Beyond Ownership: The Role of Institutional Investors in International Corporate Governance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Research Question/Issue This paper reviews key theories on the governance role of institutional investors, examines institutional ownership trends globally, and highlights recent research on their evolving impact on corporate governance. The paper also incorporates insights from select Special Issue articles dedicated to understanding the role of institutional investors worldwide. Research Findings/Insights We show that while most existing research focuses on the United States, recent evidence highlights significant global growth in institutional ownership. However, research examining the role of institutional investors outside the United States remains limited, despite some recent progress. Theoretical/Academic Implications Institutional investors are increasingly shaping global capital markets and corporate governance through growing ownership, increased shareholder activism, and rising passive investment strategies. We provide recommendations for relevant topics to guide future research, including the governance preferences of institutional investors (i.e., voice vs. exit) across different investor types and international settings, as well as the collective influence of multiple institutional investors on corporate governance practices and outcomes. Practitioner/Policy Implications There is a meaningful need for future studies to address the influence and effectiveness of institutional investors on corporate governance practices around the world. A better understanding of their role in different settings should improve their impact on corporations and, more broadly, on society. JEL Classification G32, G34
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".