Badaracco agrees that if proxy support grows"from two to four to six to seven percent, it maydo something," but that such a scenario is ananomaly.
"I don't think it makes any differencetypically," Badaracco says.
Malcolm S. Salter, professor of businessadministration at HBS and an expert in the fieldof corporate strategy, agrees.
"Proxy battles are rare, and winning proxybattles is very rare," Salter says.
"The easiest way is to vote with your feet andget out," Salter says.
No Change in Sight
Members of the more populist ACSR say theircommittee is restricted to a reactive role,devoting all of its time to ineffective and highlyspecific proxy questions. They say the Universityshould at least create an arena in whichinvestments can be discussed.
But content with HMC's success, the Corporationdoes not appear ready to expand the ACSR's mandateany time soon, either.
Daniel points out that Harvard owns millions ofshares in more than 1,600 firms, shares whichrapidly change hands, and he says a review of allfirms Harvard invests in would be impossible.
But the practical questions of how to changeare not even being raised, as no constituency inthe University is pressing hard for reform.
In 1972, students protested Harvard'sinvestments by occupying Mass. Hall, and theUniversity eventually responded with a plan to"divest selectively" from South Africa.
But Daniel says he receives very few complaintsabout Harvard's investments and feels "nopressure" to take a more proactive role.
And so the financial strength of companies likeNike will remain the sole determinant of Harvard'sdecision to invest in them, and the sweat ofshoemakers will keep Harvard the wealthiestuniversity.