A “one- size-fits-all” requirement would undermine progress. As well as looking at the number of managers that disclose, the survey analysed voting details published on web-sites. This showed a wide variation in the matters reported, indicating the complexity of this matter and the difficulty of introducing regulations that would require uniform disclosure. In effect, imposing a “one-size-fits-all” legislative requirement would undermine the progress made to date.
The voting process could be undermined. Public disclosure could undermine and generally “dumb down” the voting process due to the sensitivity of the issues and the confidentiality necessary.
Mechanistic, meaningless reporting would result. Requiring disclosure would result in pages of statistics and tables, which could be meaningless without further analysis.
Now my point - on this occasion - is not that the arguments are wrong, but rather that they do fit pretty well into Hirschman's taxonomy. They are simply reactionary arguments of a classic type.
Final point - obviously conservatives are sometimes reformers, and 'progressives' deploy these types of arguments against them in turn to defend the status quo. So they are not intrinsically Left or Right. Having said that one side does tend to use them a lot more than the other - inevitably since conservatives tend to think the status quo is acceptable/natural and a concerned by the ramifications of moving away from it.
Anyway, a great little book.