Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorKolstad, Ivar
dc.date.accessioned2018-01-04T08:20:49Z
dc.date.available2018-01-04T08:20:49Z
dc.date.issued2014-05-01
dc.identifieroai:www.cmi.no:5151
dc.identifier.citationBergen: Chr. Michelsen Institute (CMI Working Paper WP 2014:3) 20 p.
dc.identifier.isbn82-8062-482-6
dc.identifier.issn0804-3639
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11250/2475144
dc.description.abstractThere is a move towards more use of engagement strategies in responsible investment. This change in strategies is motivated by a number of claims about the effectiveness of engagement versus exclusion of companies from the investment universe. This paper examines the basis for three central claims: i) That engagement, in contrast to exclusion, does not reduce the investment universe; ii) That exclusion reduces an investor’s influence on a company; and iii) That engagement with exclusion is necessarily a more effective means of influencing companies than pure exclusion. All three claims are argued to be open to challenge. It is possible that the move towards more engagement reflects bureaucratic incentives and political considerations among institutional investors, rather than arguments about the effectiveness and efficiency of engagement.
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherChr. Michelsen Institute
dc.relationCMI Working Paper
dc.relationWP 2014:3
dc.relation.ispartofCMI Working Paper
dc.relation.ispartofseriesCMI Working Paper WP 2014:3
dc.relation.urihttps://www.cmi.no/publications/5151-three-myths-about-engagement-and-exclusion-in
dc.subjectResponsible Investment
dc.subjectEngagement
dc.subjectExclusion
dc.subjectNegative Screening
dc.titleThree myths about engagement and exclusion in responsible investment
dc.typeWorking paper
dc.identifier.cristin1353612


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel