Does proxy voting really promote corporate sustainability?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Research question/issue This study explores the challenges faced by responsible investment and shareholder activism practitioners in integrating sustainability by means of proxy voting as shareholder engagement strategy. Research findings/insights Proxy voting guidelines that sometimes include sustainability provisions are applied in a very elastic and inconsistent way. Proxy voting agents are expected to follow the guidelines; they explain their non‐compliance by pointing out the guidelines' vagueness, the opacity of current proxy voting practices, and portfolio managers not necessarily aligned with their clients' stated sustainability commitments, along with their perceptions of what is in the best interest of the clients. Theoretical/academic implications This study sheds new light on processes underlying proxy voting practices for sustainability, which have been largely overlooked in the literature. By opening the “black box” of proxy voting processes, this study challenges the dominant optimism in this area and raises serious concerns regarding the effectiveness of current shareholder activism practices. This paper also contributes to the critical literature on corporate sustainability and neo‐institutional approaches by showing that the use of proxy voting guidelines in this area can be considered as a rational myth based on symbolic commitments divorced from substantial change in the dominant financial logic. Practitioner/policy implications This paper has important practical implications for institutional investors, organizations involved in proxy voting practices, and stakeholders in general. Among other things, this article shows the importance of clarifying the commitments included in proxy voting procedures, monitoring their application, and providing training on ESG issues to the actors involved in implementing the guidelines.
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 | 0.019 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".