Tag: Shareholder activism

Shareholder activism and sustainability: why and how do shareholders engage?

Teaser for a lunch seminar on 20 November 2025

In recent years, the corporate world has experienced an increased focus on sustainability. The pressure for climate action and social responsibility is no longer stemming solely from regulators, NGOs or the media. In fact, increasingly the push is coming from shareholders themselves. We have seen institutional investors and activist hedge funds use their shareholder rights to steer companies towards more sustainable business practices.

But how does this so-called ‘shareholder activism’ actually work in the context of sustainability? What motivates shareholders to engage on sustainability topics? And how much influence do they really have over corporate policy in jurisdictions such as Belgium, the Netherlands, the UK, and the US? 

These questions will take centre stage at the upcoming seminar on ‘Shareholder Activism and Sustainability’ organized by the Belgian Centre for Company Law, held on 20 November 2025 from 12-14h at Linklaters’ Brussels office.

The seminar will consist of the following speakers: Tom Vos (Maastricht University, University of Antwerp and Linklaters LLP), Lucia Jeremiašová (Maastricht University), Isabella Ritter (ShareAction), Rients Abma (Eumedion), Thierry L’Homme (Linklaters), Vincent Van Bueren (Gimv) and Florence Bindelle (EuropeanIssuers).

More information and registration can be found here. 

Below, we already give a teaser of the topics that will be covered in the seminar.

What is sustainability-focused shareholder activism?

Shareholder activism is not a novel, nor a recent idea. It refers to shareholders’ attempts to pressure management for changes in corporate policies and governance with the aim of improving firm performance. But in recent years, a new form of shareholder activism has emerged: sustainability-focused shareholder activism (sometimes also called ESG activism) which is focused on improving a company’s social and environmental impact, not (only) its financial performance.

This form of activism differs from ‘external stakeholder activism’ (such as litigation or protests by NGOs, unions, or consumers) because it operates from within the company’s shareholder base. Shareholders use the rights attached to their shares to advocate for change, whether through engagement with management, proposing resolutions at the general meeting, or voting against directors.

At the same time, different types of shareholder activists exist. Hedge funds, institutional investors, NGOs and even retail investors can all be active on sustainability issues. Their motives and methods may differ greatly. Some activists pursue sustainability because they see it as part of long-term financial value creation. Others act on the basis of broader social or environmental considerations, even when these do not align with shareholders’ financial interests.

The result is a complex landscape that blurs the boundaries between profit-driven engagement and purpose-driven advocacy.

Why would shareholders care about sustainability?

The motivations behind sustainable shareholder activism are as diverse as the activists themselves. Three main theoretical explanations for why investors care about corporate sustainability can be distinguished.

  1. Impact on long-term financial performance
    Many institutional investors engage on sustainability issues because they believe these affect long-term financial performance. A company that ignores environmental risks, for instance, might face future compliance- and litigation-related costs or reputational damage. Engagement thus becomes a way to protect portfolio value. However, this theory has limits. Index funds and “quasi-indexers”, which hold shares in nearly all major companies, may lack the financial incentives to monitor individual firms closely. And at some point, improving sustainability and maximising shareholder value may diverge.
  2. The ‘universal owner’ hypothesis
    According to another view, large diversified investors internalise externalities across their portfolios. As climate change and other societal issues may affect the long-term health of the entire economy and financial system, these ‘universal owners’ are motivated to promote sustainability to safeguard the value of their broadly diversified investments.  Thus, they engage for sustainability not because it improves a single firm’s returns, but because it protects their portfolio as a whole. The challenge, as scholars like Tallarita note, is that few portfolios are truly universal in practice.[1]
  3. Responding to investor demand
    Finally, asset managers may act on sustainability because they compete for investors’ capital. Many end-investors increasingly seek responsible management of their investments, and by implementing engagement strategies and robust ESG policies, firms can attract and retain these conscientious clients. Although it is of note to mention that this also raises the risk of “greenwashing” or what Christie calls “rational hypocrisy”: claiming to be committed to sustainability while avoiding costly or robust actions that such a commitment would require.[2]

Empirical evidence supports a nuanced picture. Studies find that institutional ownership is often associated with better environmental and social performance,[3] especially when investors engage collaboratively.[4] However, not all investors act on their words as some ESG funds vote strategically or selectively, supporting sustainability proposals only when their votes are non-decisive.[5]

The bottom line here is that shareholder activism has the potential to drive sustainability, but its effectiveness depends on who the activist is, how coordinated their efforts are and whether their incentives truly align with long-term value creation.

What are the tools of shareholders to influence sustainability?

Shareholder activists have several tools at their disposal to influence sustainability policy internally. These range from dialogue and engagement to formal mechanisms within corporate governance. Below, we touch on four key tools that are increasingly used to influence corporate sustainability agendas:

  1. Public Letters
    Activists may send open letters urging companies to adopt more ambitious climate targets or disclose sustainability information. These letters can attract media attention and signal investor expectations to the market.
  2. Shareholder Proposals
    In many jurisdictions, shareholders can submit proposals for consideration at the general meeting. These give investors a formal channel to put sustainability issues on the agenda at the general meeting. Such proposals are typically non-binding but may be impactful as signals of investor concern, attract attention of other shareholders, and influence board decisions. 
  3. Director Elections 
    Because boards set long-term strategy, electing or removing directors can be one of the most powerful ways to influence sustainability policy. Shareholders can support or oppose candidates of the board based on their sustainability stance, or, in some instances even propose their own alternative candidates. The 2021 Engine No. 1 campaign at ExxonMobil underscores the manner in which even small investors can make a significant impact.
  4. Say-on-Climate Votes
    A newer development, “say-on-climate” votes, allows shareholders to vote on companies’ climate policies. These votes may either be voluntarily offered by companies, proposed by shareholders, required by law or required by a company’s articles of association. Climate votes are becoming more common across jurisdictions and highlight the growing demand for corporate sustainability. 

​​Together, the aforementioned tools form a fast-evolving set of tools for shareholders, shifting the topic of sustainability from the sidelines of annual reports to the centre of corporate governance debates today.

Questions for Debate

The upcoming seminar will not only describe the mechanisms above but also invite discussion on their implications for corporate law and governance. Among the questions to be debated:

  • Will there be an increasing trend of shareholder activism on sustainability?
  • What can boards do to avoid shareholder activism on sustainability? How should they respond?
  • Should shareholders be able to file non-binding proposals on sustainability,?
  • Does current Belgian company law give shareholders sufficient means to influence corporate sustainability strategies?
  • Should Belgium introduce a mandatory “Say on Climate” vote?
  • Should shareholders have (more of) say on corporations’ sustainability policies; or is this best left to the discretion of boards?
  • Finally, will greater accountability to shareholders make companies more sustainable?

The seminar promises a lively exchange between academics, practitioners and policy experts. If you want to join us for this discussion, you can find more information and registration here.

Tom Vos
Assistant professor at Maastricht University, visiting professor at the University of Antwerp, Research Fellow at KU Leuven and attorney at Linklaters LLP

Lucia Jeremiašová
PhD candidate and lecturer at Maastricht University

Ehrin Belic
Student intern at the Institute for Corporate Law, Governance and Innovation Policies, Maastricht University

[1] Roberto Tallarita, “The Limits of Portfolio Primacy”, 76 Vanderbilt Law Review 2:511 (2023).

[2] Anna Christie, “The Agency Costs of Sustainable Capitalism”, 55 University of California, 875 (2021).

[3] Alexander Dyck, Karl V. Lins, Lukas Roth, Hannes F. Wagner, “Do institutional investors drive corporate social responsibility? International evidence” (2019), Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 131, Issue 3, p. 693-714,

[4] Marco Ceccarelli, Simon Glossner, Mikael Homanen, Daniel Schmidt, “Which institutional investors drive corporate sustainability?” (2021), <http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3988058>.

[5] Roni Michaely, Guillem Ordonez-Calafi, Silvina Rubio, “Mutual Funds’ Strategic Voting on Environmental and Social Issues” (2021), ECGI Finance Working Paper No. 774/2021.

Kortetermijndenken bij vennootschapsbestuurders

Wat is kortetermijndenken bij vennootschappen? Is er empirisch bewijs dat kortetermijndenken een groot en systematisch probleem is bij bestuurders van beursgenoteerde vennootschappen? Leidt aandeelhoudersactivisme tot kortetermijndenken? En stimuleren loyauteitsstmerechten en controlerende aandeelhouders langetermijndenken?

Dit zijn vragen die reeds in eerdere blogposts op deze blog aan bod kwamen (zie bijvoorbeeld hier, hier, hier en hier).

In een recent webinar voor Instituut voor Filosofische en Sociaalwetenschappelijke Educatie (Ifese), probeerde ik een antwoord te geven op deze en gerelateerde vragen inzake kortetermijndenken bij vennootschapsbestuurders. Een opname van mijn presentatie is beschikbaar op YouTube.

Mijn presentatie was gebaseerd op een FWO-onderzoeksproject dat ik uitvoer samen met drs. Theo Monnens over “Short-termism in corporate governance: a continental European perspective” en op verschillende papers die ik over dit thema publiceerde met co-auteurs (bijvoorbeeld hier, hier en hier).

Een kort voorproefje van mijn conclusies vindt u hier:

  • Het probleem van kortetermijndenken moet onderscheiden worden van het probleem van externaliteiten veroorzaakt door vennootschappen;
  • Kortetermijndenken kan worden veroorzaakt door kortetemijngerichte investeerders (en te veel aandeelhoudersmacht) of kortetermijngerichte managers (en te weinig aandeelhoudersmacht);
  • Er is geen overtuigend bewijs van systematische macro-economische effecten van kortetermijndenken;
  • Er is geen overtuigend bewijs dat hedge fonds activisten gemiddeld genomen kortetermijngericht zijn;
  • Er is geen overtuigend bewijs dat loyauteitsstemrecht helpt bij het probleem van kortetermijndenken, behalve door het faciliteren van controlerende aandeelhouders;
  • Er zijn goede theoretische en empirische argumenten dat controlerende aandeelhouders zowel positief als negatief kunnen zijn voor langetermijndenken – het hangt af van het type van controlerende aandeelhouder;
  • “One size does not fit all” in corporate governance – ook niet om kortetermijndenken tegen te gaan;
  • Dwingende wetgeving om een zogenaamd probleem van kortetermijndenken aan te pakken is daarom op basis van het huidige bewijs niet gerechtvaardigd.

Voor de volledige redenering verwijs ik naar de YouTube opname of de hierboven genoemde papers.

Tom Vos
Assistant professor, Maastricht University
Visiting professor, Jean-Pierre Blumberg Chair at the University of Antwerp
Research fellow, KU Leuven
Attorney, Linklaters LLP

Short-termism in European corporate governance

Conference organized by University of Antwerp, Harvard Law School and ECGI on 30 May

Short-termist behavior by corporations is often seen as a large societal problem. For example, Joe Biden wrote in a 2016 op-ed for the Wall Street Journal: “Short-termism […] is one of the greatest threats to America’s enduring prosperity”. 

However, the debate on short-termism has so far largely focused on possible short-termism in the US and the UK). Short-termism in European corporate governance has received much less attention. A notable exception is the 2020 EY study for the European Commission on “directors’ duties and sustainable corporate governance. This study is generally regarded as heavily flawed, however.

For this reason, the University of Antwerp, Harvard Law School and the European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI) have decided to organize a conference on “short-termism in European corporate governance” on 30 May in Antwerp. We believe that it is important to study short-termism in (continental) Europe, because corporate governance in continental Europe differs in important respects from corporate governance in the US and the UK, with potentially profound implications for the short-termism debate. 

Controlling shareholders in Europe

A first important difference is that corporations in continental European countries more often have a controlling shareholder than corporations in the US and the UK. For example, according to one paper, the percentage of shares held by the largest shareholder in the corporation is much higher in France (46.4%), Germany (45.3%), Belgium (38.6%) and the Netherlands (34.6%), than in the US (21.4%) and the UK (19.5%). 

Continue reading “Short-termism in European corporate governance”

Shareholder activism in Belgium: boon or curse for sustainable value creation?

A teaser for the conference on 9 June 2022

Shareholder activism used to be rare in Belgium. According to two studies, there were only 9 hedge fund activist engagements in Belgium between 2000 and 2010, and 7 between 2010 and 2018. This is much lower than the number of activist campaigns in the US, even in comparison to the total number of listed companies. However, shareholder activism is said to enter a “golden age” in Europe, with more corporations than ever at risk of activism. A second important trend is the rise of “ESG activism”, where the tools of shareholder activism are used to pursue “ESG” (environmental, social and governance) objectives. Such ESG activism can be pursued because the activist believes that it could contribute to long-term shareholder value, but also from a non-profit perspective. An example of the latter is the “one share ESG activism” campaign against Solvay by the hedge fund Bluebell, which has urged Solvay to stop the discharge into the sea of waste from a soda ash production plant in Italy.

Shareholder activism in Belgium, and especially the recent trend of ESG activism, has not received much attention in Belgian legal scholarship, however. To fill this gap, we (the Federation of Belgian Enterprises (FEB) and the Jean-Pierre Blumberg Chair at the University of Antwerp) have decided to organize a one-day conference on 9 June 2022 to explore the present and future of activism in Belgium. 

Below, I give a small teaser of my introductory presentation.

Continue reading “Shareholder activism in Belgium: boon or curse for sustainable value creation?”

The AkzoNobel Case: An Activist Shareholder’s Battle against the Backdrop of the Shareholder Rights Directive

Article in European Company Law

In two earlier blogposts on this blog (here and here), I commented (together with Thom Wetzer for the first post) on the two recent decisions of the Dutch courts in the AkzoNobel case. In a recently published article in the journal “European Company Law”, I further develop my arguments about this case. Continue reading “The AkzoNobel Case: An Activist Shareholder’s Battle against the Backdrop of the Shareholder Rights Directive”