the corporate boomerang a comparison of two shareholder transnational advocacy networks targeted at...
Post on 29-Dec-2015
214 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
The Corporate BoomerangThe Corporate BoomerangA comparison of two shareholder transnational A comparison of two shareholder transnational advocacy networks targeted at oil activities in advocacy networks targeted at oil activities in
EcuadorEcuador
Emily Hannah McAteer and Simone Pulver
Brown University
International Studies Association 2008
THEORETICAL AGENDA:Theorize the dynamics of transnational advocacy
networks (TANs) targeted at changing the social and environmental practices of corporations
RESEARCH QUESTION:What explains differences in the effectiveness of two
corporate-focused TANs targeting oil company activities in Ecuador’s Amazon region?
Theorizing the “Corporate Boomerang”
and Shareholder Transnational Advocacy Networks
TANs targeted at corporations differ from those targeted at states in:
1) Strategies employed
2) Determinants of network effectiveness
3) Assessments of goal achievement Domestic
Indigenous
Domestic Indigenous
DomesticNGOsDomestic
NGOs
International NGOs
International NGOs
ShareholdersShareholders
Oil Company
Oil Company
Shareholder TAN (STAN)
Research Design
Determinants of Network Effectiveness
A. Network CohesivenessNodesLinkages between Nodes
B. Target VulnerabilityOperationalOrganizationalCorporate Culture
C. Contextual Factors
Comparative Case Study
Case 1: Chevron STAN Case 2: Burlington Resources STAN
Goal Achievement
A. Shareholder ResolutionsB. Agenda SettingC. Policy ChangeD. Change in Procedures and
Practices
Case 1: ChevronTexaco operated “in [an] environmental law vacuum...Texaco set its own standards and
policed itself.” --Judith Kimerling
• 1967: Texaco discovers oil near Lago Agrio.
• 1993: Aguinda v. Texaco
• Trillium Asset Management
• Outcomes: limited dialogue, no progress on compensation
• Indigenous groups: Cofán, Siona, Secoya, Huaorani, Kichwa
• At stake: Environmental remediation and compensation
Case 2: Burlington Resources
• Burlington: Block 24 (1999) and 50% Block 23 (2003)
• Indigenous federations: Achuar, Shuar, Zápara, Shiwiar
• Boston Common Asset Management
• Outcomes: indigenous rights policy, sustainability report, proper consultation procedures
• At stake: Block oil drilling in region
Chevron and Burlington STANs
Findings: Network Cohesiveness
Indigenous Nodes
Links to other network members
The Cofán] still have culture. The women still wear their traditional dresses…but they can’t fight to protect their traditional lifestyle, because they can’t live that lifestyle. They can’t fish—they have to buy canned tuna, and then they need cash. So many of them don’t have that traditional lifestyle, that dependency on the forest, to protect in the same way that they
do in the south.
• Cohesive local-level identity based on preserving traditional indigenous culture
• Tensions over representation
• Domestic NGOs• International NGOs• Indigenous community-Shareholders
Findings: Target Vulnerability
• Reputational risk
• Infrastructure
Operational
Organizational
• Management execution
• Board oversight
• CSR or legal framing
I was on a conference call with [Chevron] last year, in which my take was that we were talking to a group of middle managers who were just trying to put a shine onto Chevron’s operations. (Chevron shareholder)
Their whole thing is, let’s let the courts decide. They say, “shareholders, don’t worry about this because the court is going to decide. And then they’ll know the truth.” They are trying to hide behind the lawsuit, to not
let it turn into a CSR issue at all. (Chevron shareholder)
Corporate Culture
• Prior shareholder experience
Conclusions
• Corporate Boomerang offers a systematic approach to analyzing TANs targeted at corporations
• Leverage through shareholder advocacy
• Divergent outcomes of Chevron and Burlington STANs are explained by– Differences in the network context
– Differences in network cohesiveness
– Differences in target vulnerability
top related