The voice of small shareholders at annual general meetings

Purpose This study focuses on the voice of small shareholders in annual general meetings (AGMs) to explore how their marginalization unfolds. We investigate how managerial discourse constitutes small shareholders as marginal subjects and why they participate despite this marginalization. Design/methodology/approach We adopt a discourse analysis approach informed by the Foucauldian lens of power and governmentality to interpret the minutes of the four key AGMs of one of the world's oldest banks, which trace the bank's passage from growth to crisis. Findings The analysis shows that managers organize AGMs through the control of timing, sequencing, and procedural structures, limiting substantive dialogue with small shareholders while preserving procedural legitimacy. We interpret the AGM as a disciplinary dispositif operating through technologies of power that marginalize small shareholders. Shareholders raise concerns extending beyond investment interests to employees, consumers, the local community, and personal recognition. They continue to participate because they misrecognize the AGM as a democratic arena. Misrecognition sustains the illusion that voice may influence governance, while loyalty sustains continued engagement despite marginalization. Originality/value We explain how marginalization is reproduced over time and conceptualize shareholder marginalization as a recursive process by bringing Foucault's analytics of power and governmentality into dialogue with Habermas's concept of ideal speech. Findings highlight how seemingly participatory mechanisms can produce exclusion. This process may occur in settings where communicative events are structured to maintain authority while enacting procedural legitimacy. The risk that AGMs fall short as platforms for accountability warrants attention given the global adoption of purely virtual formats.