., & Guadalupe, M. 2012. The vote is cast: The effect of corporate governance on shareholder value. Journal of Finance, 67(5): 1943–1977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daily, M. C, Dalton, D. R., & Rajagopalan, N. 2003. Governance through ownership: Centuries of practice, decades of research. Academy of Management Journal, 46(2): 151–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, D. R., Daily, C. M., Certo, S. T, & Roengpitya, R. 2003. Meta-analyses of corporate financial performance and the equity of CEOs, officers, boards of directors, institutions, and blockholders: Fusion or confusion? Academy of Management Journal, 46(1): 13–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, D. R., & Dalton, C. M. 2011. Integration of micro and macro studies in governance research: CEO duality, board composition, and financial performance. Journal of Management, 37(2): 404–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, D. R., Hitt, M. A., Certo, S. T., & Dalton, C. M. 2007. The fundamental agency problem and its mitigation. Annals of the Academy of Management, 1(1): 1–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • David, P., Bloom, M., & Hillman, A. 2007. Investor activism, managerial responsiveness and corporate social performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28: 91–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • David, P., Kochhar, R., & Levitas, E. 1998. The effect of institutional investors on the level and mix of CEO compensation. Academy of Management Journal, 41(2): 200–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G. F. 2008. A new finance capitalism? Mutual funds and ownership re-concentration in the United States. European Management Review, 5: 11–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G. F. 2009. The rise and fall of finance and the end of the society of organizations. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(3): 27–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G. F. 2011. The twilight of the Berle and Means corporation. Seattle University Law Review, 34: 1207–1224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G. F. 2013. After the corporation. Politics & Society, 41(2): 280–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G. F, & Kim, E. H. 2007. Business ties and proxy voting by mutual funds. Journal of Financial Economics, 85(2): 552–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Del Guercio, D. 1996. The distorting effect of the prudent man laws on institutional equity investments. Journal of Financial Economics, 15: 31–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Del Guercio, D., & Hawkins, J. 1999. The motivation and impact of pension fund activism. Journal of Financial Economics, 52: 293–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demsetz, H. 1967. Toward a theory of property rights. American Economic Review, 57(2): 347–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demsetz, H. 1983. The structure of ownership and the theory of the firm. Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2): 375–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denrell, J. 2005. Should we be impressed with high performance? Journal of Management Inquiry, 14: 292–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desender, K. A., Aguilera, R. V., Crespi, R., & Garcia-Cestona, M. 2013. When does ownership matter? Board characteristics and behavior. Strategic Management Journal, 34(7): 823–842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, Y., Keil, T., & Laamanen, T. 2011. A dual agency view of board compensation: The joint effects of outside director and CEO stock options on firm risk. Strategic Management Journal, 32(2): 212–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devers, C. E., Cannella, A. A, Reilly, G. P., & Yoder, M. E. 2007. Executive compensation: A multidisciplinary review of recent developments. Journal of Management, 33: 1016–1072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devers, C. E., McNamara, G., Wiseman, R. M., & Arrfelt, M. 2008. Moving closer to the action: Examining compensation design effects on firm risk. Organization Science, 19: 548–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dikolli, S. S., Kulp, S. L., & Sedatole, K. L. 2009. Transient institutional ownership and CEO contracting. Accounting Review, 84: 737–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimitrov, V., & Jain, P. C. 2011. It’s showtime: Do managers report better news before annual shareholder meetings? Journal of Accounting Research, 49: 1193–1221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobbs, R., Goedhart, M., & Suonio, H. 2006. Are companies getting better at M&A? McKinsey Quarterly. http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~igiddy/articles/better_mergers.pdf. Accessed September 27, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodd, E. M. 1942. Review of Dimock and Hyde’s “Bureaucracy and trusteeship in large corporations.” University of Chicago Law Review, 9(3): 538–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drymiotes, G., & Lin, H. 2014. Shareholder empowerment and board of directors effectiveness. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2462984. Accessed September 27, 2014.

  • Easterbrook, F. H., & Fischel, D. R. 1985. Limited liability and the corporation. University of Chicago Law Review, 52: 89–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Economist. 2013a. The rise of BlackRock. In 25 years, BlackRock has become the world’s biggest investor. Is its dominance a problem? December 7. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21591174-025-years-blackrock-has-become-worlds-biggest-investor-its-dominance-problem. Accessed September 9, 2014.

  • Economist. 2013b. Mergers: Shall we? The urge to merge could be about to return. January 6. http://www.economist.com/news/business/21571475-urge-merge-could-be-about-return-shall-we. Accessed September 9, 2014.

  • Equilar. 2013. Equity trends report. http://info.equilar.com/rs/equilar/images/equilar-2013-equity-trends-report.pdf. Accessed July 22, 2014.

  • Ertimur, Y., Ferri, F., & Muslu, V. 2011. Shareholder activism and CEO pay. Review of Financial Studies, 24: 535–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertimur, Y., Ferri, F., & Oesch, D. 2013. Shareholder votes and proxy advisors: Evidence from say on pay. Journal of Accounting Research, 51(5): 951–996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertimur, Y., Ferri, F., & Stubben, S. R. 2010. Board of directors’ responsiveness to shareholders: Evidence from shareholder proposals. Journal of Corporate Finance, 16: 53–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falk, A., & Kosfeld, M. 2006. The hidden costs of control. American Economic Review, 96(5): 1611–1630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faleye, O., Hoitash, R., & Hoitash, U. 2011. The costs of intense board monitoring. Journal of Financial Economics, 10(1): 160–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falkenstein, E. G. 1996. Preferences for stock characteristics as revealed by mutual fund portfolio holdings. Journal of Finance, 51(1): 111–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E. F. 1980. Agency problems and the theory of the firm. Journal of Political Economy, 88(2): 288–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faux, Z., & Lawrence, D. 2014. Searching for Cynk: The $6 billion penny-stock debacle, from Belize to Las Vegas. Bloomberg Businessweek, July 24. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-24/cynk-the-6-billion-penny-stock-debacle-stretches-from-belize-to-las-vegas#p2. Accessed July 27, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • FBI. 2011. Financial crimes report to the public. Fiscal years 2010–2011. http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/financial-crimes-report-2010-2011/financial-crimes-report-2010-2011#Corporate. Accessed July 24, 2014.

  • Ferri, F., & Sandino, T. 2009. The impact of shareholder activism on financial reporting and compensation: The case of employee stock options expensing. Accounting Review, 84: 433–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fich, E. M., & Shivdasani, A. 2006. Are busy boards effective monitors? Journal of Finance, 61(2): 689–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finger Interests. 2010. SEC filing: Notice of exempt solicitation, Bank of America. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/70858/000095012310029035/d71832 px14a6g.htm. Accessed September 27, 2014.

  • Fogel, E. M., & Geier, A. M. 2007. Strangers in the house: Rethinking Sarbanes-Oxley and the independent board of directors. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, 32: 33–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredrickson, J. W., Davis-Blake, A., & Sanders, G. W. M. 2010. Sharing the wealth: Social comparisons and pay dispersion in the CEO’s top team. Strategic Management Journal, 31(10): 1031–1053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freudenheim, M. 1993. Experts see tax curbs on executives’ pay as more political than fiscal. New York Times, February 12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. S., & Osterloh, M. 2005. Yes, managers should be paid like bureaucrats. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14: 96–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, B. 1996. Economic implications of changing share ownership. Journal of Portfolio Management, 2: 59–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. 2006. Stakeholders: Theory and practice. Oxford University Press. eBook.

    Google Scholar 

  • GAO. 2006. Financial restatements: Update of public company trends, market impacts, and regulatory enforcement activities. http://www.gao.gov/assets/260/250852.pdf. Accessed July 24, 2014.

  • Gantchev, N. 2013. The costs of shareholder activism: Evidence from a sequential decision model. Journal of Financial Economics, 107(3): 610–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaspar, M., Massa, M., & Matos, P. 2005. Shareholder investment horizons and the market for corporate control. Journal of Financial Economics, 76: 135–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillan, S. L., & Starks L. T. 2007. The evolution of shareholder activism in the United States. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 19: 55–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gompers, P. A., & Metrick, A. 2001. Institutional investors and equity prices. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116: 229–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goranova, M., Dharwadkar, R., & Brandes, P. 2010. Owners on both sides of the deal: Mergers and acquisitions and overlapping institutional ownership. Strategic Management Journal, 31: 1114–1135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goranova, M., Priem, R., Ndofor, H., & Trahms, C. 2012. Benefits without costs? Corporate governance, environmental constraints and mergers and acquisitions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goranova, M., & Ryan, L. V. 2014. Shareholder activism: A multidisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 40(5): 1230–1268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., & Schor, M. 2009. Investor activism and takeovers. Journal of Financial Economics, 92: 362–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haleblian, J., Devers, C., McNamara, G., Carpenter, M., & Davison, R. 2009. Taking stock of what we know about mergers and acquisitions: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 35(3): 469–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C. 2007. Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32: 334–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C, Misangyi, V. F, & Park, C. 2014. The quad model for identifying a corporate director’s potential for effective monitoring: Toward a new theory of board sufficiency. Academy of Management Review. Doi: 10.5465/amr.2014.0066.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansmann, H., & Kraakman, R. 2001. The end of history for corporate law. Georgetown Law Journal, 89: 439–468.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, I. C., & Shimizu, K. 2004. Too busy to serve? An examination of the influence of overboarded directors. Journal of Management Studies, 41(5): 775–798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawley, J. P, & Williams, A. T. 2007. Universal owners: Challenges and opportunities. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15(3): 415–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healy, P. 1985. The effect of bonus schemes on accounting decisions. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 7: 85–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healy, P. M., & Palepu, K. G. 2003. How the quest for efficiency corroded the market. Harvard Business Review, (July): 76–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healy, P., Palepu, K., & Ruback, R. 1992. Does corporate performance improve after mergers? Journal of Financial Economics, 31(2): 135–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemphill, T. S. 2013. Shareholder proxy access: The results of private ordering. Regulation, (Winter): 4–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendry, J., Sanderson, P., Barker, R., & Roberts, J. 2006. Owners or traders? Conceptualizations of institutional investors and their relationship with corporate managers. Human Relations, 59(8): 1101–1132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heracleous, L., & Lan, L. L. 2010. The myth of shareholder capitalism. Harvard Business Review (April): 24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermalin, B., & Weisbach, M. 1998. Endogenously chosen boards of directors and their monitoring of the CEO. American Economic Review, 88: 96–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heron, R. A., & Lie, E. 2006. Does backdating explain the stock price pattern around executive stock option grants? Journal of Financial Economics, 83(2): 271–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holthausen, R. W, Larcker, D. F., & Sloan, R. G. 1995. Annual bonus schemes and the manipulation of earnings. Journal of Accounting & Economics, 19: 29–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoskisson, R. E., Hitt, M., Johnson, R. A., & Grossman, W. 2002. Conflicting voices: The effects of institutional ownership heterogeneity and internal governance on corporate innovation strategies. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 697–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hou, W., Priem, R. L., & Goranova, M. 2014. Does one size fit all? Investigating pay-future performance relationships over the “seasons” of CEO tenure. Journal of Management, doi: 10.1177/0149206314544744.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, H. C., & Black, B. S. 2006. The new vote buying: Empty voting and hidden (morphable) ownership. Southern California Law Review, 79: 811–908.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hymowitz, C., & Green, J. 2013. Corporate directors get older, hold their seats longer, Bloomberg Businessweek, May 23. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-05-23/corporate-directors-get-older-hold-their-seats-longer. Accessed July 30, 2104.

    Google Scholar 

  • ISS Governance. 2014. QuickScore 3.0: Overview and updates. November. http://www.issgovernance.com/file/products/1_quickscore-3-techdoc.pdf. Accessed December 2, 2014.

  • Ittner, C. D., Larcker, D. F., & Rajan, M. V. 1997. The choice of performance measures in annual bonus contracts. Accounting Review, 72: 231–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, M. M. 2003. Restoring ethical gumption in the corporation: A federalist paper on corporate governance—restoration of active virtue in the corporate structure to curb the “Yeehaw” culture in organizations. Wyoming Law Review, 3: 387–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C. 1989. Eclipse of the public corporation. Harvard Business Review, 67(5): 61–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C. 1993. The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems. Journal of Finance, 48(3): 831–880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior agency, cost and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3: 305–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. A., Greening, D. W. 1999. The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 564–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahan, M., Rock, E. 2010. Embattled CEOs. Texas Law Review, 88: 987–1051.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, S. N. 2008a. Are US CEOs overpaid? Academy of Management Perspectives, 22: 5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, S. N. 2008b. Are US CEOs overpaid? A response to Bogle and Walsh. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22: 28–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, S. N. 2013. CEO pay and corporate governance in the US: Perceptions, facts, and challenges. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 25(2): 8–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, S., & Weisbach, M. 1992. The success of acquisitions: Evidence from divestitures. Journal of Finance, 47(1): 108–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapner, S. 2013. Citi awards CEO $11.5 million in pay. Wall Street Journal, February 21. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323864304578318392155532904.html. Accessed March 9, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karmel, R. S. 2004. Should a duty to the corporation be imposed on institutional shareholders? Business Lawyer, 60(1): 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, A., & Englander, E. 2005. A team production model of corporate governance. Academy of Management Executive, 19(3): 9–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, D. R., Dalton, D. R., Daily, C. M., & Covin, J. G. 2004. Meta-analysis of post-acquisition performance: Indications of unidentified moderators. Strategic Management Journal, 25(2): 187–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, A., & Zur, E. 2009. Entrepreneurial shareholder activism: Hedge funds and other private investors. Journal of Finance, 64: 187–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, A., & Zur, E. 2011. The impact of hedge fund activism on the target firm’s existing bondholders. Review of Financial Studies, 24: 1735–1771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kochhar, R., & David, P. 1996. Institutional investors and firm innovation: A test of competing hypotheses. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 73–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohn, A. 1993. Why incentive plans cannot work. Harvard Business Review, 71: 54–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kouwe, Z. 2009. Icahn places two allies on the Biogen Idec board. New York Times, June 3. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/business/04biogen.html?_r=0. Accessed September 27, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krause, R., & Semadeni, M. 2014. Last dance or second chance? Firm performance, CEO career horizon, and the separation of board leadership roles. Strategic Management Journal, 35(6): 808–825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lan, L., & Heracleous, L. 2010. Rethinking agency theory: The view from law. Academy of Management Review, 35: 294–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leblanc, R. 2014. Ten corporate governance trends for 2014. Huffington Post, January 14. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/richard-leblanc/ten-corporate-governance-_b_4590133.html. Accessed May 11, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, J. A. 2004. Money, money, money. Wall Street Journal, November 22, A14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin-Hi, N., & Blumberg, I. 2011. The relationship between corporate governance, global governance, and sustainable profits: Lessons learned from BP. Corporate Governance, 11: 571–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linck, J. S, Netter, J. M., & Yang, T. 2009. The effects and unintended consequences of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act on the supply and demand for directors. Review of Financial Studies, 22(8): 3287–3328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipton, M. 2013. Empiricism and experience; Activism and short-termism; The real world of business. Columbia Law School blog on corporations and the capital markets, October 28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipton, M., & Savitt, W. 2007. The many myths of Lucian Bebchuk. Virginia Law Review, 93: 733–758.

    Google Scholar 

  • Litowitz, D. 2003. Are corporations evil? University of Miami Law Review, 58: 811–1285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorsch, J. W., & MacIver, E. 1989. Pawns or potentates: The reality of America’s corporate boards. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macey, J. 2008. Corporate governance: Promises kept, promises broken. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mangen, C., & Magnan, M. 2012. “Say on pay”: A wolf in sheep’s clothing? Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(2): 86–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manne, H. G. 1965. Mergers and the market for corporate control. Journal of Political Economy, 73: 110–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, G. P., Gómez-Mejia, L. R, & Wiseman, R. M. 2012. The life cycle of CEO compensation. Harvard Business Review (October): 26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsunaga, S. R., & Park, C. Q. 2001. The effect of missing a quarterly earnings benchmark on the CEO’s annual bonus. Accounting Review, 76: 313–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, C. 2013. Firm commitment: Why the corporation is failing us and how to restore trust in it. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, G., Haleblian, J., & Dykes, B. 2008. Performance implications of participating in an acquisition wave: Early mover advantages, bandwagon effects, and the moderating influence of industry characteristics and acquirer tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 51(1): 113–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNulty, T., Florackis, C., & Ormrod, P. 2013. Board of directors and financial risk during the credit crisis. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 21(1): 58–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Micklethwait, J., & Wooldridge, A. 2003. The company: A short history of a revolutionary idea. Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishel, L., & Sabadish, N. 2013. CEO pay in 2012 was extraordinarily high relative to typical workers and other high earners. Economic Policy Institute, Issue Brief 367, June 26. http://www.epi.org/files/2013/ceo-pay-2012-extraordinarily-high.pdf. Accessed September 23, 2014.

  • Moeller, S. B., Schlingemann, F. P., & Stulz, R. M. 2005. Wealth destruction on a massive scale? A study of acquiring-firm returns in the recent merger wave. Journal of Finance, 60(2): 757–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morck, R, Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. 1988. Characteristics of targets of hostile and friendly takeovers. In Alan J. Auerbach (Ed.), Corporate takeovers: Causes and consequences (101–129). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morck, R., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. 1989. Alternative mechanisms for corporate control. American Economic Review, 79: 842–852.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, D. C., & Sirower, M. L. 2003. The causes of mergers: Tests based on the gains to acquiring firms’ shareholders and the size of premia. Managerial and Decision Economics, 24(5): 373–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nyberg, A. J., Fulmer, I. S., Gerhart, B., & Carpenter, M. A. 2010. Agency theory revisited: CEO returns and shareholder interest alignment. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 1029–1049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Barr, W. M., Conley, J. M., & Brancato, C. K. 1992. Fortune and folly: The wealth and power of institutional investing. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ocasio, W. 1994. Political dynamics and the circulation of power: CEO succession in U.S. industrial corporations, 1960–1990. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 285–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ocasio, W., & Joseph, J. 2005. Cultural adaptation and institutional change: The evolution of vocabularies of corporate governance, 1972–2003. Poetics, 33(3–4): 163–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul, D. L. 2007. Board composition and corrective action: Evidence from corporate responses to bad acquisition bids. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 42(3): 759–784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pepper, A., & Gore, J. 2015. Behavioral agency theory: New foundations for theorizing about executive compensation. Journal of Management, 45(4): 1045–1068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, T., & Zenner, M. 2001. Pay for performance? Government regulation and the structure of compensation contracts. Journal of Financial Economics, 62(3): 453–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Langton, N. 1993. The effect of wage dispersion on satisfaction, productivity, and working collaboratively: Evidence from college and university faculty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 382–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajgopal, S., & Shevlin, T. 2002. Empirical evidence on the relation between stock option compensation and risk taking. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 33: 145–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajan, R. G., & Zingales, K. 2003. Saving capitalism from the capitalists: Unleashing the power of financial markets to create wealth and spread opportunity. New York: Crown Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renneboog, L., & Szilagyi, P. G. 2011. The role of shareholder proposals in corporate governance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 17: 167–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rindova, V. P. 1999. What corporate boards have to do with strategy: A cognitive perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 36(7): 953–975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. 2001. Trust and control in Anglo-American systems of corporate governance: The individualizing and socializing effects of processes of accountability. Human Relations, 54(12): 1547–1572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J., McNulty, T., & Stiles, P. 2005. Beyond agency conceptions of the work of the non-executive director: Creating accountability in the boardroom. British Journal of Management, 16: S5–S26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roe, M. J. 1994. Strong managers, weak owners. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roe, M. J. 1993. Takeover politics. In Blair, M. (Ed.), The Deal Decade (21–33). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogowsky, M. 2013. Apple needs to hang up the next time Carl Icahn calls. Forbes, October 2. http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2013/10/02/apple-ignores-everyones-advice-it-needs-to-stop-listening-to-icahn/. Accessed September 27, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S. 1973. The economic theory of agency: The principal’s problem. American Economic Review, 63: 134–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothberg, B., & Lilien, S. 2006. Mutual funds and proxy voting: New evidence on corporate governance. Journal of Business and Technology Law, 1: 157–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutherford, M. A., Buchholtz, A. K., & Brown, J. A. 2007. Examining the relationships between monitoring and incentives in corporate governance. Journal of Management Studies, 44(3): 414–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, L. V., Buchholtz, A. K., & Kolb, R. W. 2010. New directions in corporate governance and finance: Implications for business ethics research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20: 673–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, L. V., & Schneider, M. 2002. The antecedents of institutional investor activism. Academy of Management Review, 27: 554–573.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rydqvist, K., Spizman, J., & Strebulaev, I. A. 2014. Government policy and ownership of financial assets. Journal of Financial Economics, 111: 70–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, W. G., & Hambrick, D. C. 2007. Swinging for the fences: The effects of CEO stock options on company risk taking and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1055–1078.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnatterly, K., & Johnson, S. G. 2014. Independent boards and the institutional investors that prefer them: Drivers of institutional investor heterogeneity in governance preferences. Strategic Management Journal, 35(10): 1552–1563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnatterly, K., Shaw, K. W., & Jennings, W. W. 2008. Information advantages of large institutional owners. Strategic Management Journal, 29(2): 219–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, M, & Ryan, L. V. 2011. Hedge funds and their investor activism: Do they help or hurt other equity investors? Journal of Management and Governance, 15: 349–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz-Ziv, M., & Weisbach, M. 2013. What do boards really do? Evidence from minutes of board meetings. Journal of Financial Economics, 108(2): 349–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwert, G. W. 2000. Hostility in takeovers: In the eyes of the beholder? Journal of Finance, 55(6): 2599–2640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SEC. 2003. NASD and NYSE rulemaking: Relating to corporate governance, November 4. http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/34-48 745.htm. Accessed June 1, 2012.

  • SEC. 2005. Commission amends compliance dates for FASB statement no. 123R on employee stock options, April 14. http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2005-57.htm.

  • SEC. 2006a. Proposals to amend rules for disclosure of executive compensation, January 17. http://sec.gov/news/speech/spch011706rcc.htm.

  • SEC. 2006b. Executive compensation and related person disclosure: Final rule 33–8732a, Item 402(b)(2)(xiv). http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2006/33-8732a.pdf.

  • SEC. 2010. Final rule: Facilitating shareholder director nominations. Release Nos. 33–94136. http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2010/33-9136.pdf. Accessed November 28, 2012.

  • SEC. 2011a. Shareholder approval of executive compensation and golden parachute compensation, by Mary L. Schapiro, January 25. http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2011/33-9178.pdf.

  • SEC. 2011b. SEC proposes rules requiring listing standards for compensation committees and compensation consultants, March 30. http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2011/2011-78.htm.

  • Shapiro, S. P. 2005. Agency theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 31: 263–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen, W. 2003. The dynamics of the CEO-board relationship: An evolutionary perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 28(3): 466–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sias, R. W. 1996. Volatility and the institutional investor. Financial Analysts Journal, 52(2): 13–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silver-Greenberg, J., & Schwartz, N. D. 2012. Citigroup’s chief rebuffed on pay by shareholders. New York Times, April 17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sirower, M. L. 1997. The synergy trap: How companies lose the acquisition game. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. G., Wright, M., & Hintze, M. K. 2011. Private ordering with shareholder bylaws. Fordham Law Review, 80(1): 125–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer Stuart. 2013. Board index. http://www.spencerstuart.com/~/media/PDF%20Files/Research%20and%20Insight%20PDFs/SSBI13%20revised%2023DEC2013.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starbuck, W. H. 2014. Why corporate governance deserves serious and creative thought. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(1): 15–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stout, L. A. 2007. The mythical benefits of shareholder control. Virginia Law Review, 93: 789–809.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stout, L. 2012. The shareholder value myth: How putting shareholders first harms investors, corporations, and the public. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strine, L. E. 2006. Toward a true corporate republic: A traditionalist response to Bebchuk’s solution for improving corporate America. Harvard Law Review, 119: 1759–1783.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundaramurthy, C., & Lewis, M. 2003. Control and collaboration: Paradoxes of governance. Academy of Management Review, 28(3): 397–415.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Conference Board. 2010. The 2010 Institutional Investor Report: Trends in asset allocation and portfolio composition. New York: Conference Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, R. S., & Cotter, J. F. 2007. Shareholder proposals in the new millennium: Shareholder support, board response and market reaction. Journal of Corporate Finance, 13: 368–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, R. S., & Martin, K. J. 1999. The effect of shareholder proposals on executive compensation. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 67(4): 1021–1081.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tihanyi, L., Johnson, R. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Hitt, M. A. 2003. Institutional ownership differences and international diversification: The effects of boards of directors and technological opportunity. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 195–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tosi, H. L., Katz, J. P., & Gómez-Mejía, L. R. 1997. Disaggregating the agency contract: The effects of monitoring, incentive alignment, and term in office on agent decisionmaking. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 584–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuggle, C. S., Sirmon, D. G., Reutzel, C. R., & Bierman, L. 2010. Commanding board of director attention: Investigating how organizational performance and CEO duality affect board members’ attention to monitoring. Strategic Management Journal, 31: 946–968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Useem, M. 1996. Investor capitalism: How money managers are changing the face of corporate America. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanguard. 2002. Letter to SEC from Dec 5. http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/s73602/rgbarton1.htm. Accessed January 16, 2008.

  • Wade, J. B, O’Reilly, C. A., & Pollock, T. G. 2006. Overpaid CEOs and underpaid managers: Fairness and executive compensation, Organization Science, 17(5): 527–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, J. P. 2008. CEO compensation and the responsibilities of the business scholar to society. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22: 26–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, J. P., & Seward, J. K. 1990. On the efficiency of internal and external corporate control mechanisms. Academy of Management Review, 15(3): 421–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C., & Xie, F. 2009. Corporate governance transfer and synergistic gains from mergers and acquisitions. Review of Financial Studies, 22(2): 829–859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, J. L. 1964. The Berle-Dodd dialogue on the concept of the corporation. Columbia Law Review, 64: 1458–1467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welker, M., & Wood, D. 2011. Shareholder activism and alienation. Current Anthropology, 52: S57–S69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westphal, J. D. 1999. Collaboration in the boardroom: Behavioral and performance consequences of CEO-board social ties. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 7–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wowak, A. J., & Hambrick, D. C. 2010. A model of person-pay interaction: How executives vary in their responses to compensation arrangements. Strategic Management Journal, 31: 803–821.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, P., Kroll, M., & Elenkov, M. 2002. Acquisition returns, increase in firm size, and chief executive officer compensation: The moderating role of monitoring. Academy of Management Journal, 45(3): 599–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yermack, D. 1997. Good timing: CEO stock option awards and company news announcements. Journal of Finance, 52: 449–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Maria Goranova Lori Verstegen Ryan

Copyright information

© 2015 Maria Goranova and Lori Verstegen Ryan

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Goranova, M., Ryan, L.V. (2015). Shareholder Empowerment: An Introduction. In: Goranova, M., Ryan, L.V. (eds) Shareholder Empowerment. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137373939_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics