NGOs Moving Business: An Analysis of Contrasting Strategies

Abstract

In this article, we seek to advance understanding of nongovernmental organization (NGO) strategies with regard to influencing corporations. We study two contrasting NGO strategies (symbolic gain and symbolic damage), which simultaneously target the same corporation on the same issue. In so doing, we highlight three previously neglected dimensions of NGO influence strategies: (a) the influence effected by contrasting strategies; (b) the interplay between contrasting strategies; and (c) the dynamic relation between firm— stakeholder resource dependence relationship and NGO influence strategy.

Enhancing the Concept of Corporate Diplomacy: Encompassing Political Corporate Social Responsibility, International Relations, and Peace Through Commerce

“…In particular, when many services formerly provided by government have been privatized, and global production has been offshored to countries with incomplete or corrupt legal systems, NGOs and corporations often step in to fill governance voids and take responsibility for issues of public concern (Scherer & Palazzo, 2011;Teegen, Doh, & Vachani, 2004). The PCSR literature describes firms acting both independently and within multistakeholder initiatives to undertake several types of activities to address governmental deficits (Mena & Palazzo, 2012;Rasche, 2012;van Huijstee & Glasbergen, 2010). Such activities can include improving governance gaps in the areas of public health, education, social security, the protection of human rights, and public safety and security (Scherer & Palazzo, 2011).…”

“…Examining corporate diplomacy in conflict-prone zones provides an opportunity to augment the extant political corporate social responsibility (CSR) literature, which tends to focus more generally on how corporations facing governmental deficits can solve public problems independently or through multistakeholder initiatives to improve societal welfare (Mena & Palazzo, 2012;Rasche, 2012;van Huijstee & Glasbergen, 2010). Political corporate social responsibility (PCSR), on the other hand, expands CSR to include corporations undertaking activities such as public health, education, social security, and protection of human rights in countries where such services have been withdrawn, or in those with failed state agencies (Scherer & Palazzo, 2011).…”

The stakeholder concept analysis

“…In this case stakeholders are analyzed within the corporate social responsibility (CSR) (Huang, Kung, 2010) or environmental approaches (Sarkis et al, 2010;Ayerbe et al, 2012;Darnall et al, 2010;Ten et al, 2010;Benito, Benito, 2010), stakeholders and corporations relationship approach (Eesley, Lenox, 2006, 2011Onkila, 2011;Huang, Kung, 2010). Narrow concept is used in cases where the specific stakeholders group is set as the object, for example NGO organizations influence (Huijstee, Glasbergen, 2010), media pressure (Islam, Deegan, 2013) and shareholder activism (Musa, 2012;Soul et al, 2013).…”

“…Another way of identifying the important stakeholder group is setting it by the object of research. Nowadays most studies concentrate on NGO (Eesley, Lenox, 2011;Huijstee, Glasbergen, 2010), media influence (Islaam, Deegan, 2013;Zyglidopoulos, 2012) and shareholder resolutions (Musa, 2012, Soule et al, 2013. Different stakeholder groups have controversial demands and expectations towards company as their requirements and relationship with company also differ.…”

Green Alliances: How Does Ecophilosophy Shape the Strategies of Environmental Organizations?

“…Although adversarial relationships continue to arise (Rehbein, Waddock and Graves 2004;den Hond and de Bakker 2007;Zietsma and Winn 2007), anecdotal evidence suggests an increase in the number and scope of "green alliances" (Milne, Iyer and Gooding-Williams 1996;Crane 1998a;Stafford and Hartman 1998;Parker and This collaborative turn is receiving increasing attention in studies of both business and nonprofit organizations, with a range of theoretical perspectives being brought to bear on the constitution of green alliances. A promising stream of literature suggests considering the "reverse side" of stakeholder theory-i.e., to examine the perspective of the environmental stakeholder seeking to influence a target company (Clair, Milliman and Mitroff 1995;Turcotte 1995;Pleuune 1997;Frooman 1999;Frooman and Murrell 2005;Hendry 2005;Henriques and Sharma 2005;Hendry 2006;Zietsma and Winn 2007;van Huijstee and Glasbergen 2010).…”