Measuring the Impact of Engagement in Canada

Hebb, Tessa; Hachigian, Heather; Allen, Rupert

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-2348-1_7

Cited by 12 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The case study method has been used in a limited number of studies. However, these are either single organisational cases (Hoffman 1996), or two comparative cases (Collier 2004, Logsdon andVan Buren 2009); a notable exception is Hebb et al (2012) who use three cases. Eisenhardt (1989) suggests using between four and ten cases.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Investment on a moral basis is said to have considerable prospects for growth (Clark et al 2008). The SSE literature has explored aspects of engagement such as the key actors (Clark and Hebb 2004, Proffitt and Spicer 2006, Barber 2007, main issues (Tkac 2006, Logsdon and Buren 2008, Rojas et al 2009, principal targets (Judge et al 2010, Rehbein et al 2004 and outcomes (O'Rourke 2003, David et al 2001, Engle 2006, Hebb et al 2012. Research into the how SSE is undertaken has been more limited focusing on particular elements of voice engagement such as resolutions (Campbell et al 1999, Clark et al 2008, David et al 2007, behind the scenes dialogue (Logsdon and Van Buren 2009), public campaigning (Guay et al 2004, De Bakker andDen Hond 2008) and letter writing (Vandekerckhove et al 2007) but there has been little research into the engagement process as a whole or the dynamics of the voice and exit options in this context.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Social Shareholder Engagement: The Dynamics of Voice and Exit

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International audienceInvestors concerned about the social and environmental impact of the companies they invest in are increasingly choosing to use voice over exit as a strategy. This article addresses the question of how and why the voice and exit options (Hirschman 1970) are used in social shareholder engagement (SSE) by religious organisations. Using an inductive case study approach, we examine seven engagements by three religious organisations considered to be at the forefront of SSE. We analyse the full engagement process rather than focusing on particular tools or on outcomes. We map the key stages of the engagement processes and the influences on the decisions made at each stage to develop a model of the dynamics of voice and exit in SSE. This study finds that religious organisations divest for political rather than economic motives using exit as a form of voice. The silent exit option is not used by religious organisations in SSE, exit is not always the consequence of unsatisfactory voice outcomes, and voice can continue after exit. We discuss the implications of these dynamics and influences on decisions for further research in engagement

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Shareholder Engagement: The Dynamics of Voice and Exit

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The development of a new research agenda on engagement is consistent with the observation by Hebb et al . (: 125), that while institutional investors often believe that engagement is a superior strategy in influencing companies, ‘engagement impacts lack detailed academic research to back the claim of their effectiveness’ . The extent to which a potentially critical research agenda of this kind will be pursued and funded may depend on the underlying reasons for the shift to engagement approaches.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The argument presented by Hebb et al . (: 109) that while engagement can be done in many ways, ‘exit on the other hand, has one simple option, divestiture’, seems to ignore these possibilities.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Three questions about engagement and exclusion in responsible investment

Kolstad

2015

Bus Ethics Eur Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a move towards more use of engagement strategies in responsible investment. This change in strategies is motivated by a number of claims about the effectiveness of engagement versus exclusion of companies from the investment universe (the set of investment objects available to an investor). This paper examines the basis for three central claims: (1) That engagement, in contrast to exclusion, does not reduce the investment universe; (2) That exclusion reduces an investor's influence on a company; and (3) That engagement with exclusion is necessarily a more effective means of influencing companies than pure exclusion. All three claims are argued to be open to challenge. It is possible that the move towards more engagement reflects bureaucratic incentives and political considerations among institutional investors, rather than arguments about the effectiveness and efficiency of engagement.

show abstract

“…Figure 1 identifies social finance along a spectrum of finance types. These various social finance types are indicative of investors' increased awareness of sustainability issues and concern for the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards of a company (Hebb, Hachigian, and Allen, 2011). As one moves further right along the spectrum, there is an increased emphasis on investing in companies that offer blended social, environmental, and financial returns.…”

Section: Literature Review: the Social Finance Ecosystemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Community Contribution Companies and Access to Social Finance

Horel¹,

McKague²

2018

JSD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is widespread agreement that innovative funding solutions are necessary to address capital requirements of social enterprises, social purpose businesses and not-for-profits in the social economy. The community contribution company (C3) is a legal organizational form for social enterprise, introduced in British Columbia, Canada, in 2013. In creating this legal form, the British Columbia government intended to provide social entrepreneurs with a recognized legal structure designed, in part, to assist social enterprises in gaining access to investment capital. Drawing on interviews from 14 of the 35 registered C3s and a review of filing data, this study provides information to help understand what attracted organizational founders to the C3 model, what challenges are experienced by C3s engaging with investors and financial institutions, and what opportunities there are for improvement to the C3 legal form. This study found that reasons outside a motivation to access investment capital are key driving factors for incorporating as a C3; there is currently a low level of engagement from impact investors; financial incentives may have a role in increasing investment in C3s; and there is an expressed need and opportunity to enhance education about the model to further support C3s. While the consensus from interview respondents was that benefits of incorporating as a C3 outweighed disadvantages, we found that the model has not helped organizations attract social finance and investment. As this model is in relatively early stages of implementation, the lessons learned in this study can inform investors, social finance intermediaries, entrepreneurs, and policy makers.

show abstract

Measuring the Impact of Engagement in Canada

Cited by 12 publications

References 43 publications

Social Shareholder Engagement: The Dynamics of Voice and Exit

Social Shareholder Engagement: The Dynamics of Voice and Exit

Three questions about engagement and exclusion in responsible investment

Community Contribution Companies and Access to Social Finance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About