Bibliographic record
Abstract
Corporate law contains two contradictory stories about the role of shareholders. In one, the shareholders are a useful countervailing force against the self-interested behaviour of corporate agents. In the other, shareholders lack the motivation, information, and proper incentives to contribute to the good governance of business corporations. Both stories are true on occasion, but is one more true than the other? Currently, developments in corporate and securities law are predicated on the idea that shareholders are, generally, a positive force in corporate governance. This seems to be a corollary of agency cost theory, the dominant paradigm for understanding the relationships between corporate actors. This article reviews the body of empirical research on the outcomes of the various forms of shareholder activism. Proposals, proxy campaigns, and takeovers represent the most impactful and costly forms of shareholder engagement with corporations. As it happens, the empirical evidence does tend to strongly support one of the two stories about the role of shareholders, but it is not the one currently dominating law reform efforts. If the character of shareholder interventions generally supports the story that shareholders lack the proper incentives and information to contribute to positive business outcomes, then much about the current regulatory scene needs to be re-evaluated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".