Chapter 9 On Two Sides of the Smoke Screen: How Activist Organizations and Corporations use Protests, Campaign Contributions, and Lobbyists to Influence Institutional Change

Aranda, Ana M.; Simons, Tal

doi:10.1108/s0733-558x20180000056011

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 110 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, by revealing the influence of SMO prominence on solar PV firms, we extend recent investigations of the role of social movements as promoters of new practices (Weber et 26 al. 2008;Zietsma and Lawrence 2010;Van Wijk et al 2013), rather than as opponents of firms' behaviors (King 2008;Hiatt et al 2015;Aranda and Simons 2017). Our results suggest that the influence of SMOs on industry development is not limited to their impact on entrepreneurial entry or regulation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 55%

“…The first investigates the impact of activists and SMOs on firms, either directly or indirectly. Studies in this area examine the effects of shareholder activism, boycotts, lawsuits, protests, and threats of government regulation (Bartley and Child 2011;Davis and Thompson 1994;King and Soule 2007;Reid and Toffel 2009;Walker et al 2008;Yue et al 2013;Aranda and Simons, 2017) and show that, despite their relative lack of resources and formal control over firms, and without necessarily seeking the state as a mediator (King, 2008), social movements often can effectively trigger organizational change. These studies mostly investigate cases in 5 which activists target firms to drive them away from contested corporate practices.…”

Section: Social Movements Firms and Industry Creationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Differential Firm Commitment to Industries Supported by Social Movement Organizations

Durand

Georgallis

2018

Organization Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article theorizes about and tests the conditions under which firms' commitment to an industry is influenced by social movement organizations (SMOs) that favor the industry. We argue that the more prominent SMOs are within an industry, the more a firm increases its commitment to that industry by expanding its operations; yet, this main effect should be moderated substantially by a firm's idiosyncratic characteristics. The current research predicts that a firm's location, its sensitivity to information about the industry's potential, and its history of associations with activists determine the magnitude of the effect of SMO prominence on its strategic commitment to the industry. We test and find support for these hypotheses using a longitudinal data set of European manufacturers of solar photovoltaic cells between 1990 and 2011. The findings offer new insights for literature on social movements and organizations, as well as strategic management research. 1 The authors are listed in alphabetical order. We are grateful to Brayden King and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback. We also thank 3 expectations, without investing substantively down the road. Second, research that views social movements as a source of market contentiousness, rather than as market supporters, consistently reports that responses to activism differ depending on the firms' characteristics (King 2008;McDonnell and King 2013;Waldron et al. 2013;Weber et al. 2009). Given these observations, although prior work has documented the macro-level effects of support for new industries by SMOs, the need remains to examine whether SMOs affect concrete investment strategies at the firm level and to understand why firms react differently to SMO prominence.We argue that the more SMOs are prominent in an industry (i.e., the more they are noticed within the industry) the more a firm will increase its commitment to the industry. Because SMO prominence signals shifting general public preferences, reflects active sponsoring of the alternative industry's economic potential, and defines new contours for reputation building, firms will tend to expand their commitment to the alternative industry in this case. Yet we also expect that firms differ in their responses to SMO prominence, particularly because their perceptions of the perceived benefits of social movement support might be magnified or stifled according to the firms' location, prior commitments, or history of associations with activists.Empirically, we focus on the European solar PV (photovoltaics) industry, which has been widely championed by the environmental social movement, -the most comprehensive and influential movement of our times‖ (Castells 1997: 67). To test our hypotheses, we built a longitudinal data set of solar PV cell producers operating in European countries from 1990 to 2011. We operationalize SMO prominence in reference to Greenpeace's presence in the PV industry's professional media and track all producers' production over time. Using growth models and accounting for co...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 55%

Section: Social Movements Firms and Industry Creationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differential Firm Commitment to Industries Supported by Social Movement Organizations

Durand

Georgallis

2018

Organization Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Amenta et al 2010, Gamson 1975, Giugni 1998, Lammers 1969, Piven and Cloward 1977, Walker et al 2008. Because collective action has historically been used to channel social movements' grievances against the state (Walker et al 2008), studies of social movements have largely focused on elected political institutions as the target, and on their influence on legislative outcomes as measures of success (Aranda and Simons 2018;Gamson 1975;Kitschelt 1986). Scholars have examined the impact of social movements at distinct stages of the law-making process, i.e.…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Activist Protest Spillovers into the Regulatory Domain: Theory and Evidence from the U.S. Nuclear Power Generation Industry

Fremeth

Holburn

Piazza

2022

Organization Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examine how social activism—in the form of public protests against contentious business practices—can spill over into the regulatory domain, extending beyond activists’ articulated goals to affect firms’ regulatory outcomes in areas that are not directly targeted. We argue that firms are likely to experience broader regulatory repercussions after activist protests because public contention invites greater scrutiny of firm behavior by industry regulators, increasing the likelihood that instances of organizational noncompliance will be discovered. Protests can also cause regulators to evaluate targeted firms more negatively in regulatory assessments, especially firms with less favorable preexisting reputations or stakeholder relations, and to tighten regulations on nontargeted issues that signal their commitment to safeguarding the public interest. We further contend that the political context within which regulatory agencies operate shapes the extent of protest spillovers: When political institutions are aligned with activist goals, and when regulators are ideologically sympathetic too, protests have a more pronounced negative impact on firms’ regulatory outcomes in nontargeted domains. We find robust support for our predictions in a statistical analysis of the impact of antinuclear protests—which sought to block nuclear power plant development by electric utilities—on utilities’ subsequent regulated financial rates of return on their assets. Our analysis contributes new insights to research on the indirect consequences for targeted organizations of social activism.

show abstract

“…A particularly extreme manifestation of reactance can emerge in the form of protests. Many laws that aim to increase safety at the expense of freedom have been met with protests in the past-seat-belt laws, smoking bans, helmet requirements, and firearm restrictions have all motivated opponents to protest (Aranda & Simons, 2018;Bayer & Colgrove, 2002;Goss, 2006;Jones & Bayer, 2007;Neiman, 2008). People resisting government orders under threat of natural disasters put their lives in danger to defy evacuation orders they perceive to be violating their freedom (Morss et al, 2016(Morss et al, , 2020.…”

Section: Negative Behavioral Consequencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Balancing the Freedom–Security Trade-Off During Crises and Disasters

Cheek,

Reutskaja,

Schwartz

2022

Perspect Psychol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During crises and disasters, such as hurricanes, terrorist threats, or pandemics, policymakers must often increase security at the cost of freedom. Psychological science, however, has shown that the restriction of freedom may have strong negative consequences for behavior and health. We suggest that psychology can inform policy both by elucidating some negative consequences of lost freedom (e.g., depression or behavioral reactance) and by revealing strategies to address them. We propose four interlocking principles that can help policymakers restore the freedom–security balance. Careful consideration of the psychology of freedom can help policymakers develop policies that most effectively promote public health, safety, and well-being when crises and disasters strike.

show abstract

Chapter 9 On Two Sides of the Smoke Screen: How Activist Organizations and Corporations use Protests, Campaign Contributions, and Lobbyists to Influence Institutional Change

Cited by 10 publications

References 110 publications

Differential Firm Commitment to Industries Supported by Social Movement Organizations

Differential Firm Commitment to Industries Supported by Social Movement Organizations

Activist Protest Spillovers into the Regulatory Domain: Theory and Evidence from the U.S. Nuclear Power Generation Industry

Balancing the Freedom–Security Trade-Off During Crises and Disasters

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About