Carl Icahn, one of the most emblematic activist investors in history, has become synonymous with public confrontations and aggressive strategies to pressure companies to adopt significant changes. Throughout his trajectory, he starred in interventions that changed directions from global companies. At Apple, he pressed for a robust increase in the action repurchase program; In eBay, he defended the separation of Paypal to unlock value; And on Netflix, it charged operational efficiency to maximize returns to shareholders.
However, the performance of figures like Icahn is changing. Since 2024, the international press has been reporting a transformation in global stock activism. Vehicles like the Wall Street Journala Reuters and the Financial Times highlight that the traditional model of public confrontations and disputes for proxy voting – The process by which shareholders vote for a distance to elect counselors or approve strategic decisions, often through intense campaigns – is giving way to a more strategic approach. The new dynamic is marked by discrete agreements and cooperation between investors and advice councils.
According to WSJactivism is becoming “more institutionalized, focused on constructive and strategic changes, and less in immediate gains.” THE Reuters It points to a growing preference for private agreements rather than public confrontations, which minimize costs and preserve reputations. THE Financial Times It reinforces this trend, stating that “peace seems to be prevailing in the field of activism, with more silent negotiations and less public battles.”
Continues after advertising
Even with this change of direction, it is important to recognize that the campaigns of proxy voting They did not stop happening. In March 2025, Kenvue, a giant of consumer goods, gave in to the pressure of the Starboard Value fund and appointed three new executives. Months later, Manager Engine Capital went to headlines by requiring cost cuts and even considering the sale of Avantor, a life science company.
This shift is explained by high costs of public campaigns, reputational risks for both sides and by finding that direct agreements tend to generate faster and more predictable results. In addition, regulatory changes and the increase in the participation of institutional investors with long -term strategies encourage resolution of divergences outside the spotlight. The result is an environment in which managers and companies prefer to sew governance commitments and strategic adjustments through reserved dialogues, rather than waging open disputes that can drag themselves for months.
In Brazil, adversely, this kind of public confrontation has always been rare, but for different reasons for this change of trend in the US. The concentrated stock structure between families, pension funds such as Previ or state -owned entities maintains more reserved corporate decisions. The term “activism” also carries a conflicting perception in Brazil, often associated with judicial clashes or hostile disputes, which leads many managers to adopt more neutral nomenclatures such as “business engagement” or “constructive dialogue” to describe some similar initiatives.
Continues after advertising
The evolution of activism reflects the different stages of corporate governance maturity in each market. In the United States, with a consolidated regulatory environment and a deep capital market, activism has migrated to more sophisticated formats, focused on strategic dialogue and cooperation, without losing the relevance of the minority investor in pressure for results.
In Brazil, although public activism is rare, the minority investor maintains a key role. By contributing to the strengthening of governance and the mitigation of risks, it drives the gradual construction of a more transparent market and aligned with global best practices, demonstrating that even in emerging markets, minority shareholder can make real difference in companies’ strategies.
