AUTHOR: Nidhishni. K (student) LL.M. (Corporate and Business Law) School of legal studies, Reva University
CO-AUTHOR: Dr. Nagaraj V (Professor) School of legal studies , Reva University
Abstract : This article examines the dual dimensions of shareholder activism in India — financial and social — and how they are shaping corporate governance and accountability. Financial activism focuses on enhancing shareholder value through strategic, operational, and governance changes, while social activism advocates for ethical, environmental, and community-oriented reforms, often within the framework of India’s Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) mandate. The evolution of shareholder activism in India is analyzed through landmark corporate cases, the role of institutional investors, and the growing influence of global investment norms. The paper argues that the lines between financial and social motives are increasingly blurred, with many investors recognizing the long-term financial implications of socially responsible behavior. It concludes that this dual activism, if constructively engaged by corporate boards, can contribute to a more transparent, inclusive, and resilient Indian corporate sector.
- INTRODUCTION
The evolution of shareholder activism in India has been a global phenomenon as it now incorporates elements such as responsibility, accountability, stakeholder participation, transparency, and so on. Once confined to participating in proxy voting or attending the Annual General Meetings (AGM), shareholder activism in India has now become multi-dimensional, robust, and action-oriented. An institutional investor, foreign portfolio investor, or even a sophisticated retail investor now has the knowledge and inclination to challenge management’s decisions and require value in return for their investment alongside compliance with corporate governance norms. Driving this change are regulatory reforms, increasing awareness and activism among investors, a growing number of foreign investors in Indian markets, and heightened societal scrutiny of the actions of corporations. Out of this transformation, emerged two primary types of activism: financial activism or wealth maximization for shareholders and social activism or advocacy for responsible and sustainable business practices.
- VALUE-DRIVEN FINANCIAL SHAREHOLDER ACTIVISM: THE PURSUIT OF GROWTH
As previously explained, financial activism relates to exertion of influence through investment with the aim of optimizing company operations towards increasing profitability and shareholder value. This form of activism is quite common among institutional investors, hedge funds, and other wealthy persons with a negative perception of a firm’s performance. In India, there have been some instances of financial activism emerging out of investment scandals that have sparked huge media attention and prompted relevant corporate reforms.
The most notable one being the Tata-Mistry conflict of 2016. Tensions within the Tata Sons board led to the discontent with the then-Chairman Cyrus Mistry that escalated into an all-out corporate row with grave allegations of mis-governance, flawed investment policies and excessive boardroom delegate power escalated into an ugly corporate court battle. Even though there were several aspects in the conflict, it served as one more ‘forgetful’ alarm for a not-so-large section of Indian firms regarding the need for governance aligned with business strategies that shareholders expect and seek in this era of modern capitalism. One other is in the case of Infosys, where co-founder N.R. Narayana Murthy’s fired headlines pondering over CEO’s pay and lax governance, while challenging the board to undertake serious internal changes. Such instances demonstrate that financial activism in India gives the impression of being more passive, but in reality is fully prepared to take charge when share holder value maximization chances exist, turn attitudes towards management, and foster an environment where value creation is active in management.
- SOCIAL SHAREHOLDER ACTIVISM: EMBRACING CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY
In contrast to the financially driven approach, shareholding social activism focuses on the impact of a business on society, the environment , and its workers. It traces its origins from the belief that a business is expected to do more than just make profits; as well as ethically conducting affairs, socially responsible development, and sustainable economic growth. In India, this form of activism has been strongly influenced by the Companies Act, 2013, which introduced a law on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) for qualifying companies. This law has opened a door for civil society and some institutional investors to demand better transparency and accountability regarding CSR projects, including social and ethical investment funds.
Ethical or socially responsible investing has evolved in different forms, such as putting pressure on companies to adopt gender equitable representation policies at the board level, mandating carbon emission disclosure, and improving labor relations down the supply chain. Investors have increasingly paid attention to ‘spending’ versus ‘investment’ in CSR programs by prominent companies and have begun to demand impact measurement mid- and post-implementation. Also, the strong public demand for diversity on boards, particularly with the requirement set by SEBI to include at least one independent woman director in listed companies, signifies that this momentum is not only founded on the goals of feminism.
- BLURRING BOUNDARIES: THE CROSSOVER OF FINANCE AND SOCIAL ACTIVISM
The so-called ‘spheres’ of finance and social activism are gradually merging into one unit. It is evident that investors now appreciate the fact that social and environmental responsibilities do pose serious financial risks. Merely incremental climate change, labor unrests, regulatory fines, or even battered public image can severely impact profitability and shareholder value. Consequently, there is an emergence of hybrid activism that combines financial issues with social ones.
Consider a shareholder complaining of insufficient environmental practices for a manufacturing firm. Ethically motivated shareholders need not be so altruistic since financial risks like government sanctions, supply chain interruptions, or other forms of compliant outcome risks loom large. Prominent global investment firms such as BlackRock have already declared their intent towards promoting sustainability through their investment policies. Moreover, Indian corporates with a foreign shareholding are increasingly subjected to these requirements as well. Proxy advisory firms at a domestic level are also instructing that both financial and non-financial metrics be taken into account while voting on resolutions. Such a change in underlying motives shows how the changed perception of value among investors, shifting from a purely short-term return perspective to a more multifaceted approach.
- CHALLENGES IN THE INDIAN CONTEXT
As much as there has been progress, shareholder activism in India is still struggling with many cultural and structural issues. To begin with, the barrier of promoter shareholding as the dominant system in many public Indian companies deals a serious blow to minority shareholders. Most promoters have a controlling share which gives them the option to stifle opposition or chose not to engage with activist demand which is irritatingly widespread. Furthermore, retail investors’ awareness of their rights and ways to actively participate such as filing resolutions and voting, engaging with the management effectively or even submitting their participation poses a challenge.
In addition, the Indian corporate world is self-governing in the sense that it is more averse to challenges compared to its Western counterparts. Demands from shareholders, especially those deemed overly aggressive, are often dismissed or encountered with hostility. There are also other regulatory constraints that pose problems. Even though SEBI has done remarkable work in strengthening the disclosure requirements and empowering minority shareholders, there are still gaps in uniform implementation. Active shareholders and whistle-blowers, for instance, may face reputational and legal risks—often in the more politicized or tightly held firms. These factors mesh well to create a scenario where there is some level of activism, but that too amidst some resistance.
- THE WAY AHEAD: COMBINING PURPOSE AND PROFIT
In India, shareholder activism’s future depends on striking a balance between social responsibility and financial needs. Indian businesses must adapt to changing investor expectations, which include social responsibility, ethical governance, and environmental stewardship, as they join global supply chains and draw in foreign investment. By facilitating shareholder participation procedures, bolstering minority rights, and pushing businesses to release thorough sustainability and corporate social responsibility reports, regulatory agencies such as SEBI can play a critical role.
Efforts to increase capacity and educate people are also crucial. Investors must have the skills and information necessary to participate successfully, particularly retail and new institutional players. Businesses, on the other hand, need to change their perspective from seeing activism as a threat to their operations to seeing it as a chance for development and advancement. Building trust, gaining strategic advantages, and positioning businesses for long-term success in a market that is becoming more and more conscious can all be achieved through constructive communication between boards and shareholders.
- CONCLUSION
In India, corporate governance has two strong but complementary facets: social and financial shareholder activism. While social activists advocate for ethics, sustainability, and inclusivity, financial activists demand accountability, performance, and efficiency. These forms of activism are starting to converge as India’s corporate ecosystem develops, as many investors realize the close relationship between long-term financial performance and ethical business practices.
Indian businesses will be more likely to prosper in the coming years if they adopt this dual activism, which entails addressing shareholder concerns in a meaningful way, maintaining open governance, and coordinating corporate objectives with societal interests. In its developed form, activism is now a strategic input to be valued rather than a disruption to be controlled.
REFERENCES
1. Companies Act, 2013 (India) – Ministry of Corporate Affairs.
Retrieved from: [https://www.mca.gov.in](https://www.mca.gov.in)
2. Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Regulations
Particularly: SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015.
Retrieved from: [https://www.sebi.gov.in](https://www.sebi.gov.in)
3. Goswami, O. (2002). Corporate Governance in India.
OECD Development Centre.
Retrieved from: [https://www.oecd.org](https://www.oecd.org/dev/India.pdf)
4. Singh, J., & Muniapan, B. (2019). Shareholder Activism and Corporate Governance in India.
International Journal of Law and Management, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 2-15.
DOI: [https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLMA-05-2017-0116](https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLMA-05-2017-0116)
5. Bhatia, G., & Sharma, R. (2021). Shareholder Activism in India: A Governance Tool or Corporate Nuisance?
NLS Business Law Review, 7(1), pp. 34-58.
Retrieved from: [https://nlsblr.in](https://nlsblr.in)
6. BloombergQuint. (2017). What The Tata-Mistry Saga Means For Indian Corporate Governance.
Retrieved from: [https://www.bqprime.com](https://www.bqprime.com)
7. Murthy, N.R.N. (2017). Infosys Saga and Corporate Ethics: A Personal Account.
Featured in multiple news outlets including The Economic Times and Business Standard.
8. BlackRock. (2020). Sustainability as BlackRock’s New Standard for Investing.
Retrieved from: [https://www.blackrock.com](https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-relations/blackrock-client-letter)
9. SEBI. (2019). Report of the Committee on Corporate Governance (Kotak Committee Report).
Retrieved from: [https://www.sebi.gov.in/reports](https://www.sebi.gov.in/reports)
- Chatterjee, S. (2020). CSR in India: Legal Mandate or Strategic Tool?
Journal of Business Ethics, 163, pp. 591–607.
DOI: [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04340-1](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04340-1)