No abstract

No abstract

This article examines social shareholder advocacy and socially responsible investing (SRI) to better understand the marketization of activism and the intersection of business and social justice. We use archival, interview, and participant observation data to explore how social shareholder activism has increasingly come to be practiced for profit. We show how the movement's history in social justice activism of the 1960s and 1970s continues to shape the practice today, even while it is increasingly commodified, marketized, and shaped by the ideals and practices of business and finance. Shareholder activists and other SRI advocates have created a new market and a hybrid form of investing that melds social and environmental concerns with financial profit. However, as the fundamental principles of capital accumulation remain unaltered, these practitioners find themselves pulled and pushed between the competing logics of activist ideals and investment finance.

What cultural and structural factors allow conflict in a social movement organization to persist over long periods of time? Using data gleaned from interviews, archival materials, newspaper articles and online sources, I examine the Sierra Club's conflict over immigration policy, an issue which has persisted for decades without clear resolution. I argue that ideology accounts for some activists' position on club policy, while others based their stance on strategic concerns, which were linked in part to forces external to the club. At the same time, the democratic structure of the Sierra Club has allowed factions to continue working towards their own agendas. This case reveals a more complicated connection between ideology and strategy than previous studies have indicated and illuminates how intense conflict may not necessarily be associated with dramatic outcomes.

No abstract