Abstract
Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) has grown considerably over the past three decades. One form of SRI, engagement-SRI, is today by far the most practiced form of SRI (in assets managed) and has the potential to mainstream SRI even further. However, lack of formalized engagement procedures and evaluation tools leave the engagement practice too opaque for such a mainstreaming. This article can be considered as a first step in the development of a standard for the engagement practice. By developing an engagement heuristic, this article offers a more transparent engagement dialog. Drawing on Stevenson’s and Austin’s speech-act theories, this article develops a classification of management’s responses to the signaling of allegations and controversies on two dimensions: a factual dimension concerning (dis)agreements on factual claims and an attitudinal dimension concerning (dis)agreements on responsibilities, values, and norms. On the basis of the distinctions this article develops, the authors provide for a synoptic table and offer a next-step heuristic for the engagement process that started with signaling a concern to management. The article uses an engagement logic that, while keeping the exit option for the investor open, allows management to address signaled concerns without having to let down or to opt out at the first setback in the dialog process between investor and investee corporation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Austin J. 1962. How to do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Carroll A. B. 1979. A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4):497–505
Clark G. L., T. Hebb. 2004. Pension Fund Corporate Engagement. The fifth stage of capitalism. Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 59(1):142–171
Clarkson M. B. E. 1995. A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1):92–117
Collier J. 2004. Responsible Shareholding and Investor Engagement in the UK. In: Brenkert G. (ed) Corporate Integrity and Accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 238–252
Cowton C. J. 1999a. Playing by the Rules: Ethical Criteria at an Ethical Investment Fund. Business Ethics: A European Review, 8(1):60–69
Cowton C. J. 1999b. Accounting and Financial Ethics: From Margin to Mainstream? Business Ethics: A European Review, 8(2):99–107
Crook, C.: 2005. ‹The Good Company. A survey of Corporate Social Responsibility’, The Economist, 01/22/2005
Davis, I.: 2005. ‹What is the Business of Business? By Building Social Issues Into Strategy, Big Companies can Recast the Debate About their Role in Society’, The McKinsey Quarterly 2005(3)
Elliston F. A. 1982. Anonymity and Whistleblowing. Journal of Business Ethics, 1(3):167–177
Forum for the Future: 2002, Sustainability Pays (Co-operative Insurance Society, Manchester)
Hockerts K., L. Moir 2004. Communicating Corporate Responsibility to Investors: The Changing Role of The Investor Relations Function. Journal of Business Ethics, 52(1):85–98
Holland J. 1998. Private Voluntary Disclosure, Financial Intermediation and Market Efficiency. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 25(1&2):29–68
Kaler J. 2002. Responsibility, Accountability and Governance. Business Ethics: A European Review, 11(4):327–334
Lewis A., C. MacKenzi 2000. Support for Investor Activism among U.K. Ethical Investors. Journal of Business Ethics, 24(3):215–222
Marston C. 2006. A Survey of European Investor Relations. Edinburgh: ICAS
McLaren D. 2004. Global Stakeholders: Corporate Accountability and Investor Engagement. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 12(2):191–201
Solomon A., J. Solomon, M. Suto 2004. Can the UK Experience Provide Lessons for the Evolution of SRI in Japan? Corporate Governance: An International Review, 12(4):552–566
Sparkes R., C. J. Cowton 2004. The Maturing of Socially Responsible Investment: A Review Of The Developing Link With Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 52(1):45–57
Stevenson C. L. 1944. Ethics and Language. New Haven: Yale University Press
Van Braeckel D., J. Leys 2004. Portfolio21: opbouw, ethiek en kenmerken. De Gids op Maatschappelijk Gebied, 95(10):10–23
Vandekerckhove, W., J. Leys and D. Van Braeckel: 2007, ‹That’s Not What Happened And It’s Not My Fault Anyway! An Exploration of Management Attitudes towards SRI-Shareholder Engagement’, Business Ethics: A European Review 16(4), 403–418
Wartick S. L., P. L. Cochran 1985. The Evolution of the Corporate Social Performance Model. Academy of Management Review, 10(4):758–769
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Wim Vandekerckhove is Assistant Professor of Practical Ethics at Ghent University, Center for Ethics & Value Inquiry.
Jos Leys is Sustainable Development Officer with Dexia.
Dirk Van Braeckel is Head of Research with Vigeo Group S.A.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vandekerckhove, W., Leys, J. & Van Braeckel, D. A Speech-Act Model for Talking to Management. Building a Framework for Evaluating Communication within the SRI Engagement Process. J Bus Ethics 82, 77–91 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9563-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9563-5