Shareholder activism is important because it keeps the company's management honest and accountable by allowing shareholders to bring their concerns to light. In the past, companies had the freedom to mislead investors and keep them "in the dark" with little to no consequences. Although a lot of this was due to the lack of government regulation, it still shows that investors were not nearly as involved with businesses as they are now.

Shareholder activism is on the rise because the public is finally beginning to hold large companies/corporations responsible for their poor history on some of the following issues: substandard/unethical business operations, equality and racial diversity in the workplace, social responsibility, environmental responsibility...etc. To combat some of these issues, shareholders only have their voice, and companies must listen because if the shareholders are powerful enough, they can spread their concerns to the public which can financially damage or even ruin the company. Information travels faster than ever and investors have the ability to react instantly. Furthermore, current (and potential) Investors tend not to take any chances when negative news hits the market, especially if the current shareholders are the unhappy ones.

Some examples of where shareholder activism has affected a company's performance and/or actions are as follows:

• Exxon Mobile: In an effort to move away from fossil fuels, shareholder activists from a hedge fund named "Engine No. 1" nominated its own employees to take over for two current board members (CNBCTV18, 2021).
• Westpac Banking Corporation: After CEO Brian Hartzer and chairman Lindsay Maxsted got accused of a major money laundering scheme, activist shareholders managed to get them to resign (CNBCTV18, 2021).
• Kroger: Carl Icahn is a shareholder activist who is targeting Kroger during his animal-welfare campaign. In addition to the animal-welfare concerns that Kroger is being accused of, Icahn wrote a letter to Kroger's CEO, Rodney McMullen, expressing his dissatisfaction with the enormous wage gap between him (the CEO) and the median worker. The letter resulted in McMullen agreeing to review the two new board members that Icahn proposed (Stank, 2022).

There is still a ton of work to be done to enhance how companies operate, but I would argue that more positive consequences result from shareholder activism than negative. Not all Shareholder activism hurts companies. Sometimes, they point out issues that a company many have not seen in the past and this can help them in the future. On the other hand, I am more concerned about the country and earth as a whole. Therefore, if an activist's concerns are going to ruin the company but help the country or earth, I am all for it. The Kroger situation above proves my point because shareholder activist, Carl Icahn, told CNBC's Scott Wapner on "Closing Bell: Overtime" that he is not doing this for the money. Icahn goes on to say "Emotionally, when you read about what they do to these animals, the unnecessary torture and cruelty, it really bothers me. Whenever I can do something about it, I try (Stank, 2022)". I'm grateful there's shareholder activists like Carl Icahn are around to ensure big companies are following appropriate and ethical business practices.

Question: After reading the opinion above, what is your response? What may be some risks or drawbacks? Please be detailed in your opinion.