Political investorism: Conceptualising the political participation of shareholders and investors
| Published date | 01 November 2023 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/01925121221098863 |
| Author | Erin O’Brien,Justine Coneybeer,Martijn Boersma,Alice Payne |
| Date | 01 November 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Original Research Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/01925121221098863
International Political Science Review
2023, Vol. 44(5) 609 –626
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/01925121221098863
journals.sagepub.com/home/ips
Political investorism:
Conceptualising the political
participation of shareholders and
investors
Erin O’Brien
Centre for Justice, Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Justine Coneybeer
Centre for Justice, Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Martijn Boersma
School of Law and Business, University of Notre Dame, Australia
Alice Payne
Centre for a Waste Free World, Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Abstract
This article establishes a new basis for examining the participation, mobilisation and impact of investors
at a time when market-based activism for social change is rising in prominence. Existing terminology
describing the expression of political values through investment decisions lacks conceptual clarity. Political
participation by shareholders and other investors is variously described as shareholder activism or
socially responsible investment, and currently conceptualised under the banner of political consumerism.
However, this term fails to capture the unique political role and diverse actions of investors. We put
forward ‘political investorism’ as a cohering term for investment-based political participation to remedy
existing conceptual confusion, to distinguish between investors and consumers as political actors and to
set an agenda for the future study of market-based activism. This article defines and develops the concept
of political investorism, drawing upon illustrative cases from Australia to identify hallmarks, actors and
tactics of this form of political participation.
Corresponding author:
Erin O’Brien, Centre for Justice, Queensland University of Technology, A Block, Kelvin Grove Campus, 149 Victoria
Park Road, Kelvin Grove, Brisbane, QLD 4059, Australia.
Email: erin.obrien@qut.edu.au
1098863IPS0010.1177/01925121221098863International Political Science ReviewO’Brien et al.
research-article2022
Original Research Article
610 International Political Science Review 44(5)
Keywords
Participation, shareholder activism, political consumerism, political investorism, ethical investment,
responsible investment
Introduction
In October 2019, the Australian prime minister Scott Morrison delivered a speech condemning
political activists for ‘indulgent and selfish practices’ that he argued posed an ‘insidious threat’ to
the Australian community (Morrison, 2019). The prime minister was not talking about activists
engaged in civil disobedience, blockades or even rioting. He was talking about shareholders and
other investors who were pressuring banks, insurance companies and superannuation funds to end
their involvement with the fossil fuel industry. This event, combined with the recent rise in invest-
ment-based political participation and threatened banning of divestment campaigns in the United
Kingdom and Australia,1 highlights the pressing need to understand the phenomenon of individuals
expressing their political values through investment decisions.
Politically motivated decisions by shareholders and other investors are an important tool for
social change (Sparkes and Cowton, 2004), though to date have not been fully conceptualised as a
form of political participation. While the political participation of consumers is recognised (Van
Deth, 2014), conceptualised (Copeland, 2014; Marien et al., 2010) and defined as ‘political con-
sumerism’ (Stolle et al., 2005), the political participation of investors is not as readily recognised
or collectively defined. Politically motivated investment decisions attract a variety of terms, pre-
dominantly ‘shareholder activism’. This term is inaccurate as it can sometimes mean shareholders
who are ‘active’ but not politically activist (Sahut and Gharbi, 2010). The term is also limiting as
it does not capture the breadth of actors and actions involved in investment-based political partici-
pation. Shareholder activism has also been categorised as ‘discursive political consumerism’
(Stolle and Micheletti, 2013). However, this compounds the labelling problem, as we argue it
conceals critical differences between consumers and investors as political actors. We propose
‘political investorism’ as a cohering label for investors’ political participation that draws together
diverse forms of investment-based political participation extending beyond shareholder activism,
and distinguishes it from political consumerism.
The term ‘political investorism’ was coined by Berger (2019: 120), though not defined or devel-
oped. The purpose of this article is to define and develop the concept of ‘political investorism’ to
establish a clear foundation for the future study of investment-based political participation. We
define political investorism as the individual or collective use of a financial stake to express politi-
cal values. While most studies of investors’ political actions focus on shareholders alone, we define
political investorism more broadly to include acts and actors where political power is derived from
a financial stake. This includes not just shareholders, but also superannuation and pension fund
members, bond holders and users of financial products such as bank loans and insurance. For the
purposes of this article, we refer collectively to this group as ‘investors’, to reflect their position in
the market as distinct from consumers.
We argue that crystalising the discourse on investment-based political participation around the
term ‘political investorism’ is necessary to reflect the diversity and unique elements of this form of
participation, and accurately situate it as a counterpart of political consumerism. To make this case,
this article proceeds as follows. First, we outline previous efforts to understand investors’ political
participation, highlighting the problem posed by inconsistent and inaccurate terminology. Second,
we consider critical differences between consumers and investors as political actors. We argue that
both demonstrate the need to establish a coherent terminology and definition of political
To continue reading
Request your trial