The Corporate Boomerang A comparison of two shareholder transnational advocacy networks targeted at oil activities in Ec

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: 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. Theorizing the “Corporate Boomerang” and Shareholder Transnational Advocacy Networks Shareholders International NGOs Oil Company Domestic NGOs Domestic Indigenous • TANs targeted at corporations differ from those targeted at states in: • Strategies employed • Determinants of network effectiveness • Assessments of goal achievement 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. 1967: Texaco discovers oil near Lago Agrio. • Indigenous groups: Cofán, Siona, Secoya, Huaorani, Kichwa • 1993: Aguinda v. Texaco • Trillium Asset Management • At stake: Environmental remediation and compensation • Outcomes: limited dialogue, no progress on compensation Case 1: Chevron Texaco operated “in [an] environmental law vacuum...Texaco set its own standards and policed itself.” --Judith Kimerling

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 • Managementexecution 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