Skip main navigation
Articles

A Signaling Theory of Institutional Activism: How Norway’s Sovereign Wealth Fund Investments Affect Firms’ Foreign Acquisitions

    Published Online:16 Aug 2018https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.1141

    Abstract

    Combining perspectives from institutional activism and signaling theory literatures, we suggest that an activist sovereign wealth fund (SWF) can serve as an intermediary signaler, providing cues about host countries’ institutional environment to internationalizing firms. By publicizing its investments and engaging in institutional activism, a SWF can signal the institutional quality of host countries to internationalizing firms, thus allowing them to overcome the well-known “lemons problem” in international decision-making. We examine the impact of a SWF’s signals on firms’ ownership choices in their foreign acquisitions. Our empirical analysis of Norway’s socially responsible SWF and firms from Norway and Sweden during 1998–2011 shows that firms are more likely to take larger commitments via full equity ownership in acquisitions in host countries where Norway’s SWF holds larger investments. The signaling effect of the SWF weakens for conational firms, suggesting that proximity to the signaler may generate alternative information channels that diminish the signaling value of foreign investments. Similarly, institutional harmonization enabled by intergovernmental organizations connecting the home and host countries weakens the signaling value of SWF investments. Our findings point to intermediary signaling by activist institutional investors and the salience of their signals for firms’ international decision-making.

    REFERENCES

    • Adolph, C., Quince, V., & Prakash, A. 2017. The Shanghai effect: Do exports to China affect labor practices in Africa? World Development, 89: 1–18. Google Scholar
    • Aggarwal, R., Erel, I., Ferreira, M., & Matos, P. 2011. Does governance travel around the world? Evidence from institutional investors. Journal of Financial Economics, 100: 154–181. Google Scholar
    • Aguilera, R. V., Capapé, J., & Santiso, J. 2016. Sovereign wealth funds: A strategic governance view. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 30: 5–23.Link , Google Scholar
    • Aizenman, J., & Glick, R. 2009. Sovereign wealth funds: Stylized facts about their determinants and governance. International Finance, 12: 351–386. Google Scholar
    • Akerlof, G. A. 1970. The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84: 488–500. Google Scholar
    • Alcacer, J., & Ingram, P. 2013. Spanning the institutional abyss: The intergovernmental network and the governance of foreign direct investment. American Journal of Sociology, 118: 1055–1098. Google Scholar
    • Amel-Zadeh, A., & Serafeim, G. 2017. Why and how investors use ESG information: Evidence from a global survey. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2925310 Google Scholar
    • Backer, L. C. 2010. Sovereign wealth funds as regulatory chameleons: The Norwegian sovereign wealth funds and public global governance through private global investment. Georgetown Journal of International Law, 41: 425–492. Google Scholar
    • Backer, L. C. 2014. Sovereign investing and markets-based transnational rule of law building: The Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund in global markets. American University International Law Review, 29: 1–122. Google Scholar
    • Barkema, H. G., & Schijven, M. 2008. How do firms learn to make acquisitions? A review of past research and an agenda for the future. Journal of Management, 34: 594–634. Google Scholar
    • Berry, H., Guillén, M. F., & Zhou, N. 2010. An institutional approach to cross-national distance. Journal of International Business Studies, 41: 1460–1480. Google Scholar
    • Bowen, H. P. 2010. Total, structural and secondary moderating effects in the Tobit model and their computation using Stata (Discussion paper no. 2010-02). Charlotte, NC: McColls School of Business, Queens University of Charlotte. Google Scholar
    • Bower, J. L., Leonard, H. B., & Paine, L. S. 2011. Capitalism at risk: Rethinking the role of business. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press. Google Scholar
    • Briscoe, F., & Safford, S. 2008. The Nixon-in-China effect: Activism, imitation, and the institutionalization of contentious practices. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53: 460–491. Google Scholar
    • Brouthers, K. D. 2002. Institutional, cultural and transaction cost influences on entry mode choice and performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 33: 203–221. Google Scholar
    • Brouthers, K. D., & Hennart, J. F. 2007. Boundaries of the firm: Insights from international entry mode research. Journal of Management, 33: 395–425. Google Scholar
    • Burr, V. 2003. Social constructionism. London, England: Psychology Press. Google Scholar
    • Business Standard. 2012. Telenor’s India loss to be biggest by a Norwegian company abroad. Business Standard. Retrieved from http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/telenor-s-india-loss-to-be-biggest-by-a-norwegian-company-abroad-112051300013_1.html Google Scholar
    • Business Standard. 2013. Norwegian sovereign wealth fund investing $4bn in India. Business Standard. Retrieved from http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/norwegian-sovereign-wealth-fund-investing-4bn-in-india-113051600903_1.html Google Scholar
    • Business Standard. 2014. Telenor to invest Rs 780 cr in Uninor to raise stake to 100%. Business Standard. Retrieved from http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/telenor-to-invest-rs-780-cr-in-uninor-to-raise-stake-to-100-114061300554_1.html Google Scholar
    • Certo, S. T. 2003. Influencing initial public offering investors with prestige: Signaling with board structures. Academy of Management Review, 28: 432–446.Link , Google Scholar
    • Certo, S. T., Busenbark, J. R., Woo, H. S., & Semadeni, M. 2016. Sample selection bias and Heckman models in strategic management research. Strategic Management Journal, 37: 2639–2657. Google Scholar
    • Certo, S. T., Daily, C. M., & Dalton, D. R. 2001. Signaling firm value through board structure: An investigation of initial public offerings. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26: 33–50. Google Scholar
    • Chesterman, S. 2008. The turn to ethics: Disinvestment from multinational corporations for human rights violations—the case of Norway’s sovereign wealth fund. American University International Law Review, 23: 577–615. Google Scholar
    • Cohen, B. D., & Dean, T. J. 2005. Information asymmetry and investor valuation of IPOs: Top management team legitimacy as a capital market signal. Strategic Management Journal, 26: 683–690. Google Scholar
    • Connelly, B. L., Certo, T., Ireland, D., & Reutzel, C. 2011. Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37: 39–67. Google Scholar
    • Connelly, B. L., Tihanyi, L., Certo, S. T., & Hitt, M. A. 2010. Marching to the beat of different drummers: The influence of institutional owners on competitive actions. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 723–742.Link , Google Scholar
    • Coupé, T. 2005. Bias in conditional and unconditional fixed effects logit estimation: A correction. Political Analysis, 13: 292–295. Google Scholar
    • Cui, L., & Jiang, F. 2012. State ownership effect on firms’ FDI ownership decisions under institutional pressure: A study of Chinese outward-investing firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 43: 264–284. Google Scholar
    • Delios, A., & Henisz, W. 2000. Japanese firms’ investment strategies in emerging economies. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 305–323.Link , Google Scholar
    • Dewenter, K., Han, X., & Malatesta, P. 2010. Firm values and sovereign wealth fund investments. Journal of Financial Economics, 98: 256–278. Google Scholar
    • Dimson, E., Karakaş, O., & Li, X. 2015. Active ownership. Review of Financial Studies, 28: 3225–3268. Google Scholar
    • Eden, L., & Miller, S. R. 2004. Distance matters: Liability of foreignness, institutional distance and ownership strategy. In M. Hitt & J. L. C. Cheng (Eds.), Theories of the multinational enterprise: Diversity, complexity and relevance: 187–221. Bingley, England: Emerald Group Publishing. Google Scholar
    • Fernandez, D. G., & Eschweiler, B. 2008. Sovereign wealth funds: A bottom-up primer (JPMorgan Research). Retrieved from ftp://139.82.198.57/mgarcia/Seminario/textos_preliminares/SWF22May08.pdf. Google Scholar
    • García-Canal, E., & Guillén, M. 2008. Risk and the strategy of foreign location choice in regulated industries. Strategic Management Journal, 29: 1097–1115. Google Scholar
    • Gillan, S. L., & Starks, L. T. 1998.A survey of shareholder activism: Motivation and empirical evidence. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=663523 Google Scholar
    • Gillan, S. L., & Starks, L. T. 2003. Institutional investors, corporate ownership and corporate governance: Global perspectives. In L. Sun (Ed.), Ownership and governance of enterprises: Recent innovative developments: 36–68. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar
    • Graver, H. P., Bergo, J., Cappelen, A., Lohman, O., Matlary, J. H., Nystuen, G., Rathe, B., Ruud, L., Sandberg, P., & Sydnes, A. K. 2003. The Report from the Graver Committee. Oslo, Norway: Ministry of Finance. Retrieved from https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/Report-on-ethical-guidelines/id420232/ Google Scholar
    • Guillén, M. F. 2002. Structural inertia, imitation, and foreign expansion: South Korean firms and business groups in China, 1987–1995. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 509–525.Link , Google Scholar
    • Gulati, R., & Higgins, M. C. 2003. Which ties matter when? The contingent effects of interorganizational partnerships on IPO success. Strategic Management Journal, 24: 127–144. Google Scholar
    • Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. 2001. An introduction to varieties of capitalism. In P. A. Hall & D. Soskice (Eds.), Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage: 1–68. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
    • Henisz, W. J., & Zelner, B. A. 2005. Legitimacy, interest group pressures, and change in emergent institutions: The case of foreign investors and host country governments. Academy of Management Review, 30: 361–382.Link , Google Scholar
    • Hernandez, E. 2014. Finding a home away from home: Effects of immigrants on firms’ foreign location choice and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59: 73–108. Google Scholar
    • Higgins, M. C., & Gulati, R. 2006. Stacking the deck: The effects of top management backgrounds on investor decisions. Strategic Management Journal, 27: 1–25. Google Scholar
    • Hill & Knowlton, Inc. & Penn Schoen Berland. 2010. Sovereign brands survey. Retrieved from http://www.wpp.com/wpp/marketing/branding/soverign-brands-survey-2010/ Google Scholar
    • Hoetker, G. 2007. The use of logit and probit models in strategic management research: Critical issues. Strategic Management Journal, 28: 331–343. Google Scholar
    • Hoffman, A. J., & Ocasio, W. 2001. Not all events are attended equally: Toward a middle-range theory of industry attention to external events. Organization Science, 12: 414–434. Google Scholar
    • Holburn, G. L., & Zelner, B. A. 2010. Political capabilities, policy risk, and international investment strategy: Evidence from the global electric power generation industry. Strategic Management Journal, 31: 1290–1315. Google Scholar
    • Ingram, P., Robinson, J., & Busch, M. 2005. The intergovernmental network of world trade: IGO connectedness, governance, and embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 111: 824–858. Google Scholar
    • Inoue, C., Lazzarini, S., & Musacchio, A. 2013. Leviathan as a minority shareholder: Firm-level implications of equity purchases by the state. Academy of Management Journal, 56: 1775–1801.Link , Google Scholar
    • Jandhyala, S., & Phene, A. 2015. The role of intergovernmental organizations in cross-border knowledge transfer and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60: 712–743. Google Scholar
    • Janney, J. J., & Folta, T. B. 2003. Signaling through private equity placements and its impact on the valuation of biotechnology firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 18: 361–380. Google Scholar
    • Jepperson, R. L. 2002. Political modernities: Disentangling two underlying dimensions of institutional differentiation. Sociological Theory, 20: 61–85. Google Scholar
    • Katz, E. 2001. Bias in conditional and unconditional fixed effects logit estimation. Political Analysis, 9: 379–384. Google Scholar
    • Khanna, T., Kogan, J., & Palepu, K. 2006. Globalization and similarities in corporate governance: A cross-country analysis. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88: 69–90. Google Scholar
    • King, B. G., & Soule, S. A. 2007. Social movements as extra-institutional entrepreneurs: The effect of protests on stock price returns. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52: 413–442. Google Scholar
    • King, G., Tomz, M., & Wittenberg, J. 2000. Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science, 44: 347–361. Google Scholar
    • Koch-Weser, I. N., & Haacke, O. D. 2013. China investment corporation: Recent developments in performance, strategy, and governance. Retrieved from https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/China%20Investment%20Corporation_Staff%20Report_0.pdf Google Scholar
    • Kogut, B., & Singh, H. 1988. The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode. Journal of International Business, 19: 411–432. Google Scholar
    • Kotter, J., & Lel, U. 2008. Friends or foes? Target selection decisions of sovereign wealth funds and their consequences. Journal of Financial Economics, 101: 360–381. Google Scholar
    • Lyons, G. 2008. State capitalism: The rise of sovereign wealth funds. Law & Business Review of the Americas, 14: 179–180. Google Scholar
    • McCahery, J. A., Sautner, Z., & Starks, L. T. 2016. Behind the scenes: The corporate governance preferences of institutional investors. The Journal of Finance, 71: 2905–2932. Google Scholar
    • Megginson, W. L., & Netter, J. M. 2001. From state to market: A survey of empirical studies on privatization. Journal of Economic Literature, 39: 321–389. Google Scholar
    • Milne, R. 2016, February 7. Norway’s oil fund urges US banks to split CEO-chairman role. Financial Times. Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/content/1e34f5fe-cc1e-11e5-84df-70594b99fc47 Google Scholar
    • Nachum, L., & Zaheer, S. 2005. The persistence of distance? The impact of technology on MNE motivations for foreign investment. Strategic Management Journal, 26: 747–767. Google Scholar
    • Norway SWF. 0000. Norges Bank Investment Management: Consultations. Retrieved from https://www.nbim.no/en/responsibility/standard-setting/consultations/ Google Scholar
    • Norway SWF. 2016. Norges Bank Investment Management: Investments. Retrieved from https://www.nbim.no/en/investments/ Google Scholar
    • OECD. 2017. Investment governance and the integration of environmental, social and governance factors. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/finance/Investment-Governance-Integration-ESG-Factors.pdf Google Scholar
    • OECD. 2018. Institutional investors’ assets and liabilities. OECD Institutional Investors Statistics (database). Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/finance-and-investment/data/oecd-institutional-investors-statistics_instinv-data-en Google Scholar
    • Olsen, J. P. 1983. Organized democracy: Political institutions in a welfare state. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Google Scholar
    • Oneal, J. R., & Russett, B. 1999. Assessing the liberal peace with alternative specifications: Trade still reduces conflict. Journal of Peace Research, 36: 423–442. Google Scholar
    • Pevehouse, J., Nordstrom, T., & Warnke, K. 2004. The COW-2 International Organizations dataset, version 2.0. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 21: 101–119. Google Scholar
    • Pollock, T. G., & Gulati, R. 2007. Standing out from the crowd: The visibility-enhancing effects of IPO-related signals on alliance formation by entrepreneurial firms. Strategic Organization, 5: 339–372. Google Scholar
    • Pollock, T. G., & Rindova, V. P. 2003. Media legitimation effects in the market for initial public offerings. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 631–642.Link , Google Scholar
    • Prakash, A., & Potoski, M. 2010. Private authority certification regimes. In T. Porter & K. Ronit (Eds.), The challenges of global business authority: Democratic renewal, stalemate or decay: 39–64. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Google Scholar
    • Rangan, S., & Sengul, M. 2009. The influence of macro structure on the foreign market performance of transnational firms: The value of IGO connections, export dependence, and immigration links. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54: 229–267. Google Scholar
    • Reuer, J. J., & Ragozzino, R. 2014. Signals and international alliance formation: The roles of affiliations and international activities. Journal of International Business Studies, 45: 321–337. Google Scholar
    • Reuer, J., Shenkar, O., & Ragozzino, R. 2004. Mitigating risk in international mergers and acquisitions: The role of contingent payouts. Journal of International Business Studies, 35: 19–32. Google Scholar
    • Reuer, J. J., Tong, T. W., & Wu, C. W. 2012. A signaling theory of acquisition premiums: Evidence from IPO targets. Academy of Management Journal, 55: 667–683.Link , Google Scholar
    • Sanders, W. G., & Boivie, S. 2004. Sorting things out: Valuation of new firms in uncertain markets. Strategic Management Journal, 25: 167–186. Google Scholar
    • Sandholtz, W., & Gray, M. M. 2003. International integration and national corruption. International Organization, 57: 761–800. Google Scholar
    • Sauvant, K. P., Sachs, L. E., & Jongbloed, W. P. F. S. 2012. Sovereign investment: Concerns and policy reactions. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
    • Schneider, M. R., Schulze-Bentrop, C., & Paunescu, M. 2010. Mapping the institutional capital of high-tech firms: A fuzzy-set analysis of capitalist variety and export performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 41: 246–266. Google Scholar
    • Shaver, J. M., Mitchell, W., & Yeung, B. 1997. The effect of own-firm and other-firm experience on foreign direct investment survival in the United States, 1987–92. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 811–824. Google Scholar
    • Shih, V. 2009. Tools of survival: Sovereign wealth funds in Singapore and China. Geopolitics, 14: 328–344. Google Scholar
    • Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. 1986. Large shareholders and corporate control. Journal of Political Economy, 94: 461–488. Google Scholar
    • Sorkin, A. R. 2008, January 22. What money can buy: Influence. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/business/22sorkin.html?dlbk Google Scholar
    • Soule, S. A., Swaminathan, A., & Tihanyi, L. 2014. The diffusion of foreign divestment from Burma. Strategic Management Journal, 35: 1032–1052. Google Scholar
    • Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute. 2016. Sovereign wealth fund rankings: Largest sovereign wealth funds by assets under management. Retrieved from https://www.swfinstitute.org/sovereign-wealth-fund-rankings/ Google Scholar
    • Spence, M. 1973. Job market signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87: 355–374. Google Scholar
    • Spence, M. 2002. Signaling in retrospect and the informational structure of markets. The American Economic Review, 92: 434–459. Google Scholar
    • Spencer, J. W., Murtha, T. P., & Lenway, S. 2005. How governments matter to new industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 30: 321–337.Link , Google Scholar
    • Starks, L. T., & Wei, K. D. 2013. Cross‐border mergers and differences in corporate governance. International Review of Finance, 13: 265–297. Google Scholar
    • Stuart, T. E., Hoang, H., & Hybels, R. C. 1999. Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 315–349. Google Scholar
    • Tihanyi, L., Griffith, D. A., & Russell, C. J. 2005. The effect of cultural distance on entry mode choice, international diversification, and MNE performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 36: 270–283. Google Scholar
    • Tihanyi, L., Johnson, R. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Hitt, M. A. 2003. Institutional ownership differences and international diversification: The effects of boards of directors and technological opportunity. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 195–211.Link , Google Scholar
    • UNCTAD. 2015. World investment report. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, United Nations. Google Scholar
    • UNCTAD. 2016. World investment report. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, United Nations. Google Scholar
    • Vaaler, P. M., Aguilera, R., & Flores, R. 2007. New methods for ex post evaluation of regional grouping schemes in international business research. In D. J. Ketchen & D. D. Bergh (Eds.) Research methodology in strategy and management, vol. 4: 161–190. Oxford, England: JAI Press. Google Scholar
    • Vasudeva, G. 2013. Weaving together the normative and regulative roles of government: How the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund’s responsible conduct is shaping firms’ cross-border investments. Organization Science, 24: 1662–1682. Google Scholar
    • Vogel, D. 1995. Trading up. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
    • Westphal, J. D., & Bednar, M. K. 2008. The pacification of institutional investors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53: 29–72. Google Scholar
    • Wooldridge, J. M. 2010. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
    • Yan, S., Ferraro, F., & Almandoz, J. 2018. The rise of socially responsible investment funds: The paradoxical role of the financial logic. Administrative Science Quarterly. Published online ahead of print. Google Scholar
    • Yiu, D., & Makino, S. 2002. The choice between joint venture and wholly owned subsidiary: An institutional perspective. Organization Science, 13: 667–683. Google Scholar
    • Zelner, B. 2009. Using simulation to interpret results from logit, probit and other non-linear models. Strategic Management Journal, 30: 1335–1348. Google Scholar
    • Zhao, H., Luo, Y., & Suh, T. 2004. Transaction cost determinants and ownership-based entry mode choice: A meta-analytical review. Journal of International Business Studies, 35: 524–544. Google Scholar
    Academy of Management
      Academy of Management
      100 Summit Lake Drive, Suite 110
      Valhalla, NY 10595, USA
      Phone: +1 (914) 326-1800
      Fax: +1 (914) 326-1900
    © 2025 Academy of Management
    Powered by Atypon® Literatum