The push for shareholder democracy should be accelerated

KEEPING SHAREHOLDERSAGMAGM satisfied used to be straightforward. If a firm could announce juicy profits, healthy cashflow and a perky dividend at the annual general meeting (), applause was assured and few hard questions would be asked. But in recent years these meetings have shifted from routine talk of balance-sheets to loud battles over companies’ broader purpose. Where once it was enough for bosses to nod to some vague notion of “stakeholder capitalism”, now some investors demand that they present detailed strategies on everything from the environment to racial justice and even abortion. More, too, are highlighting the dissonance between companies’ stated values and their political donations. Shareholders at American firms face a record volume of proposals on environmental and social issues: 576 resolutions as of April 12th, up from 499 last year. In the coming weeks an unprecedented number will be put to a vote.This reflects investors’ growing and understandable interest in mitigating risks that could threaten a wide variety of firms, such as climate change. It is also a side-effect of gridlock in Washington. Frustrated at the near-impossibility of getting bills through Congress, many activists are seeking change by passing motions at s instead. This year the number of climate-related proposals faced by American firms has jumped by more than 40%. This is not the only lever that environmentalists can pull. In Europe they are increasingly using the courts to sway fossil-fuel firms and other big emitters. In California the state government is seeking to re-establish its credentials as a green pioneer. Nonetheless, shareholder activism is potent, and likely to intensify.