The Decline of Social Entrenchment: Social Network Cohesion and Board Responsiveness to Shareholder Activism

References

• Agrawal AK (2012) Corporate governance objectives of labor union shareholders: Evidence from proxy voting. Rev. Financial Stud. 25(1):187–226.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aguilera RV, Desender K, Bednar MK, Lee JH (2015) Connecting the dots: Bringing external corporate governance into the corporate governance puzzle. Acad. Management Ann. 9(1):483–573.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bartley T, Child C (2014) Shaming the corporation the social production of targets and the anti-sweatshop movement. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 79(4):653–679.Crossref, Google Scholar
• 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 Internat. Rev. 23(6):472–488.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bebchuk LA (2005) The case for increasing shareholder power. Harvard Law Rev. 118(3):833–914.Google Scholar
• Bebchuk L, Cohen A, Ferrell A (2009) What matters in corporate governance? Rev. Financial Stud. 22(2):783–827.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bebchuk LA, Brav A, Jiang W (2015) The long-term effects of hedge fund activism. Columbia Law Rev. 115(5):1085–1155.Google Scholar
• Benton R (2016) Corporate governance and nested authority: Cohesive network structure, actor-driven mechanisms, and the balance of power in American corporations. Amer. J. Sociol. 122(3):661–713.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bizjak JM, Marquette CJ (1998) Are shareholder proposals all bark and no bite? Evidence from shareholder resolutions to rescind poison pills. J. Financial Quant. Anal. 33(4):499–521.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bizjak J, Lemmon M, Whitby R (2009) Option backdating and board interlocks. Rev. Financial Stud. 22(11):4821–4847.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bouwman C (2011) Corporate governance propogation through overlapping directors. Rev. Financial Stud. 24(7):2358–2394.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brav A, Jiang W, Partnoy F, Thomas R (2008) Hedge fund activism, corporate governance, and firm performance. J. Finance 63(4):1729–1775.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Buchan NR, Croson RTA, Dawes RM (2002) Swift neighbors and persistent strangers: A cross-cultural investigation of trust and reciprocity in social exchange. Amer. J. Sociol. 108(1):168–206.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bushee BJ (1998) The influence of institutional investors on myopic R&D investment behavior. Account. Rev. 73(3):305–333.Google Scholar
• Bushee BJ (2001) Do institutional investors prefer near-term earnings over long-run value? Contemporary Account. Res. 18(2):207–246.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen X, Harford J, Li K (2007) Monitoring: Which institutions matter? J. Financial Econom. 86(2):279–305.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chu JSG, Davis GF (2016) Who killed the inner circle? The decline of the American corporate interlock network. Amer. J. Sociol. 122(3):714–754.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Coleman JS (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. Amer. J. Sociol. 94(Supplement):S95–S120.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Connelly BL, Johnson JL, Tihanyi L, Ellstrand AE (2011) More than adopters: Competing influences in the interlocking directorate. Organ. Sci. 22(3):688–703.Link, Google Scholar
• Connelly BL, Tihanyi L, Certo ST, Hitt MA (2010) Marching to the beat of different drummers: The influence of institutional owners on competitive actions. Acad. Management J. 53(4):723–742.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cvijanović D, Dasgupta A, Zachariadis KE (2016) Ties that bind: How business connections affect mutual fund activism. J. Finance. 71(6):2933–2966.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis GF (1991) Agents without principles? The spread of the poison pill through the intercorporate network. Admin. Sci. Quart. 36(4):583–613.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis GF, Greve HR (1997) Corporate elite networks and governance changes in the 1980s. Amer. J. Sociol. 103(1):1–37.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis GF, Kim EH (2007) Business ties and proxy voting by mutual funds. J. Financial Econom. 85(2):552–570.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis GF, Robbins G (2005) Nothing but net? Networks and status in corporate governance. Knorr-Cetina K, Preda A, eds. The Sociology of Financial Markets (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), 290–311.Google Scholar
• Davis GF, Thompson TA (1994) A social-movement perspective on corporate-control. Admin. Sci. Quart. 39(1):141–173.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Desender KA, Aguilera RV, Crespi R, GarcÍa-cestona M (2013) When does ownership matter? Board characteristics and behavior. Strategic Management J. 34(7):823–842.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Desender KA, Aguilera RV, Lópezpuertas-Lamy M, Crespi R (2016) A clash of governance logics: Foreign ownership and board monitoring. Strategic Management J. 37(2):349–369.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Duhigg C (2007) Gadflies get respect, and not just at Home Depot. New York Times (January 1), http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/05/business/05activist.html.Google Scholar
• Ertimur Y, Ferri F, Stubben SR (2010) Board of directors’ responsiveness to shareholders: Evidence from shareholder proposals. J. Corp. Finance 16(1):53–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ferris SP, Jagannathan M, Pritchard AC (2003) Too busy to mind the business? Monitoring by directors with multiple board appointments. J. Finance 58(3):1087–1111.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fligstein N, McAdam D (2011) Toward a general theory of strategic action fields. Sociol. Theory 29(1):1–26.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gamson W (1975) The Strategy of Social Protest (Dorsey Press, Belmont, CA).Google Scholar
• Gantchev N (2013) The costs of shareholder activism: Evidence from a sequential decision model. J. Financial Econom. 107(3):610–631.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gifford EJM (2010) Effective shareholder engagement: The factors that contribute to shareholder salience. J. Bus. Ethics 92(1):79–97.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gillan SL, Starks LT (2000) Corporate governance proposals and shareholder activism: The role of institutional investors. J. Financial Econom. 57(2):275–305.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gillan SL, Starks LT (2007) The evolution of shareholder activism in the United States. J. Appl. Corp. Finance 19(1):55–73.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gompers PA, Ishii JL, Metrick A (2003) Corporate governance and equity prices. Quart. J. Econom. 118(1):107–155.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goranova M, Ryan LV (2014) Shareholder activism a multidisciplinary review. J. Management 40(5):1230–1268.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goranova M, Abouk R, Nystrom PC, Soofi ES (2017) Corporate governance antecedents to shareholder activism: A zero-inflated process. Strategic Management J. 38(2):415–435.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Granovetter M (2005) The impact of social structure on economic outcomes. J. Econom. Perspect. 19(1):33–50.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hartley J (2014) Why CalPERS is exiting the hedge fund space. Forbes (September 22), https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonhartley/2014/09/22/why-calpers-is-exiting-the-hedge-fund-space/.Google Scholar
• Hillman AJ, Shropshire C, Certo ST, Dalton DR, Dalton CM (2010) What I like about you: A multilevel study of shareholder discontent with director monitoring. Organ. Sci. 22(3):675–687.Link, Google Scholar
• Hirschman AO (1970) Exit, Voice and Loyalty (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Hond F, De Bakker FGA (2007) Ideologically motivated activism: How activist groups influence corporate social change activities. Acad. Management Rev. 32(3):901–924.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jacoby SM (2008) Finance and labor: Perspectives on risk, inequality, and democracy. Comp. Labor Law Policy J. 30(1):17–65.Google Scholar
• Jung DK, Aguilera R, Goyer M (2015) Institutions and preferences in settings of causal complexity: Foreign institutional investors and corporate restructuring practices in France. Internat. J. Human Resource Management 26(16):2062–2086.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kang E, Kroll M (2014) Deciding who will rule: Examining the influence of outside noncore directors on executive entrenchment. Organ. Sci. 25(6):1662–1683.Link, Google Scholar
• Kerber R (2013) Economy-class activist investor crashes the corporate party. Reuters (October 23), http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/23/us-activist-chevedden-special-report-idUSBRE99M0LE20131023.Google Scholar
• King BG (2008) A political mediation model of corporate response to social movement activism. Admin. Sci. Quart. 53(3):395–421.Crossref, Google Scholar
• King BG, Soule SA (2007) Social movements as extra-institutional entrepreneurs: The effect of protest on stock price returns. Admin. Sci. Quart. 52(3):413–442.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krackhardt D (1999) The ties that torture: Simmelian tie analysis in organizations. Andrews SB, Knoke D, eds. Networks in and Around Organizations. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 16 (JAI Press, Stamford, CT), 183–210.Google Scholar
• Krantz M (2002) Web of board members ties together corporate America. USA Today (November 24), http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2002-11-24-interlock_x.htm.Google Scholar
• Lipton M, Lorsch JW (1992) A modest proposal for improved corporate governance. Bus. Lawyer 48(1):59–77.Google Scholar
• McCahery JA, Sautner Z, Starks LT (2016) Behind the scenes: The corporate governance preferences of institutional investors. J. Finance 71(6):2905–2932.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McCrum D (2013) Calpers agitates for better governance. Financial Times (April 7), https://www.ft.com/content/269b2160-9f75-11e2-b4b6-00144feabdc0#axzz3ye9fNE7x.Google Scholar
• McDonnell M, King BG, Soule SA (2015) A dynamic process model of private politics activist targeting and corporate receptivity to social challenges. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 80(3):654–678.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McNulty T, Nordberg D (2015) Ownership, activism and engagement: Institutional investors as active owners. Corporate Governance Internat. Rev. 24(3):346–358.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mizruchi MS (2013) The Fracturing of the American Corporate Elite (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moody J, Benton R (2016) Interdependent effects of cohesion and concurrency for epidemic potential. Ann. Epidemiology 26(4):241–248.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moody J, White DR (2003) Structural cohesion and embeddedness: A hierarchical concept of social groups. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 68(1):103–127.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Podolny JM (2001) Networks as the pipes and prisms of the market. Amer. J. Sociol. 107(1):33–60.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Renneboog L, Szilagyi PG (2011) The role of shareholder proposals in corporate governance. J. Corp. Finance 17(1):167–188.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sauerwald S, Lin ZJ, Peng MW (2016) Board social capital and excess CEO returns. Strategic Management J. 37(3):498–520.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Selznick P (1948) Foundations of the theory of organizations. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 13(1):25–35.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sikavica K, Hillman A (2008) Towards a behavioral theory of corporate ownership and shareholder activism. Acad. Management Proc. 2008(1):1–6.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simmel G (1950) The Sociology of Georg Simmel (Free Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Solomon SD (2014) Grappling with the cost of corporate gadflies. New York Times (August 19), http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/grappling-with-the-cost-of-corporate-gadflies/.Google Scholar
• Stout LA (2012) The Shareholder Value Myth (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco).Google Scholar
• Stuart TE, Hoang H, Hybels RC (1999) Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Admin. Sci. Quart. 44(2):315–349.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sullivan BN, Tang Y (2013) Which signal to rely on? The impact of the quality of board interlocks and inventive capabilities on research and development alliance formation under uncertainty. Strategic Organ. 11(4):364–388.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sullivan BN, Haunschild P, Page K (2007) Organizations non gratae? The impact of unethical corporate acts on interorganizational networks. Organ. Sci. 18(1):55–70.Link, Google Scholar
• Thomas RS, Cotter JF (2007) Shareholder proposals in the new millennium: Shareholder support, board response, and market reaction. J. Corp. Finance 13(2–3):368–391.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Trumpy AJ (2008) Subject to negotiation: The mechanisms behind co-optation and corporate reform. Soc. Problems 55(4):480–500.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Useem M (1984) The Inner Circle: Large Corporations and the Rise of Business Political Activity in the U.S. and U.K. (Oxford University Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Useem M (1996) Investor Capitalism: How Money Managers Are Changing the Face of Corporate America (Basic Books, New York).Google Scholar
• Useem M (2015) From classwide coherence to company-focused management and director engagement. Morgan G, Hirsch P, Quack S, eds. Elites on Trial. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 43 (Emerald Publishing Ltd., Bingley, UK), 399–421.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wang DJ, Soule SA (2016) Tactical innovation in social movements: The effects of peripheral and multi-issue protests. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 81(3):517–548.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Westphal JD, Bednar MK (2008) The pacification of institutional investors. Admin. Sci. Quart. 53(1):29–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Westphal JD, Khanna P (2003) Keeping directors in line: Social distancing as a control mechanism in the corporate elite. Admin. Sci. Quart. 48(3):361–398.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Westphal JD, Zajac EJ (2013) A behavioral theory of corporate governance: Explicating the mechanisms of socially situated and socially constituted agency. Acad. Management Ann. 7(1):607–661.Crossref, Google Scholar
• White H (1980) A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica 48(4):817–838.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zaheer A, Gözübüyük R, Milanov H (2010) It’s the connections: The network perspective in interorganizational research. Acad. Management Perspect. 24(1):62–77.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhang Y, Gimeno J (2016) Earnings pressure and long-term corporate governance: Can long-term-oriented investors and managers reduce the quarterly earnings obsession? Organ. Sci. 27(2):354–372.Link, Google Scholar
• Zheng Y (2009) Heterogeneous institutional investors and CEO compensation. Rev. Quant. Finance Account. 35(1):21–46.Crossref, Google Scholar