4.3 Article

A new take on voice: the influence of BlackRock's 'Dear CEO' letters

Journal

REVIEW OF ACCOUNTING STUDIES
Volume 26, Issue 3, Pages 1088-1136

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11142-021-09603-x

Keywords

Institutional ownership; Shareholder engagement; Shareholder voice; Disclosure; ESG; Lobbying

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study shows that broad-based public engagement by institutional investors does influence the behavior of portfolio firms. Firms tend to reflect the topics discussed in letters like BlackRock's annual Dear CEO letter in their disclosures and voting patterns. Additionally, firms' lobbying efforts post-letter period become more aligned with the highlighted issues in the letters.
We examine whether broad-based public engagement by institutional investors influences the behavior of portfolio firms. We investigate this question in the context of BlackRock's annual Dear CEO letter, which in recent years has called for portfolio firms to acknowledge and quantify the impact of environmental and regulatory factors on their firms. We find that portfolio firms' disclosures during the post-letter period reflect topics similar to those discussed in the letters, controlling for a variety of firm and disclosure characteristics and the occurrence of private engagements. Moreover, BlackRock appears to value these additional disclosures, as it more often votes with management on shareholder proposals during subsequent annual shareholder meetings. Finally, motivated by BlackRock's attempts to mobilize firms toward its specific policy recommendations, we also provide some evidence that firms' lobbying efforts during the post-letter period become more aligned with the issues highlighted in the letter, especially when firms' share BlackRock's policy preferences ex ante. Taken together, our evidence suggests that portfolio firms are responsive to BlackRock's public engagement efforts.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available