1. The Corporate Boomerang
A comparison of two shareholder transnational advocacy networks targeted at oil activities in Ecuador
Emily Hannah McAteer and Simone Pulver
Brown University
International Studies Association 2008

2. THEORETICAL AGENDA: RESEARCH QUESTION:
Theorize the dynamics of transnational advocacy networks (TANs) targeted at changing the social and environmental practices of corporations
RESEARCH QUESTION:
What explains differences in the effectiveness of two corporate-focused TANs targeting oil company activities in Ecuador’s Amazon region?

3. Shareholder TAN (STAN)
Theorizing the “Corporate Boomerang”
and Shareholder Transnational Advocacy Networks
TANs targeted at corporations differ from those targeted at states in:
Strategies employed
Determinants of network effectiveness
Assessments of goal achievement
Domestic
Indigenous
NGOs
International
Shareholders
Oil
Company
Shareholder TAN (STAN)

4. Research Design Comparative Case Study Case 1: Chevron STAN
Case 2: Burlington Resources STAN
Goal Achievement
Shareholder Resolutions
Agenda Setting
Policy Change
Change in Procedures and Practices
Determinants of Network Effectiveness
A. Network Cohesiveness
Nodes
Linkages between Nodes
B. Target Vulnerability
Operational
Organizational
Corporate Culture
C. Contextual Factors

5. Case 1: Chevron At stake: Environmental remediation and compensation
Texaco operated “in [an] environmental law vacuum...Texaco set its own standards and policed itself.” --Judith Kimerling
1967: Texaco discovers oil near Lago Agrio.
1993: Aguinda v. Texaco
Trillium Asset Management
Outcomes: limited dialogue, no progress on compensation
Indigenous groups: Cofán, Siona, Secoya, Huaorani, Kichwa
At stake: Environmental remediation and compensation

6. Case 2: Burlington Resources
Burlington: Block 24 (1999) and 50% Block 23 (2003)
Indigenous federations: Achuar, Shuar, Zápara, Shiwiar
Boston Common Asset Management
At stake: Block oil drilling in region
Outcomes: indigenous rights policy, sustainability report, proper consultation procedures

7. Chevron and Burlington STANs

8. Findings: Network Cohesiveness
Indigenous Nodes
The Cofán] still have culture. The women still wear their traditional dresses…but they can’t fight to protect their traditional lifestyle, because they can’t live that lifestyle. They can’t fish—they have to buy canned tuna, and then they need cash. So many of them don’t have that traditional lifestyle, that dependency on the forest, to protect in the same way that they do in the south.
Cohesive local-level identity based on preserving traditional indigenous culture
Tensions over representation
Links to other network members
Domestic NGOs
International NGOs
Indigenous community-Shareholders

9. Findings: Target Vulnerability
I was on a conference call with [Chevron] last year, in which my take was that we were talking to a group of middle managers who were just trying to put a shine onto Chevron’s operations. (Chevron shareholder)
Operational
Reputational risk
Infrastructure
Organizational
Management execution
Their whole thing is, let’s let the courts decide. They say, “shareholders, don’t worry about this because the court is going to decide. And then they’ll know the truth.” They are trying to hide behind the lawsuit, to not let it turn into a CSR issue at all. (Chevron shareholder)
Board oversight
Corporate Culture
CSR or legal framing
Prior shareholder experience

10. Conclusions
Corporate Boomerang offers a systematic approach to analyzing TANs targeted at corporations
Leverage through shareholder advocacy
Divergent outcomes of Chevron and Burlington STANs are explained by
Differences in the network context
Differences in network cohesiveness
Differences in target vulnerability