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