1 Investor-led Global Corporate Governance Association
CEO N/A
1 Swiss association of institutional investors and institutions
CEO N/A
1 Organisation of state-owned international institutional investors
CEO N/A
Access
To move from participant identification to selection I had to go through the phase of access which often felt like climbing a mountain. From the start of this study I was aware of the proverbial access difficulties of this type of qualitative enquiry into corporate governance.
This challenge characterises most qualitative studies relying (among other data sources) on interviews and/or observations of members of boards of directors (Bezemer, Nicholson &
Pugliese 2018; Demb & Neubauer 1992; Humphreys & Brown 2007; Lorsch & MacIver 1989; Mace 1972; McNulty & Pettigrew 1999; Tilba & McNulty 2012). Nonetheless, I did not regard access as an insurmountable obstacle, but rather as one of the many challenges I needed to overcome.
Given the subject matter of this thesis, participants were all elite members of the business, investment and public policy spheres, in other words individuals who allowed me to understand how cognition at these levels might relate to the phenomenon of director
engagement with corporate purpose. I pondered on the question of what constitutes an ‘elite’
and dwelt on the literature in search of answers. Elites have been described in several ways:
as top rank executives (Giddens 1972), highly skilled professionals (McDowell 1998), those with specific expertise not possessed by others (Richards 1996; Vaughan 2013), superior social groups (Bottomore 2006), ‘people who are leaders or experts in a community, usually in powerful positions’ (Brinkmann & Kvale 2015, p. 171), and ‘those in the upper echelon of organizations’ (Aguinis & Solarino 2019, p. 1293). Elites may include business (corporate) elites (Pettigrew 1992), community or religious elites (Barro & McCleary 2003), professional elites (Aron 1999) and political elites (Aplin & Hegarty 1980; Hadani 2012). For the purpose of this study I adopted the definition proposed by Pettigrew (1992) of ‘those who occupy
formally defined positions of authority’ (p. 123), as it is succinct yet broad enough to
encompass members of the business/investment, community and political spheres of interest to this study.
Given the existence of a strong peer mentality among directors (Leblanc & Schwarz 2007;
Pettigrew 1992), I have overcome access difficulties by following the avenue ‘access to elites is best effected by fellow elite members’ (Pettigrew & McNulty 1995, p. 851), proceeding through formal and informal routes, which proved to be an effective way of opening doors.
Since 2017 I have held personal meetings in Switzerland with board members of listed companies and personal contacts I developed during my time as a non-executive director.
These meetings laid the foundation for the access network I needed for this study and enabled me to confirm the relevance and timeliness of the thesis topic in the field. In particular, the selection of director participants was a complex exercise, requiring many iterations with my support network, while selecting investors proved to be easier, possibly due to the debate on the investor perspective of ESG topics and the increasing amount of engagement activities with their investee companies.
I crafted a specific approach to overcome access difficulties. As is customary among Swiss elites, an informal discussion between the identified participant and my support network often preceded a formal email from me. I sent an introductory email from the email address of my main academic affiliation, an outlook address containing the word ‘faculty’, as opposed to my student Gmail address, which features the word ‘student’. Given that individuals with this elite status have been found to be generally more aware of their own importance (Richards 1996), I considered it essential not only to avoid the email landing in
the participant’s spam folder, but also to project from the first virtual contact an image of professionalism that would contribute to building trust in me and confidence in my knowledge of the subject matter (Brinkmann & Kvale 2015). The introductory email contained a succinct outline of the study, a polite request for an interview, several possible dates and my short biography. I left the interview location and timing at the participant’s discretion, mindful of their busy schedule and limited availability. All email correspondence was in British English with the exception of one director who requested the email and any material in German (and promptly received it). I took great care in drafting each email, double checking spelling, punctuation and any particular word in German or French if
applicable. It was important to me that each email would be perceived as personal, rather than the result of a cut and paste from a template, hence I tailored each text to each identified participant. I did so by adding words or phrases that made the email more personal (for instance referring to a conference recently attended or a recently published interview or press release). I was very conscious of the importance of the first impression I made. In most cases I received an email response with 24-48 hours, either from the participant directly or via a personal assistant. Every time I received a prompt response, I was reassured that the access strategy was working smoothly. Responses triggered a swift follow-up by email from my side in order to finalise date/time/location and present the participant with the Informed Consent Form and the Interview Protocol. I knew that time was of the essence, and I assumed that a prompt response would contribute to an image of professionalism, of dedication to my doctoral studies and to the field of corporate governance. One director requested a ‘pre- interview’, by which he meant a face-to-face meeting to get to know me personally, which I arranged within the same week. I also encountered one director (a chair) who preferred to send his written answers to the interview protocol, rather than being interviewed in person.
His case disappointed me, as I had to count him as an interview participant via email. I was even more disappointed as this chair is well known for his engagement with the topic, and his participation would have been very beneficial. I subsequently received an email from his office apologising once again and offering to meet me upon completion of the thesis to discuss the results. I wondered what could have triggered his rejection of an interview, other than lack of time or interest, and was able to confirm via a context participant that lack of time seemed to be the issue, and that answering my questions in writing gave this chair more flexibility with his time. Two target participants politely refused my invitation to take part in the study: one director (citing lack of time and knowledge of the topic) and one investor (citing difficulties with her legal team). I was prepared for rejections and I felt quite content when I looked back upon completion of the interviews and double-checked that only two potential participants out of the 44 that I had approached had refused to take part in this study. Rejections triggered a prompt re-grouping over the phone or via email with my support network, and the identification of alternative participants with whom I followed the same access path.
Overall, I believe that the strategy I followed to enlist participants proved to be fruitful due to the following reasons. Firstly, I was fortunate to have built trust relationships with my
support network, who entrusted me with their address books, opening doors for me with fellow elite professionals, and to whom I owe a great debt of gratitude. Secondly, I took great care in preparing the ground before approaching participants (not only directors but also investors and context participants), carrying out through research to gather comprehensive information on the individuals and their organisations, including the industry in which they operate and their competitive landscape. Thirdly, although all but one interviews, and almost
all correspondence, were in English, I had a linguistic advantage with my knowledge of all three official languages of the Swiss Confederation (German, French and Italian), signalling a cultural understanding of and affinity to Switzerland, which may have helped me to build trust, and develop a rapport through the use of small talk or single words in their native languages. Fourthly, I feel that I behaved at all times with the utmost professionalism, from the very polite tone of email correspondence, to cordial contacts over the phone with the participants or their personal assistants, to my professional appearance and conduct during the interviews, to the messages of thanks I sent within 24 hours, thanking participants for their time and insights and their staff for their hospitality. Fifthly, and most importantly, I invested considerable time in preparing each interview, familiarising myself with the interviewee background, the company, its history and most recent developments, as I knew that elite professionals could challenge me as a way of testing my competence (Zuckerman 1972, p. 175). These individuals are used to being interviewed, to being in the public eye (Brinkmann & Kvale 2015) and I aimed to be an interesting conversation partner rather than someone to talk to as a favour or, even worse, a chore. Consequently, being able to
demonstrate expertise about the subject matter, the participant, the company and the context was of paramount importance, helping me to achieve symmetry in the interview relationship.
In fact, preparing for an interview exhausted me even more than conducting it. Sixthly, my educational and professional background as well as my age (I was 50 years old at the time of data collection), possibly helped me to build credibility in the eyes of participants, as I offered them the opportunity to familiarise themselves with my background by reading my short biography which mentioned my age. During the field work my support network
regularly shared with me feedback they received informally about me and about the study. In one instance, a participant from the government commented on how well-prepared for the
interview she thought I was, another commented on my frank attitude and on the fact that the discussion had apparently helped him to develop a different perspective on a set of challenges he had been working on for some time. This feedback loop was very valuable to me,
confirming that the topic was timely and interesting, and that I was able to convey
competence in my endeavours. I vividly recall one director praising me during the interview for my knowledge of the history of the company, which he claimed took him by surprise. I will elaborate on other surprises in the section entitled Unexpected Events.
Participant Selection
Through the access route most identified participants turned into selected participants. I will now elaborate on the dynamics of this process for context participants, directors and
investors.
Context Participants
All eight identified context participant organisations (and nine individual participants) turned into selected participants. The group included a public opinion research institute, two ESG and sustainability consultancies, one activist, two newspapers, the federal government and one intergovernmental organisation. In the following sections I describe each participant organisation. Table 11 presents the selected context participants. (Although this table is identical to table 7 in Participant Identification above, I show it below in the interest of clarity).
Table 11 Selected Participants - Context
Organisation Participant Role
Activity Area Research Institute Managing
Partner
Public opinion surveys Management
Consultancy
Partner Advisory services in the areas of ESG, sustainable development, UN Global Compact
ESG Data Science Consultancy
CEO ESG risk exposure
Senior Advisor Activist
Movement
Committee Member
Activism
Daily newspaper Business Editor Political & economic news and analysis
Weekly newspaper Editor-in-Chief Political & economic news and analysis
Swiss Federal Government
State Secretary Trade and Economic Development
Intergovernmental Economic
Organisation
Chair of
Working Group
Responsible Business
Public Opinion Research Institute
Founded in the 1950s, the institute specialises in politics and communication research. It is recognised as an expert in opinion-making processes and public opinion in Switzerland. Its activity areas include stakeholder analysis, image and reputation, vote research, policy and issue monitoring and public opinion.
ESG & Sustainability Management Consultancy
Established in the late 1990s, the consultancy specialises in sustainability, sustainable economic development and ESG advisory services. On behalf of its clients, it leads
stakeholder dialogue management through the identification and surveying of stakeholders, and the development and management of stakeholder dialogue. It is also a member of a
number of national and global organisations in the areas of sustainable development and sustainable finance.
ESG Data Science Consultancy
A pioneer in ESG data science, the company specialises in ESG and business conduct risk research. It supports clients in identifying, preventing and managing material ESG risks in their operations and business relationships. It integrates the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board Framework in its core ESG issues research scope. A participant in the UN Global Compact, the UN-supported Principles for Responsible Investment and Principles for Responsible Banking, the consultancy offers due diligence on ESG risks and provides transparency on business conduct risks for clients worldwide.
Activist
The activist represents a popular movement backed by a coalition of businesses, NGOs and religious groups. It campaigns to hold Swiss-based global corporations accountable for violations of human rights and environmental standards across the countries in which they operate. It aims to establish a legal requirement for corporations and their subsidiaries to assess their impact on human rights and the environment. Corporations in breach of such requirements could be liable for damages under Swiss law, regardless of where the breach took place.
Daily Newspaper
Founded in the eighteenth century, this German-language newspaper has a reputation for high-quality news and analysis in the fields of politics, economics, society and international
affairs. It regularly features reports on Swiss-listed corporations, their boards, institutional investors, activist movements and national debates on responsible business conduct.
Weekly Newspaper
As the leading German-language weekly newspaper in terms of circulation, it regularly features national and international debates on corporate conduct, corporate scandals and institutional investors. It offers readers in-depth analysis of large Swiss and non-Swiss
corporations, shareholder activism as well as activist movements targeting corporate conduct.
Swiss Federal Government
The Federal Council is the executive body constituting Switzerland’s federal government. It is made up of representatives of the seven Swiss cantons. One of its organisms is dedicated to managing affairs in the areas of the economy, trade and labour market policy. It creates regulatory frameworks for sustainable development, growth and employment. For a decade it has been championing institutional dialogue with corporations in the areas of due diligence, responsible business conduct and international competitiveness.
Intergovernmental Economic Organisation
Established in the 1960s, the organisation has a mission to encourage trade and economic progress worldwide. It works with governments and the private sector to identify and understand the drivers of economic, environmental and social change, analysing data to predict future trends and setting standards. It promotes dialogue between institutions, business and civil society for economic and social development.
I adopted some elements of the access strategy (presented in previous parts of the section entitled Primary Data Sources) to enrol context participants in the study. In essence I used a professionally written, succinct yet comprehensive introductory email, containing an
invitation for a face-to-face interview at a time and location convenient for the interviewee, a brief description of the study, why I was interested in their views and how they would benefit from this study. Upon acceptance of the invitation, I also shared by email the Interview Consent Form and the Interview Protocol (in Appendix 5 and 6 respectively). I received most responses within three to four days, with two exceptions. The committee member of the activist movement responded after ten days and after two follow-ups on my part (she subsequently informed me that she had been on holidays and had forgotten to switch on an out-of-office response). The State Secretary of the Federal Government responded after almost three weeks, during which I sent one email follow-up and placed one phone call to her office, while a member of my support network had a separate phone call with her. She
indicated that she was concerned about finding time in her busy schedule and did not want to delegate the interview to a member of her team, a concern I appreciated.
Companies and Directors
For the core group of this study I was able to secure 22 of the 26 directors, from twelve of the thirteen companies, as selected participants. I gained access to twenty directors in ten
companies (two directors each), and one director in each of the remaining two companies.
One SMI/Fortune 500 Global corporations in the ‘financials’ industry and ‘banks’
supersector did not accept the invitation to participate in this study, due to lack of time.
In the following sections, first I introduce each of the twelve selected companies (as shown in Table 12) and then I introduce the selected directors.
Table 12 Selected Participants - Companies
Company Type Industry Supersector Ownership
Structure
A SMI
Fortune 500
Industrials Industrial Goods and Services
Dispersed
B SMI
Fortune 500
Industrials Construction and Materials
Dispersed
C SMI
Fortune 500
Consumer Goods Food and Beverage Dispersed
D SMI
Fortune 500
Financials Insurance Dispersed
E SMI
Fortune 500
Financials Banks Dispersed
F SMI Healthcare Healthcare Dispersed
G SMI Industrials Industrial Goods &
Services
Dispersed
H SMI Financials Insurance Dispersed
I SMI Telecommunications Telecommunications Concentrated
J SMIM Industrials Industrial Goods &
Services
Concentrated K SMIM Telecommunications Telecommunications Dispersed
L SMIM Healthcare Healthcare Dispersed
Company A
With a history spanning over 100 years, company A has played a central role in the second and third industrial revolutions, establishing itself as a leader in industrial goods and services.
A SMI/Fortune 500 Global corporation, it operates globally with over 145,000 employees. In 2018 it announced a strategic focus on serving the digital industries of the fourth industrial revolution with a simplified organisational and go-to-market strategy. It aims to maintain its leadership in technology by focussing on innovation and unique solutions. Agility, customer- centricity and operational streamlining are the cornerstones of this strategy. Sustainable value creation is a central part of its corporate strategy, aiming to contribute to a sustainable energy future. For the past decade, company A has been included in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI), the first global sustainability index, and recognised as a transparent and
Paugam & Stolowy 2019; Hawn, Chatterlji & Mitchell 2018). The DJSIs are a family of indexes assessing the sustainability performance of over 2,500 listed companies worldwide through the analysis of financially material ESG factors.
Company B
A leading SMI/Fortune 500 Global corporation in the construction and materials supersector, company B offers solutions to infrastructure projects. It has a globally recognised
commitment to addressing the issues of sustainability linked to urbanisation and its effects on people and the planet. Company B has for some years been a member of the DJSI in
recognition of excellence in biodiversity, recycling, production and reporting standards and stakeholder engagement. Through its corporate strategy, it aims to be instrumental in
providing answers to some of the world’s most pressing challenges, namely resource scarcity, population growth and climate change (EY 2018), offering solutions to the construction and materials sector. Company B regularly discloses its engagement with internal and external stakeholders, holding external reviews of its corporate activities by a panel of independent experts in the areas of economic, social and environmental sustainability.
Company C
According to the Financial Times, in 2018 company C was the world’s largest food and beverage company in terms of revenue. A SMI/Fortune 500 Global corporation, it is a pioneer of engagement with and value creation for stakeholders. For decades the DJSI has recognised it as an industry leader in sustainability. The company aims to contribute to human health across all life stages, responding to changes in consumer demand for healthier and more natural options via high-quality products at affordable prices. Remaining relevant to consumers with new eating and shopping habits is central to its strategy, together with