We estimate private benefits of control in 39 countries using 393 controlling blocks sales. On average the value of control is 14 percent, but in some countries can be as low as -4 percent, in others as high a +65 percent. As predicted by theory, higher private benefits of control are associated with less developed capital markets, more concentrated ownership, and more privately negotiated privatizations. We also analyze what institutions are most important in curbing private benefits. We find evidence for both legal and extra-legal mechanisms. In a multivariate analysis, however, media pressure and tax enforcement seem to be the dominating factors.

We study the effect of media coverage on corporate governance by focusing on Russia in the period 1999-2002. This setting offers us three ideal conditions for such a study: plenty of corporate governance violations, no alternative mechanisms to address them, and the presence of an investment fund (the Hermitage) that actively lobbies the international press to shame companies perpetrating those violations. We find that Hermitage's lobbying is effective in increasing the coverage of corporate governance violations in the Anglo-American press. We also find that coverage in the Anglo-American press increases the probability that a corporate governance violation is reversed. This effect is present even when we instrument coverage with an exogenous determinant, i.e. the Hermitage's portfolio composition at the beginning of the period. The Hermitage's strategy seems to work in part by impacting Russian companies' reputation abroad and in part by forcing regulators into action.

We examine whether institutional investors affect a firm's commitment to corporate social responsibility (CSR) for a large sample of firms from 41 countries over the period 2004 through 2013. We focus on environmental and social aspects of CSR, while controlling for firms' governance levels. We find that institutional ownership is positively associated with firm-level environmental and social commitments. Further, the "color of money" matters. Domestic institutional investors and non-U.S. foreign investors account for these positive associations, while U.S. institutional investors' holdings are not related to environmental and social scores. Similarly, higher scores are associated with long-term investors such as pension funds but not with hedge funds. Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment shows that institutional ownership causes improvements in environmental scores. Overall, our results suggest that institutional investors, in aggregate, use their ownership stakes to promote good CSR practices around the world.

No abstract

No abstract