Three myths about engagement and exclusion in responsible investment
There 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.
Anti-corruption in Covid-19 preparedness and response. Mainstreaming integrity into pandemic plans and policies
Overcoming the pitfalls of engaging communities in anti-corruption programmes
The Political, Research, Programmatic, and Social Responses to Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights in the 25 Years Since the International Conference on Population and Development
Venkatraman Chandra-Mouli et al.
Journal of Adolescent Health
Acceptability of an economic support component to reduce early pregnancy and school dropout in Zambia: a qualitative case study
Emmanuel Banda, Joar Svanemyr, Ingvild Fossgard Sandøy, Isabel Goicolea & Joseph Mumba Zulu
Global Health Action
Impacts of school closures on children in developing countries: Can we learn something from the past?
Evaluation of Sida’s Model for Bilateral Research Cooperation
Inge Tvedten (Team Leader), Raphaëlle Bisiaux, Adam Pain, Arne Tostensen, Panith Chou, Catherine Ngugi, Rodrigo Paz and Fredrik Åström