Television viewers in more than 3 million homes in New York City and its suburbs discovered this morning that their cable TV provider was no longer carrying local station WABC, flagship of the ABC Television network, raising the possibility that they might not be able to watch tonight’s globally-televised 82^nd annual Academy Awards ceremony.

The cutoff came after the breakdown of negotiations between The Walt Disney Company, which owns ABC, and Cablevision Systems Corporation, one of the nation’s largest cable companies.   Disney wants more from Cablevision in so-called “retransmission fees” for the right to transmit the WABC signal to the cable company’s subscribers.  When the two sides couldn’t reach agreement by their current contract deadline, Disney pulled the WABC signal.

These two prosperous companies will undoubtedly sort out their dispute, maybe even in time for tonight’s orgy of Hollywood self-congratulation.   What’s notable about the confrontation, however, is the harsh public language used by corporate combatants and the hints it provides of progress in the movement toward corporate governance reform.

On its web site for customers, for example, Cablevision argued: “It is wrong for ABC to demand $40 million in new fees, which is nothing more than a new TV tax, to help pay the salaries and bonuses for top ABC executives.”  (Translation: Executive compensation levels at Disney are a real issue.  That affects the type and quality of TV programming you receive.)

Disney’s WABC fired back: “Cablevision pocketed almost $8 billion last year, and now customers aren’t getting what they pay for – again.  It’s time for Jim Dolan and the Dolan family dynasty to finally step up, be fair, and do what’s right for our viewers.”  (Translation: The Dolan family makes an awfully good living because it tightly controls publicly-held Cablevision through its ownership of a special Class B common stock.  That affects the type and quality TV programming you receive.)

It’s no wonder that The Morning Bridge, a TV industry newsletter, published a special Sunday morning bulletin focusing on the war of words and asking: “Think anybody wins in these situations?”

(Update: Disney and Cablevision reached a tentative agreement and the ABC signal was restored 14 minutes into the Oscar broadcast.)

Is the tide turning?

Well, it could be that the movement for corporate governance reform is actually beginning to score some wins, if only because average citizens and small shareholders are beginning to understand that these issues can really mean something to them.  The question is whether these victories are only short-term tactical advantages or constitute signs of longer-term success.

“Up until now, it’s been sort of a Soviet system,” is the way shareholder democracy is described by Stephen Davis, executive director of the Millstein Center for Corporate Governance and Performance at the Yale School of Management.  “We have been operating in the United States under the myth that boards have been accountable to shareholders.”

Davis’s views are reflected in a generally upbeat weekend New York Times article on shareholder democracy which concludes that “the tide is beginning to turn, albeit slightly” for shareholders.  In addition to various rules changes, the Times cites the availability of more Web resources that help educate smaller investors to the issues, including ProxyDemocracy.org, Shareowners.org and MoxyVote.com.

Governance activist and blogger James McRitchie agrees that that the tide “is turning to become more balanced through increased voice from shareowners. Of course, we are still a long way from the point where most directors feel more accountable to shareowners than CEOs,” he adds.  McRitchie says his optimism about the outlook for shareholders, like that of other activists, is also fed by the work of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s newly-formed Investor Advisory Committee.

“A many-splendoured thing…”

Bob Monks

Seemingly less sanguine about the prospects for shareholder democracy is Robert A.G. “Bob” Monks, one of the world's most provocative thinkers on corporate governance.  Back in 2005, my colleague Marjorie Kelly, co-founder and then Editor of Business Ethics Magazine, wrote that “Monks seems to have invented the term ‘corporate governance.’”  As a co-founder with Nell Minow of the Corporate Library, a governance research firm, and founder of Institutional Shareholder Services (acquired in 2007 by RiskMetrics Group), Monks has an established track record in the field.

“Clearly, the modern shareholder, like love, is a many-splendoured thing, but while we can admire such diversity, we also have to ask whether any single class so broadly writ can ever begin to exercise its ownership rights vis a vis entrenched and well-funded corporate power,” Monks writes in a new, lengthy and colorfully-written post on the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation.

Monks goes on: “The practical effect of having ownership spread so broadly is that shareholders as a group have virtually no effective ownership rights they can exercise. Senior management pays itself, boards sit idly or complacently by, corporations abrogate ever more authority to themselves and gain an ever stronger voice in the political process, and when it comes time for the piper to be paid, the shareholders pony up in lost equity value and increasingly of late taxpayers pick up the final tab. This is a condition that ultimately serves no public good.”

One possible solution, suggests Monks, is a standard corporate structure with two classes of stock ownership: “passive shareholders, who choose not to exercise ownership rights, and stewardship shareholders, who already bear a fiduciary responsibility for funds under their management.”  Accomplishing that, Monks says, would require federal government action to create “a framework of legally enforceable responsibility.”

Speaking of Oscars…

None of this is likely to help some 3 million Cablevision subscribers in the New York area watch the Academy Awards tonight.   Their outrage is reflected in the comments on local newspaper web sites:

“GREED THY name is america.......if you make a gazillion dollars you want a bazillion......”

“Corporate blackmail with the consumer caught in the middle. Time for regulatory reform.”

Indeed, the current state of shareholder rights calls to mind the Oscar-winning performance of Peter Finch as TV anchorman Howard Beale in the prophetic 1976 film “Network.” Outraged by the respective states of society and the TV industry, Beale explodes spontaneously on-camera, driving ratings through the roof as he gets millions of viewers to join him in screaming: “I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore.” (YouTube)

It’s a message that the senior management and boards of Cablevision and Disney – and many other publicly-held U.S. companies – should listen to again and take to heart.

Disclosure: Michael Connor is a past employee of Cablevision Systems Corporation and ABC Television.

Oscar Photo: Darren Decker / ©A.M.P.A.S.

When do you know that ESG (or factoring environmental, social, and governance issues into investment and corporate decisions) has gone mainstream? One clue is this week's announcement that MSCI (Morgan Stanley Capital International) is acquiring ESG research conglomerate RiskMetrics (which gobbled up ESG pioneers KLD, Innovest, and Institutional Shareholder Services over the past three years). Another is the agenda of last week's meeting of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Investor Advisory Committee (IAC), which included items such as "ESG Disclosure Work Plan" and "Proxy Voting Transparency." So what does this mean?

The fact that an Investor Advisory Committee even exists – one of SEC Commissioner Mary Schapiro's first initiatives, to return to the "Commission's traditional role as the investor's advocate" (in the words of Committee sponsor, SEC Commissioner Luis Aguilar) – is testament to the success of the G part of the ESG equation: the SEC is governing itself more democratically. The Committee acts as the SEC's sounding board, rebounding guidance to the Commissioners on their regulatory agenda. The Committee's 18 members each represent a different constituency – with the AFL-CIO's Damon Silvers representing labor, and ProxyDemocracy Director Mark Latham representing individual investors, for example.

"Of course, the Commission doesn't have to act on anything the Committee recommends," IAC member Adam Kanzer of Domini Social Investments, who represents the ESG community of social investors, told me in an interview this week. But the very existence of the Committee establishes a mechanism for expressing the public mind – so the Commission would need a damn good reason to act against its recommendations.

The ESG equation squares the circle, reuniting the bifurcation the ol' Investor Responsibility Research Center (which got eaten up by Institutional Shareholder Services in 2005 established with its separate "social and environmental" and "governance" departments (no more having to track down either Meg Voorhes or Carol Bowie, as ESG creates a both/and.) Also, the ESG formulation has turned on its head the traditional perception of sustainability issues as time-wasting, extraneous concerns that drain on returns to potentially material risks and opportunities that investment trustees and corporate directors must factor into decision-making.

Kanzer and Stephen Davis of Yale's Millstein Center for Corporate Governance, chair of the Investor as Owner Subcommittee, outlined the workplan on ESG disclosure (according to meeting attendee Peter DeSimone of the Social Investment Forum, the socially responsible investing industry organization):

• In April, Subcommittee members will hold a meeting on the benefits of ESG disclosure to investors from a risk management perspective;
• In May, they will look at accounting standards and triggers for disclosure of contingent liabilities in the United States and other markets;
• In June, they will review reporting standards, including the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), and look at information collected by the European Commission during its six meetings on ESG disclosure over the past year;
• In the summer, the Subcommittee plans to hold a public hearing on ESG disclosure to coincide with another meeting of the entire SEC.

The SEC Staff Interpretation released last month – the Commission Guidance Regarding Disclosure Related to Climate Change – set precedent on the E part of ESG disclosure. The guidance does not introduce new rules, but rather clarifies existing rules requiring companies to disclose material risks related to climate change, such as projected impacts of new legislation and international treaties capping carbon emissions.

Predictably, the move prompted opposition: House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Spencer Bachus (R-AL) fired a letter to Chairman Schapiro voicing "very serious concerns" that the move represents the SEC trying to "promote a political agenda through regulation" and "will impose potentially significant compliance costs on issuers with little apparent benefit to investors." The preponderance of evidence and opinion debunking his concerns (think Stern Report and CDP) raises serious questions whether Bachus is promoting a political agenda through obstruction. Similarly, Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) introduced the Maintaining Agency Direction on Financial Fraud (or MADOFF) bill explicitly to "block" mandatory climate risk disclosure.

Bachus and Barrasso may be spitting into the wind. The corporate community generally understands and even encourages climate change regulation to create certainty and level the playing field through initiatives such as Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy (BICEP) and the US Climate Action Partnership (USCAP). Even recently-departed USCAP members BP, ConocoPhillips, and Caterpillar "have reiterated their belief that climate change is a real and serious issue, and that greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced," according to SustainAbility Vice President Jeff Erikson, who pointed to a ConocoPhillips press release re-stating support for federal climate change legislation. "The disagreement instead seems to be in the details of which industries will be most disadvantaged under legislation that USCAP supports," Erikson continued, before voicing disappointment at the three companies' decisions to leave USCAP.

Finally, the Investor Advisory Committee returned to the question of democracy in the wake of the recent Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, which considerably expanded corporate political contribution rights. The Investor as Owner Subcommittee voiced its intention to mirror its ESG disclosure proposal by proposing better disclosure or corporate political contribution limits.

The very existence of the Committee expands democratic mechanisms at the SEC, which allows and encourages the submission of public comments to the Committee - twenty five have come in as of this date.  Given the leverage opportunity the IAC represents, maintaining SEC momentum on ESG and corporate democratization may require more of a groundswell to demonstrate widespread public support for these measures – time to "sharpen your pencils."

Bill Baue is Executive Director of Sea Change Media, and Executive Producer/Host of Sea Change Radio, a nationally syndicated show with a global podcast audience. This article was first published on CSRWire.