Shareholder engagement is pivotal in corporate governance, evolving beyond formal resolutions to impact business decisions. This chapter unveils the typically undisclosed dynamics of board-shareholder engagement through a survey of 171 SEC-registered corporations, targeting corporate secretaries, general counsel, and investor relations officers. The survey was complemented by a review of the disclosure on shareholder voting and engagement included in proxy statements filed by Russell 3000 companies during the 2018–2022 meeting seasons. Larger and mid-sized companies more frequently engage than smaller organizations. Engagement, often with major asset managers, can take a confrontational turn, particularly with hedge funds at smaller firms. Topics include executive incentive plans, ESG metrics, GHG emission reduction, workforce diversity, pay equity, and political spending. The study reveals that engagement significantly influences corporate practices, leading to changes, withdrawal of proposals, alterations in proxy votes, and the inclusion of engaged shareholder-nominated directors in management slates.

Blockchain and distributed ledger technologies are considered as transformative for corporate governance and enabling decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) that challenge hierarchical structures. However, legal, governance, and liability issues surround DAOs. Despite the aim for decentralization, practical implementation often reveals centralized elements. The chapter also explores blockchain’s impact on traditional corporations, emphasizing improvements in share issuance, trading, and decision-making. Blockchain can also address custody chain problems, enhancing transparency in securities and stock ownership. Yet, transitioning to blockchain, exemplified by ASX CHESS Replacement, is complex. While blockchain holds promise in fostering shareholder and stakeholder rights, a nuanced assessment of limitations and practicalities is crucial. More classical alternatives like secure and transparent centralized systems should also be considered in corporate governance.

This chapter surveys the reporting obligations of corporate boards with respect to their engagement with shareholders under the corporate governance codes of eleven European jurisdictions. It compares the different approaches under these instruments to board-shareholder engagement within and outside of the shareholder meeting and discusses the benefits of well formulated corporate policies on shareholder engagement for a more effective board-shareholder dialogue and facilitation of effective stewardship by institutional investors and asset managers.

Capital market, regulatory and technological developments have created investor appetite and capacity for engagement with public companies. Our paper explores key engagement mechanisms and techniques employed by public company shareholders. First, shareholder-company engagement is a multi-dimensional, evolving phenomenon. Shareholders use a range of techniques including shareholder meetings, behind-the-scenes interactions, public campaigns, and online technologies. Second, shareholders mix and match different engagement techniques to leverage governance influence. Third, shareholders increasingly undertake their engagement activities collectively, highlighting growing capacity to overcome traditional collective action challenges. Finally, the shareholder meeting remains an important engagement mechanism. Its formal, in-person and public nature sets it apart from other mechanisms and gives it unique potential as a forum for scrutiny and accountability. Although low attendance rates indicate that shareholders do not routinely utilise the meeting to maximum effect, it is better conceived as having contingent significance because its potential as an accountability mechanism can prove critical when a company experiences serious governance problems.

Corporate governance debates have undergone a fundamental shift, with environmental,social and governance (“ESG”) issues coming to the forefront of decision-making by boards, executives and shareholders. Across a spectrum ofstakeholders, companies and their boards face pressure to incorporate ESG considerations into their business strategies, including strategies around merger and acquisition (“M&A”) transactions. This chapter addresses how the growth of ESG is poised to affect board and shareholder engagement in M&A. For boards evaluating M&A deals, ESG factors are emerging as critical to all aspects of dealmaking, including selection of targets and buyers, due diligence, governance and integration, and financing. The ESG pressures on M&A deals also influence corporate governance in M&A – implicating board strategy and oversight in M&A, as well as shareholder engagement in M&A. In an ideal world, ESG information can help enhance board and shareholder decision-making around M&A. Yet, whether ESG considerations are likely to do so remains uncertain.

The market soundings regime introduced in the Market Abuse Regulation provides a mechanism by which directors can disclose information to selected investors in order to engage their opinion on various market transactions, including IPOs, rights issues, and secondary market sales of equity or debt, even where that information constitutes inside information. This regime provides benefits for companies wishing to gauge investor interest in a potential capital markets transaction, enabling board-shareholder engagement to take place that would not otherwise be possible. The regime contains challenges however, both for companies and their advisors in terms of its operation, for investors receiving information if they do not understand the implications of being wall-crossed, and more broadly for the potential inroads it makes into the market abuse regime. This chapter will examine the operation of this regime and whether it provides a model for other forms of board-shareholder engagement

In the last few years, there has been a dramatic increase in shareholder engagement on environmental and social issues. In some cases shareholders are pushing companies to take actions that may reduce market value. It is hard to understand this behavior using the dominant corporate governance paradigm based on shareholder value maximization. We explain how jurisprudence has sustained this criterion in spite of its economic weaknesses. To overcome these weaknesses we propose the criterion of shareholder welfare maximization and argue that it can better explain observed behavior. Finally, we outline how shareholder welfare maximization can be implemented in practice.

A robust literature describes the incentives and stewardship practices of the “Big Three” asset managers (BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street Global Advisors), often referring to these asset managers as “passive.” This is so common that the “Big Three,” “index fund,” and “passive manager” are used almost interchangeably by both academics and practitioners. This shorthand emerged in the foundational scholarship in this area, and while it may remain useful in certain contexts, its casual use obscures important features of the market and contributes to misperceptions. In this chapter, we demonstrate that it is a mistake to equate passive investing with index funds; index funds with the Big Three; and the Big Three with giant asset managers. We further sketch some of the consequences of these distinctions and set forth questions for further research.

Ownership structure changes, like capital concentration in funds, theoretically shouldn’t alter passive incentives, given fee competition and single-company engagement costs. Free rider problems also contribute to passivity. Despite these, recent factors boosting involvement include: (i) the influence of major investment funds, (ii) growing use of proxy advisors by institutional investors, (iii) political pressure and stewardship considerations, and (iv) collaboration, especially among hedge funds. ESG investing could be a game changer due to millennial demand, systemic risk reduction, and fee opportunities. This prompts institutional investors to shift from passive to active engagement, fostering collaboration. New collaboration forms include: (i) among major funds, (ii) between hedge and ESG funds (wolf pack activism), (iii) among non-activist institutional investors, and (iv) on new platforms like Climate Action100+ and PRI. Legal risks and obstacles, such as acting in concert, insider trading rules, and antitrust laws, are explored, with suggestions to enhance collaboration opportunities and ways of bolstering opportunities for collaboration.

This chapter examines the impact of insider regulation on the board-shareholder dialogue. It offers a comparative analysis, revealing that EU and UK laws are more restrictive than those in the US. Drawing from this analysis, the paper raises the question of whether the EU should introduce a safe harbour rule to facilitate shareholder engagement through private disclosure of inside information. While shareholder engagement is considered beneficial for corporate governance and long-term firm value, the paper questions the necessity of selectively disclosing inside information to investors. It argues that mandating greater transparency in the board-shareholder dialogue is preferable, ensuring all shareholders have equal access to information. The feasibility and practicality of a safe harbour rule are doubted due to associated costs and challenges. In conclusion, the chapter rejects proposals to enact such rules, citing limited benefits and substantial costs.

This chapter delves into the ongoing debate surrounding institutional investor engagement, spanning sporadic voting to strategic shareholder activism. Focusing on the stewardship role of institutional investors as shareholders, referred to as shareholder stewardship, it contextualizes this in a historical context within corporate governance. The focus is placed on micro-level shareholder stewardship – how institutional investors monitor and engage with specific companies in their portfolios – emphasizing its alignment with traditional notions of shareholder engagement. The chapter illustrates that micro-level shareholder stewardship extends beyond mere investor engagement. It involves firm-level shareholder engagement to improve long-term company performance, alongside a commitment to meeting ultimate beneficiaries’investment needs and serving public interests, such as addressing saver needs and mitigating externalities, like climate change. Furthermore, the chapter identifies hedge-fund-style activists as key players in micro-level shareholder stewardship, offering new empirical evidence on their global scale. Despite variations, a category of investors – the activist shareholder stewards – emerges from stewardship disclosures, fulfilling the stewardship role in corporate governance.

In the United States, institutional investors, such as BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street, have been instrumental in advancing ESG and related stakeholder concerns. Through open letters and active engagement, these investors have outlined their expectations regarding ESG practices, while providing guidance on disclosure practices that ensure corporations appropriately address ESG. Institutional investors also have utilized the shareholder proposal process to encourage corporations to address critical ESG concerns. Nonetheless, critics argue that linking ESG and stakeholder interests to investors’ profit motives may hinder progress, limiting any focus on ESG solely to issues that can be linked to measurable economic benefits. This chapter offers a more optimistic perspective. It argues that shareholders have been strong advocates for stakeholders, moving the needle around several critical ESG issues including disclosure, board oversight, and increased corporate commitment to specific ESG goals. This chapter further argues that shareholders may be best positioned to ensure that corporations maintain a long-term focus on ESG and other stakeholders. Thus, rather than hindering progress, this chapter posits that the connection between ESG and financial returns may enhance corporate focus on ESG.

In recent years, shareholder driven climate activism has focused attention on “universal owners and managers” – asset owners and managers with significant stakes in all or nearly all public companies. Advocates push these asset managers to prioritize enhancing overall portfolio value over maximizing individual company value, promoting "systemic stewardship" even when it involves sacrificing individual firm value for the benefit of the overall portfolio. This chapter assesses whether universal owners can and should pursue such a strategy. Our analysis is pessimistic for three main reasons. First, inducing individual portfolio firms to reduce their carbon output to address environmental concerns may trigger a competitive response that will reduce gains for other portfolio companies. Second, current corporate law has a "single firm focus" that conflicts with the potential "multi-firm focus" of large portfolio investors and exposes corporate fiduciaries to potential liability if they sacrifice firm value for the benefit of investors’ other holdings. Third, universal owners, managing diverse portfolios for various clients, face conflicts with fiduciary duties and their multi-client business model when implementing a tradeoff strategy. Given these challenges, systemic stewardship strategies that entail substantial tradeoffs are unlikely to have any significant impact on mitigating climate change.

This introductory chapter provides the reader with data on institutional investors’ role in the governance of listed companies in the US and Europe. Drawing from various databases, we sketch out the phenomenon of share ownership reconcentration in the hands of institutional investors across jurisdictions, tracking the nationality and ownership of the largest asset managers and draw some implications therefrom. In particular, we look into whether divergence in ownership patterns (the presence vs absence of a controlling shareholder) and the identity and characteristics of asset managers may lead to divergence in the incentives structure for, and the focus of, shareholder engagement on the two sides of the Atlantic. Finally, we provide the reader with a roadmap of the book contents.

The SEC’s proposed climate disclosure rule has generated substantial controversy. Among the concerns raised by commentators is that the rule is unnecessary because investors can obtain sufficient climate-related disclosure throughprivate ordering. We examine one mechanism for private ordering–the shareholder proposal rule. We empirically analyze shareholder proposals requesting environmental and social disclosures during the 2021 and 2022 proxy seasons. Contrary to some assertions, we find that investors submitted hundreds of these proposals, many of which received substantial levels of investor support. We further note the significant number of proposals that are settled and withdrawn, indicating, in many cases, that the issuer committed to providing the requested disclosure. We conclude that there is substantial investor demand for greater sustainability disclosure. In modifying the mandatory disclosure regime, the SEC should look to shareholder proposals as a source of guidance and seek to complement these private ordering efforts.