Georgallis-LinkSocialMovements-2017

The Link Between Social Movements and Corporate Social Initiatives: Toward a Multi-level
Theory
Author(s): Panayiotis Georgallis
Source: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 142, No. 4, Special Issue on Ideologies in Markets,
Organizations, and Business Ethics (June 2017), pp. 735-751
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/45022134
Accessed: 29-04-2024 16:30 +00:00
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Business Ethics
This content downloaded from 104.207.138.102 on Mon, 29 Apr 2024 16:30:34 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
J Bus Ethics (2017) 142:735-751
DOI 10.1007/S10551-016-31 1 1-0 CrossMark
The Link Between Social Movements

Initiatives: Toward a Multi-level Theo
Panayiotis Georgallis1
Received: 31 December 2014 /Accepted: 6 March 2016 /Published online: 15

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016
attainment
Abstract This article offers a first of social prosperity.
step toward At the same time, the
a multi-
level theory linking social movements
question of whether to
firmscorporate social
should respond to non-economic
concernson
initiatives. In particular, building remains
the a matter of ongoing that
premise dispute and a fre-
social
movements reflect ideologiesquent
thattopic direct
of discussionbehavior
in the voluminous research on
inside
corporate
and outside organizations, this essay socialidentifies
responsibility, corporate sustainability, and
mechanisms
by which social movements induceadjacent areas (Caroli andto
firms Shabana 2010; Margolis
engage with et al.
2009; Porter and
social issues. First, social movements van der
are Lindeto
able 1996). However, as
influence
scholars engage in these
the expectations that key stakeholders haveinherently
aboutnormative quests, and
firms'
as widespread
social responsibility, making corporate acceptance of a business
social paradigm that
initiatives
reconciles
more attractive. Second, through such expectations
conflict orwith the dominant economic
collaboration,
they shape firms' reputationlogic
and remains a distant ideal,1 evidence
legitimacy. And suggests that firms
third,
aremanifest
social movements' ideologies investing in corporate social initiatives
inside the corpo-at increasing
rates (Margolis members'
rations by triggering organizational and Walsh 2003). values and
affecting managerial cognition.The The
social forces
essay that drive firms to proceed to
contributes to such
the literatures on social movements and
investments are CSR,
still not extends
well understood. the
In particular,
little attention
understanding of how ideologies are has been paid to how social
manifested inmovements
move- lead
firms generates
ment-business interactions, and to engage in corporate
rich social initiatives. Social
opportuni-
ties for future research. movements reflect ideologies that direct behavior inside
and outside organizations (Zald 2000), in the workplace as
Keywords Social movements well•asActivism
in civil society (Spicer and Böhm 2007). But
• Corporate
although
social responsibility • Ideology sociologists have studied
• Multi-level theory social movements
•
Stakeholder theory extensively and organizational scholars have identified
activists as able to prevent irresponsible practices by
directly targeting firms,
Increasing social pressure concentrates onwesteering
know relatively little about how
firms
they induce
toward practices that transcend narrowcorporate social initiatives (Den
economic Hond and de
objec-
tives and contribute to the resolution of social ills and the Bakker 2007; Soule 2009).
In this article, I draw on social movement theory to offer
the first step toward an integrative theoretical account that
explains how social movements influence firms' propensity
Ē3 Panayiotis Georgallis 1 This is evident both in practice, as "few managers today can
pgeorgal @ umich.edu publicly question [the dictum] that their job is to maximize
shareholder value" (Ghoshal 2005, p. 79), and in management
1 Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise & Energy scholarship, with the "the prominence of performance, productivity,
Institute, University of Michigan, 440 Church Street, and efficiency as the dependent variables of most interest" (Pfeffer
Ann Aibor, MI 48109, USA 2016, p. 4).
Springer
736 P. Georgallis
to engage in
this essay is to stakeholder theory, associa
the analysis uncovers
builds on Zald's
how social movements (2
shape the saliency of other stake-
as ideologically stru
holders. Lastly, by providing a first step toward a multi-
on the assumption
level theory that links social movements with corporate
social movements
social initiatives, this article generates rich opportunities
society for future research.
are ideologi
tally related to
The remainder of the paper is structured asidea
follows. I
includes ideas
first give abou
an overview of the theoretical background that
Zald's perspectivemotivates this study by briefly discussing research on social s
ideologies movements andthat man
work on corporate social initiatives. Then,
levels of I synthesizeanalysis.
prior work in these two distinct fields to
relationship develop arguments showing how they betw
are linked at multi-
social initiatives, I review the relevant literature and ple levels of analysis. Finally, I conclude the essay by
identify individual, organizational, and field-level mecha- discussing its contributions, limitations, as well as the
nisms that underlie this relationship. avenues for future inquiry that it gives rise to.
This essay suggests multiple mechanisms by which
movements can induce such initiatives. First, at the level of
the organizational field, social movement campaigns and Background and Definitions
the use of framing by social movement organizations
(SMOs) elicit support from other critical stakeholders,Social Movements
which in turn expect or even demand from firms to engage
with social issues. Second, at the organizational level, "Social movements" are defined as "coalitions that engage
social movement activists attack firms or collaborate with in sustained action to promote ideas and preferences for
them to shape corporate reputation and legitimacy, modi- changing prominent social, cultural and business practices"
fying the costs, and benefits of engaging in social initia- (adopted from McCarthy and Zald 1977; Weber and
tives. And third, at the individual level, social movements Soderstrom 2012). This definition stresses characteristics
affect managers' cognition and movement ideas manifest that scholars tend to associate with most social movements:
inside corporations in the form of organizational members' that they emerge out of some form of dissatisfaction which
value orientations. The three levels of analysis are of they strive to redress; that they are usually collective
course not independent, suggesting interactions among the enterprises; that they are tied together by a common pur-
identified mechanisms through cross-level linkages. Over- pose or ideology; and that they are characterized by some
all, this research offers a step toward an integrative theory degree of continuity (as opposed to isolated protest events)
of how social movements matter for firms, and in partic-(Crossley 2002; Soule 2009; Zald 2000). Illustrative
ular, why they matter for the study of corporate social exemplars of social movements include the much-studied
initiatives. civil rights, women's, environmental, and social justice
This article contributes to the literatures on social movements. But movements tend to form around more
movements and CSR. Despite the growing literature on
narrow areas as well, consider for example, the animal
firm-movement interactions (De Bakker et al. 2013; King rights movement, the anti-sweatshop movement, the fair
and Pearce 2010), we know little about how they induce trade movement, and the fossil-fuel divestment movement,
corporate social initiatives. Understanding such initiatives
among others. As explained below, the centrality of ide-
within the context of social movement action offers ology for social movements has implications for their role
important benefits to CSR research. Indeed, although not
lessonly in society, but also in the economy. But before
utilized in the CSR literature, social movement theory expanding on this, I offer an overview of perspectives on
provides a useful foundation to draw upon that comple- social movements that are important for what is to follow.
ments stakeholder theory (Eesley and Lenox 2006) and the One important perspective for understanding social
neo-institutionalist approach (Campbell 2005) because it
movements has been the resource mobilization view
pays more attention to the mechanisms by which activists
(McCarthy and Zald 1977). This theory has stressed the
enact corporate or institutional change. Moreover, role this of SMOs - complex, or formal, organizations which
study extends our understanding of how ideologiesidentifyare with a movement and attempt to implement its
manifested in movement-business interactions (Zald 2000)
goals (McCarthy and Zald 1977) - as groups that mobilize
by elaborating on how movement ideologies translate resources
into in order to gain access to polity and encourage
corporate action in the form of social initiatives. As dis-
further mobilization by movement supporters (McAdam
cussed in the concluding section, a tentative contribution of 1996). Such organizations - sometimes in the form of
et al.
Springer
The Link Between Social Movements and Corporate Social Initiatives: Toward a Multi-level... 737
NGOs - serve as mobilizing structures that activists

individualcan
mind - and are often associated with group
use to exercise their influence. They provide activists with
interests, conflicts, and struggle (Van Dijk 1998; Oliver and
the organizational structure that is necessary for the for-
Johnston 2000). Given the importance of ideologies for the
mulation of plans and the coordination of action,
waywhich
actors understand the role of corporations in society,
may include protests, marches, lawsuits, and various
Mayerother
Zald' s perspective of social movements, as descri-
social movement tactics. A second perspectivebed
onabove,
socialappears suitable for exploring social move-
movements that is important for the purposes ofments'
this essay
influence on corporate social initiatives.
builds on the notion of social movement framing (Snow
Before we begin to understand this relationship, though,
and Benford 1992). In contrast to the focus on the structure
it is important to pause and address a fundamental ques-
of mobilization, this view emphasizes culturetion:
andwhy
social
in the first place would social movements be
construction; in particular, it argues that the way social
linked to corporate social initiatives, or more generally to
movements frame their message will ultimately corporations?
impact the For all their rich history, social movements
outcome of their efforts. A "frame" is defined as "an had in fact initially received little attention as actors with
interpretive schemata that simplifies and condenses theover business policy (Van Dyke et al. 2004). Yet,
claims
over
'world out there' by selectively punctuating and encoding the last few decades, two related trends led scholars to
begin
objects, situations, events, experiences, and sequences of examining corporations as targets of social move-
actions" (Snow and Benford 1992, p. 137). Movements ments. First, the rising power, reach, and prominence of
frame issues and solutions in a way that increases their
large corporations along with recent trends in deregulation
resonance with other key stakeholders and shapes audience
and privatization led to a decline in the willingness or even
interpretations to the movements' advantage, as meaning
ability of states to monitor corporate activity (Böhm et al.
2010; Crossley 2003; King and Pearce 2010; Ulrich and
can be "negotiated, contested, modified" (Benford 1997).
In all essence, while resources matter a great dealSarasin
for 1995). With economic activity generously freed
whether SMOs will achieve their goals, movement influ- state control, the scale of markets increased, as did the
from
ence is rarely void of meaning and ideological content.
need for social control. Second, SMOs have proliferated
Indeed, in an inspiring essay, Zald (2000) suggested
overan
the past few decades and started to bypass the state
enlarged agenda for the study of social movements, a
and directly engage with firms in their attempts to bring
perspective that views movement behavior as ideologically
about societal change (Edwards and McCarthy 2004; King
and Pearce 2010; Van Dyke et al. 2004).2
structured: "guided and shaped by ideological concerns-
belief systems" (Zald 2000, pp. 3-4). The recognition ofargued here that one of the defining characteristics
It is
movements as ideologically structured action is not in movements is largely responsible for the obser-
of social
contrast to other prevailing theories of social movements;
vation that they permeate corporate policy. While social
movements have diverse goals and values, what is common
rather, in the words of Zald, it merely "makes more explicit
what has been implicit" (Zald 2000, p. 13). Zald' to s per-
all movements is "a vision of what a society is and
spective builds on the resource mobilization view should in thebe," an ideology (Garner 1996, p. 70). A vision of
importance it affords to the collective nature of society move-cannot but include economic life, and even move-
ments, and on the framing perspective by accepting the that tend to direct their grievances at individuals or
ments
idea of social construction that can be used - sometimes the state have expectations about corporate policy. The
strategically - by movements to 'craft' or 'frame' reso- ideology of the women's movement is predicated on the
nance with other actors. idea of gender equality; by this vision, firms should treat
Ideology is clearly central to this perspective. For the men and women in the same way (Garner 1996). The
purposes of this paper, "ideology" is defined as "a system ideology of the environmental movement is predicated on
of beliefs about the social world, how it operates, and how the protection of the natural environment; by this vision,
it should operate that is shared by members of a group andfirms should limit their engagement with activities that
used to interpret, justify, and guide action" (Wilson 1973; result in pollution (Hoffman 2001). The ideology of the
Van Dijk 1998; Zald 2000). Because ideologies are seen ashuman rights movement is predicated on ideas about peo-
systems of beliefs or thoughts, they have to be located inple's right to life, liberty, and freedom from oppression; by
people's minds, and thus belong to what psychologists this vision, firms should not engage in economic activity in
typically call cognition (Wilson 1973; Van Dijk 1998).
They serve as a cognitive map that guides understanding of
reality and justifies or motivates action based on moral or
evaluative principles (Oliver and Johnston 2000). But 2 For a historical overview of social movements, see Tilly and Wood
ideologies are also social, in that they tend to be collec-(2009). For recent reviews of the relationship between social
tively shared - they exist in some way apart from themovements and firms, see De Bakker et al. (2013) or Soule (2009).
^ Springer
738 P. Georgallis
oppressive
Some scholars identify thatnation
broader institutional differ-
component
ences, cultural logics, or values of soc
can account for variations in
trast to how firms view corporate social
the initiatives and decide to
ideolog
the view that
engage in them (Matten and Moon 2008; Roulet the
and Touboul
moral or normative considerations (see Ulrich 2008, 2014). Within this area of institutional analysis, activists and
p. 376). Despite this apparent conflict and the promotion of NGOs start to gain a more prominent position as sources of
ethical or more socially beneficial business practices by influence on corporate social initiatives and other corporate
social movements (Doh and Guay 2006), we know rela- practices. For instance, Doh and Guay (2006) discuss how
tively little about how movements spark corporate social NGO activism determines perceptions about the social
initiatives (Den Hond and De Bakker 2007). responsibilities of corporations and suggest that civil society is
increasingly influential for businesses. My search in the Fac-
Corporate Social Initiatives tiva database shows that the co-occurrence of instances of
corporate social initiatives and references to activism has been
A "corporate social initiative" is broadly defined as "an ini- on the rise in recent years (see Fig. 1), indicating that social
movements and CSR increasingly appear together, at least in
tiative by which a firm engages in actions that appear to further
some social good, beyond the interests of the firm and that discourse. At the same time, research has viewed activists as
which is required by law" (McWilliams et al. 2006, p. 1). The watchdogs that are able to monitor corporations and indirectly
word "social" is used loosely here, as social initiatives can regulate their policies, as transformers of consumer prefer-
address a variety of issues, including but not limited to diver- ences, or as actors who function within the corporate hierarchy
sity, community development, promotion of education, labor (Raeburn 2004; Rao 1998; Zald and Berger 1978). How, then,
standards, or environmental protection (Hawn and Ioannou do social movements - whose ideologies and actions manifest
2015; Howard-Grenville and Hoffman 2003; Margolis and within and outside organizations - influence corporate social
Walsh 2003). Much of the literature mentions such initiatives initiatives? To address this question, I offer below a multi-
simply as corporate social responsibility (CSR). However, the level theoretical account of the link between social move-
term "responsibility" implies a normative assessment. Since ments and corporate social initiatives.
the focus here is not on the debate of what is (or not) the
responsibility of corporations, and because firms may engage in
initiatives unrelated to their operations and potential responsi- The Link Between Social Movements and Social
bility to society, I follow Margolis and Walsh (2003) in refer- Initiatives
ring to them as corporate social initiatives.4
Margolis and Walsh (2003) noticed a staggering dis- This essay addresses the following research question: how
crepancy between the dominant economic doctrine that sees do social movements induce corporate social initiatives ?
profits as the sole purpose of businesses, and the increasing Because my interest is in addressing questions of 'how,' I
demands that companies face to engage in initiatives aimed
at resolving social problems. As they suggest, this has led a
'generation of organizational scholars' to explore the ques-
tion of whether corporate social initiatives have a positive,
negative, or no significant impact on the economic perfor-
mance of the corporation (e.g., Flammer 2015; Hawn and
Ioannou 2015; Margolis et al. 2009). Building on this work,
other scholars later focused on moderators that determine
when such initiatives will pay off for firms (see Margolis
et al. 2009 for a review). Although many scholars have
engaged with this topic, the focus on internal (to the firm)
search for reasons to engage in social initiatives has left their
institutional determinants rather underexplored (Brammer
et al. 2012; Roulet and Touboul 2014).
Fig. 1 Co-occurrence of references to corporate social initiatives and
social movements. Figure depicts the co-occurrence of terms that
3 Analogous arguments can be offered for other social movements,refer to corporate social initiatives with terms that refer to social
such as the fair trade movement, the disability rights movement,movements or activism over the last 10 years, based all sources
several indigenous people's movements, the anti-plastics movement,
available in the Factiva database. The search string that we utilized is
etc.
as follows: (social movement* or ##activis* or NGO* or non-profit
4 Others have used the concept of corporate social action (Marquis organization*) and (corporate social initiative* or CSR or corporate
et al. 2007; Roulet and Touboul 2014), which I see as equivalent. social responsibility or corporate social action*)
£) Springer
use mechanism-based theorizing (Davis and (Levy Marquis

and Scully 2007; Spicer and Böhm 2007), social
2005); that is, I focus on mechanisms rather than rela- actors shift the expectations of other critical
movement
stakeholders
tionships. The articulation of mediating mechanisms or in firms' organizational fields, such as the
general
processes though to be responsible for a relationship is apublic, consumers, prospective employees, or
key element of theory (Bacharach 1989). Rather than the
regulators.
The and
establishment of a relationship between explanans public, an often powerful stakeholder for busi-
explanandum , a mechanism is the specification ofnesses,
why, increasingly
or criticizes them for irresponsible
how, the relationship between them holds (Bacharach
behavior (Ulrich and Sarasin 1995) and expects that they
1989; Whetten 1989). That is, my main aim is to engage in social initiatives (Margolis and Walsh 2003). But
explicate
how (the mechanisms by which) the actions of
how social
does the public come to rely on these beliefs about the
responsibility
movements ('input' or 'cause') can lead to corporate social of business, and how do public expectations
reach managers? Quite often, it is social movements that
initiatives ('output' or 'effect').5 By situating ideologically
both 'craft' and 'carry' these public expectations to firms.
motivated actions that are often treated as independent
within the scope of social movement activity, thisThat is, grievances
essay is do not pre-exist for a social movement
to come
in a better position to offer the basic elements, and withand take issue at, but they are (at least partly)
constructed
them a foundation, for a multi-level theory linking socialand interpreted by social movements (Benford
movements to corporate social initiatives. and Snow 2000). For example, some of the risks stemming
from environmental
As social movements have been primarily the subject of problems, as well as their causes and
political science and sociological analyses (McCarthy
potentialand
solutions, are not necessarily 'objective' and often
Zald 1977; Tilly and Wood 2009), they are usually not immediately apparent to the broad public (Rucht 1999).
viewed
as a source of macroscopic societal changes. Thus, have
They thisto be interpreted or framed as such in order for
the takes
analysis starts from their broader role in society and public to
a support the ideas proffered by the environ-
top-down approach to understanding their influence mental movement.
on Other social movements use strategic
firms. To answer my research question, I first identify
framing to fight for the resolution of social problems such
as social
mechanisms operating at the field level, then proceed exclusion, access to health, or inequality, and
to the
impact of social movements at the firm level, and promote
finally various solutions including corporate social ini-
discuss their role in shaping individual decisions. tiatives.
As theThe more successful they are at mobilizing their
following discussion will show, these effects are supporters
intrinsi-and bringing these issues to the public agenda,
thetandem
cally interrelated, and only if they are considered in more likely it is that they will influence the environ-
ment
can they enable us to understand firms' decision to engage of business activity.
in corporate social initiatives. I elaborate on the mecha-
Public support for the causes of a social movement tends
to be
nisms operating at each level below and then discuss associated with a number of consequences for busi-
cross-
nesses. First,
level (micro-meso-macro) interactions. Figure 2 presents a the expectations from business organizations
shift,
parsimonious graphical depiction of the relationship with firms being increasingly, expected to invest in
under
investigation. initiatives that benefit the local community, the environ-
ment, or other stakeholders. Social movements' framing
Field-Level Mechanisms efforts attach ideological beliefs to firms and markets (cf.
Hensmans 2003; Maurer et al. 2011; Weber et al. 2008),
Social movements influence business decisions by shapingand change the norms of acceptable behavior and the
taken-for-granted assumptions about what is legitimate
the organizational field in which firms operate: the stake-
holders that "constitute a recognized area of institutionalbehavior within an organizational field. As social move-
life" (DiMaggio and Powell 1983, p. 148). They attempt ment to activists mobilize using collective action, using the
infuse their beliefs about the 'ideal' role of business in media to attract attention, or through public educational
society - their ideological beliefs - into economic activity, initiatives, they theorize corporate social initiatives as part
and to modify public perceptions about the nature and of normal business operations. Theorization entails the
responsibilities of business organizations. By forging con- "justification of an abstract solution" (Greenwood et al.
nections between their causes and broader social issues and 2002, p. 60), and specifies "what effects [a] practice will
frames, such as human rights, fair wages, or public health have, and why the practice is particularly applicable or
needed" (Strang and Meyer 1993, p. 500). As a result,
This essay builds on the conception of a mechanism as the social movements achieve support from sympathetic
explanation of how two concepts relate to each other (Whetten 1989;
bystanders, and the adoption of such initiatives becomes
Bacharach 1989). For related conceptions of mechanisms that
underlie social systems more generally, see Elster (1989), Hedström more legitimate and diffuses faster within organizational
and Swedberg (1996), and Mayntz (2004). fields (Strang and Soule 1998).
£) Springer
740 P. Georgallis
Fig. 2 The relationsh

between social movements and
corporate social initiatives.
Figure presents a parsimonious
depiction of the relationship
between social movements and
corporate social initiatives. The
boxes on the left indicate social
movement actions, and the
horizontal arrows in the middle
include labels that indicate
mechanisms operating at
multiple levels of analysis: the
organizational field level , the
organizational level , and the
individual level. The vertical
arrows illustrate that these
levels are not isolated, but that
the mechanisms are
characterized by cross-level
interactions
Second, collective action on the part of activist organi- employers. What is more, this result is more robust in the
zations does not only have direct impact on the legitimacy case of job seekers with many alternative job options,
of an organizational practice, but also an indirect effect on which suggests that socially responsible firms can attract
consumer interest. Consumers, one of the most critical the most qualified employees (Albinger and Freeman
stakeholders for any company, tend to favor organizations 2000). Therefore, by shaping public perceptions social
that engage in more socially responsible behavior and are movements elicit indirect support from another important
more likely to purchase their products, or pay a premium group of stakeholders: firms' potential employees.6
Finally, activists often induce policy changes that
for them. For example, a recent survey found that socially
oriented retailers are better able to market Fair Trade
advance their goals, as indicated by the "burgeoning lit-
products than companies that have a weaker CSR image
erature on the policy outcomes of social movements" (Van
because they elicit more trust and consequent willingness
Dyke et al. 2004, p. 31). By relying on SMOs that operate
to pay on the part of consumers (Castaldo et al. 2009). outside
This institutional channels of authority, or on insiders
effect is not only limited to firms that engage directly who
with have gained access to political positions, social
movements have often been able to shape public policy
the public. Rather, activists increasingly scrutinize firms
for the social performance of their suppliers. Thus, cor-(Santoro and McGuire 1997; Georgallis et al. 2014). Policy
changes can shift business practices from the realm of CSR
porate buyers tend to prefer collaborating with firms that
exhibit better social performance. While research in this
to normal operating behavior that is mandated by govern-
area is still in its infancy, some evidence suggest that even
ment policy. For instance, some diversity policies that were
once at the discretion of companies and could - if adop-
when supply chains extend beyond national borders, cus-
tomers "consider the social standards to which firms hold ted - be considered as social initiatives, have later been
their suppliers in their buying decisions" (Ehrgott et al.
formalized by government as a result of movement strug-
2011). Thus, firms perceived as more responsible benefitgles. In the U.S., African-Americans were faced with
from consumer interest, even if this interest is delimited to
limited rights and racial segregation well into the twentieth
some market niches. century, and the mobilization of civil rights activists in the
Third, inasmuch as it can influence the values of the 1960s led to federal action that formed the basis of affir-
public, social movement activity can render firms thatmative action programs (Piven and Cloward 1979; Santoro
engage in social initiatives more attractive employers than and McGuire 1997). Similarly, feminist SMOs "dissemi-
others (by praising them, for instance, as CSR leaders). A nated information on wage inequities, provided technical
series of studies have focused on the impact of corporate assistance, lobbied elected officials, and organized
social performance (CSP) or perceived CSR on prospective
employees' attitudes toward firms (Albinger and Freeman 6 This group of stakeholders is not considered at the individual level,
2000; Turban and Greening 1997) and found that firms that as our interest here is in the population of prospective employees who
are outside the boundaries of the firm and thus constitute part of a
appear to be more socially responsible are more attractive
firms* organizational field.
Springer
publicity campaigns" that "played dominant roles in gov- (King 2008). To address this question, much
corporations
ernment adoption of comparable worth policies"of the research in this area has focused on movements'
(Santoro
and McGuire 1997, p. 507), and the environmental move-
attacks on firms that behave irresponsibly (e.g., Baron
ment has often pushed for regulation of polluting2001; Bartley
industries and Child 2011; King 2008); yet, some
and for stricter environmental standards that used to be in insights can be used to understand how their actions may
the sphere of voluntary initiatives (Hoffman 2001). also induce corporate social initiatives.
In sum, the expectations of social movements do not Social movement constituents (e.g., formal movement
always correspond to those of other key stakeholders. But organizations or less organized community activists)
by mobilizing their resources and framing social initiatives mobilize to stage aggressive campaigns that require chan-
as solutions to social ills, movements bring shared grie- ges in their targets' practices and threaten their ability to
vances to the surface and connect their ideas to critical continue day-to-day operations. For instance, by resorting
stakeholders' values and interests (Maguire et al. 2004; to public demonstrations, civil lawsuits, or other forms of
Spicer and Fleming 2007), leading these stakeholders to action, activists delayed or even prevented the con-
direct
shift their expectations about what forms appropriate struction of many nuclear plants in Europe and North
business conduct. A final example can elucidate the argu- America. Indeed, for firms operating in the extractive
ment. In light of the high mortality rate from AIDS insector,
sub- conflicts between firms and social movements can
be quite intense, since corporations operating in these
Saharan Africa in the 1990s and the attempts of western
pharmaceutical companies' to ban the sale of (less expen-
sectors often have significant impacts on the local com-
munity and natural environment (Kraemer et al. 2013).
sive) generic drugs, a social movement emerged to argue
for a more responsible corporate approach to the distribu-
Examples of such intense conflicts abound, and range from
tion of medication (Levy and Scully 2007). The so-called
information warfare campaigns between organized activists
Access Campaign was able to connect their project to and
the firms (MacKay and Munro 2012), to less formally
interests of a broad coalition of actors (includingorganized
the but sometimes extreme struggles against mega-
mining projects by indigenous land-based communities
Clinton administration, gay rights activists, and generic
who face the destruction of their livelihoods (Banerjee
drugs manufacturers) by linking it with ideological con-
2000; Kraemer et al. 2013).
cerns about fairness and public health, gaining concessions
While these and other activist attacks can inflict direct
from the government, and subsequently the pharmaceutical
industry (Levy and Scully 2007). That is, movement ideas
material and economic damage to firms, on their own, they
were brought to the public sphere (Crossley 2003) are and,often not enough to lead firms to change their behavior.
with time, came to be shared and resonate with stake- Ironically, the most likely mechanism by which social
holders. I call this the drafting of resonance' between the movements affect change in corporate behavior is a far
ideologies of social movements and the expectations of more nuanced one: it is by shaping the reputation of their
other firm stakeholders. It implies that movements play a corporate targets (King 2008). Activist attacks act as a
part in leading other critical stakeholders to reward, signal that firms are monitored more and thus face a greater
directly, or indirectly, firms' engagement in social initia- risk of disruption and public scrutiny. For instance, in
tives, or to penalize those that appears incongruent with 1991, following the dismissal of Cracker Barrel's gay and
social expectations. To sum up, following social movement lesbian employees, the SMO NGLTF (National Gay and
campaigns, the general public tends to grant legitimacy to Lesbian Task Force) initiated a boycott on the chain.
corporate social initiatives, consumers value these initia- Although there was no evidence of a direct drop in the
tives more, prospective employees are attracted to firms company's sales revenues, its share price fell significantly
that invest in them, and regulators are more likely to dictate because shareholders were concerned about the company's
them. reputation (King and Soule 2007; Raeburn 2004).
The ability to shape companies reputation is one of the
Organizational-Level Mechanisms most important weapons in activists' arsenal. Reputation
matters to firms because it reflects outsiders "perceived
The impact of social movements on individual organiza- ability of the firm to create value for stakeholders" (Rin-
tions is perhaps the area that has received most attention in dova et al. 2006, p. 54). It shapes analysts as well as
the field of strategy and organizations (e.g., Den Hond and consumer evaluations and directly impacts the firm's bot-
de Bakker 2007; Eesley and Lenox 2006; King and Soule tom line. SMOs usually target firms to punish corporate
2007). A recurring question in this field has been why misconduct, but their actions might not only prevent such
activist groups, often having few resources and little power misconduct, but may also lead firms to engage in social
to leverage, are able to inflict change upon the agendas of initiatives. But what is the precise mechanism that leads
resource-rich and sometimes extremely powerful firms to engage in social initiatives following conflicts with
£) Springer
742 P. Georgallis
movements?Organizational legitimacy is another

Firmsattribute that acti-
tives vists can, at least
play in to some extent,mainta
influence. Closely related
offset to reputation (Bitektine
the 2011), "organizational legitimacy"
negative
is defined as the "congruence
Reputation between the social values
manag
drives associated with or implied
the link by [the firm's] activities and the
bet
norms of acceptable
corporate behavior in the larger social system"
social ini
First, (Dowling and Pfeffer 1975, p. 122).
social While above I spoke
initiat
restore about how movements shape
for the legitimacy of a practice
exampl
attacks (i.e.,have
social initiatives), here I focus on how ensu
they influence
which the legitimacy of a particular
the compan organization. Legitimacy
behavior grants corporations
and a social license to operate (Baba and
defen
social actions.
Raufflet 2014), and - per the above definition - Forrelates not
panies that
only to both the norms of acceptable opera
behavior, but also to
voluntarythe congruence of theseinitiati
norms to firms activities as per-
educational
ceived by relevant audiences. facilit
The mobilization of social
grams (Sagebien
movement activists against firms and their theorization of e
responsecertainto
practices as compatible
demandor incompatible with social
them to norms
'get
enable them to shape audiences
off perceptions and thus th
the grant legitimacy to those corporations that satisfy
reputation of their t
and expectations.
their Thus, corporations have an incentive to
chances o
'license engage in social initiatives
to operate.' in order to protect their legiti-
rations' macy.tarnished
For that reason, the relationship between activists
initiatives in
and firms often goes from one extremeorder
(conflict) to another
conflicts(collaboration).
with Firms can come together activ
with SMOs in
corporate order to change their social
corporate practices and collectively in
well, to design
avoid social initiatives. For instance, Starbucks'
publi visibility
damages makes of it a target of contention,
potentia but at the same time the
The second company has also worked extensively
way with NGOs to create by
link activist social change (Argenti 2004). While attack
many worry that such
subtle and indirect. I call it 'unintentional' not because the collaborations may be seen as evidence of NGOs' co-op-
initiatives are not decided by the company at the point in timetation, they are more and more frequent, as they enable
they are adopted, but because they might result from itsfirms to 'borrow' legitimacy from their non-profit partners.
previous attempts to manage its reputation without resorting As discussed above, legitimacy 'grants' firms an informal
to social initiatives. For instance, firms targeted by boycotts
license to operate. But while the legitimacy of an organization
are likely to resort to pro-social claims in order to defend
is largely determined by its own actions, there are often
their reputation and dilute negative media attention from thelegitimacy spillovers between partnering organizations
boycott (McDonnell and King 2013). These actions could in(Dacin et al. 2007). In the case of firms and NGOs, because
some cases be mere ceremonial expressions that constitutethe latter tend to be viewed as more consistent with the
impression management tactics (ibid). That is, firms may not
broader institutional logics that govern the delivery of social
make any substantive changes, but simply change their dis-goods (Madsen and Rodgers 2015), partnering with them to
course. However, companies that defensively enact 'deliver' on social initiatives enables firms to be viewed as
impression management devices - such as formal structuralmore legitimate. Moreover, by having a close collaboration
changes (e.g., adoption of a CSR board committee) andwith NGOs, firms can sometimes forestall more aggressive
increased disclosure (e.g., publication of a social responsi- interventions by stakeholders (Den Hond et al. 2012). Thus,
bility report) - end up being more receptive to future activistinsofar as they are perceived as sincere, such collaborative
challenges because of increased accountability (McDonnell efforts safeguard firms against potential attacks by activists,
et al. 2015). That is, in the longer term, even symbolicfurther enhancing their legitimacy in the eyes of external
changes increase the risk that misleading claims will be stakeholders.
identified, and companies may need to engage in actual Overall, whether firms are motivated by the risk of
social initiatives in order to satisfy activists and other
damages to their reputation or by the potential to 'borrow
stakeholders. legitimacy' from SMOs, the prevalence of activism is,
Springer
ceteris paribus , likely to lead them to engage in more

groups holding disparate ideologies. To borrow Van Dijk' s
social initiatives. astute example:
Managers ideologically 'incorporate' (pun intended)

Individual-Level Mechanisms
the value of freedom as freedom of the market or
freedom from state intervention... journalists
Contrary to early conceptions of rational action theory that
emphasiz[e] the freedom of the press, or the freedom
assumed firm behavior to be driven only by profit maxi-
of information... and dominated groups focus on ...
mization incentives, research has found that it is often
freedom from oppression (Van Dijk 1998, p. 76).
influenced by managers' values, ideologies, or cognition
(Bansal and Roth 2000; Briscoe et al. 2014; Hambrick and That is, values support ideologies and can be 'activated,' at
Mason 1984). This is important for the purpose of this least to some extent, by different groups that aim to
essay because the ideologies that social movements pro- advance their goals or promote their positions.
mulgate manifest at the individual level as well, as they Values, in turn, provide criteria for decision-making
inform individuals' belief systems. In particular, as man-
and, when triggered, constitute important determinants of
behavior (Liedtka 1989; Argandoña 2003). Consistently,
agers and other organizationąl members are drawn from the
wider population, I expect the role of social movements evidence
in from prior research indicate that managers' ide-
influencing public opinion to impact these individuals' ologies and values are associated with ethical decision-
ideologies. There is indeed evidence that social activism
making in firms, organizational response to environmental
can shape public ideologies.7 For instance, the shifts issues,
in and even corporate strategy decisions (Barnett and
public opinion concerning racial segregation were partlyKarson 1987; Bansal 2003; Guth and Tagiuri 1965). For
example, Briscoe et al. (2014) used the ideologies of the
driven by the civil rights movement (Lee 2002), and one of
CEOs of Fortune 500 firms as a reflection of their personal
the greatest successes of the environmental movement is
that it has rendered environmentalism a highly valued values and offered evidence that they are strongly linked to
the likelihood of activism inside their corporations. Relat-
attribute (Rucht 1999). As social movement theory would
edly, in an earlier, inter-industry study of 53 companies
suggest, such ideological shifts manifest not only outside,
but also inside corporations (Zald and Berger 1978). from multiple countries, Bansal and Roth (2000) found that
personal values influence firms' levels of ecological
Inasmuch as organizationąl members are affected by the
responsiveness in three ways:
framing of social movements concerning the responsibility
of business, and come to value socially responsible
First, [...] values help decision makers to discrimi-
behavior, their motivation to invest in corporate social
nate between those [signals] that are important and
initiatives might also be affected. This is because the ide-
those that are not [...] Second, environmental values
ologies that social movements 'carry' bring to the fore
will induce some organizational members to cham-
fundamental values. Closely connected to ideologies, per-
pion ecological responses [...] Third, a firm's top
sonal values refer to principal beliefs about the guiding
management team and other powerful organizational
principles in one's own life, such as tradition, security, or
members are more receptive to changes in the orga-
hedonism (Schwartz 1992). Bach ideology is predicated on
nizational agenda, products, and processes if these fit
and incorporates a set of values that together fit the inter-
with their own personal values (Bansal and Roth
ests of a group (Van Dijk 1998; Caprara et al. 2006). For
2000, p. 731).
example, feminism is an ideology that stresses the impor-
tance of the values of equality, autonomy, or independence In another notable study, Scully and Segal (2002) argue
(Van Dijk 1998). Relatedly, when considering the more that employees import social beliefs into the workplace by
general 'liberalism-conservatism ideological spectrum,' invoking the discourse of a broader social movement and
liberals are more likely to emphasize values such as social collectively mobilizing to sustain commitment to a cause
justice or diversity, and conservatives are more likely to and 'sell' issues to top management. All in all, by
focus on individualism or respect for authority, among promulgating their ideologies to 'craft resonance' with
others (Briscoe et al. 2014). At the same time, the same other key stakeholders, social movements bring values to
values can be incorporated, and even appropriated by the fore and precipitate action inside organizations. The
above studies offer complementary perspectives on how
social movements' expectations are enacted inside firms.
7 Clearly, this relationship is not unidirectional. Certain types of On the one hand, these studies provide evidence of top-
ideologies will lead to certain types of activism, and activists will
down organizational change, with social initiatives being
draw on pre-existing ideologies in their framing attempts (cf. Zald
2000, p. 9). My interest here, however, is on how movements 'shift' led by ideologically driven senior executives. On the other
or 'use' ideologies. hand, they indicate that organizational change that touches
£) Springer
744 P. Georgallis
upon social
their feasibility assessments:issues
"the degree of optimism,
employees acting
positive valence, and confidence that decision makers have a
A second
with regard toway by
a particular set of circumstances" (Julian w
ence the
et al. at
indivi
2008, p. 967) since exposure reduces the perceived
cognition.
uncertainty of Asadopting a practice manag
(Zajonc 1968). This in
issues they can
turn increases the likelihood these managers' firms conwill
agerial attention
engage in corporate social initiatives. an
policies In (De
sum, social movement agendas Bakke are reflected inside
Additionally, org
organizations. First, the ideologies that social movements
determined
promulgate are taken up byby man
managers and employees who
ments (Julian
share resonant values, leading to bottom-upet
or top-down al
tion and issues
corporate that
initiatives reflecting movement ideologies. Sec-
are more likely
ond, movements' campaigns impact managerial cognition; to l
Duncan the1987; Bans
increased attention to social initiatives that activists
The attention breed and the corresponding changes in that the perceived
their feasibility and
feasibility and urgency of social initiatives increase man-
influenced by
agers' propensity to undertake such action. socia
tutional environment. First, as discussed earlier, the
increase of campaigns defying irresponsible practices andIntegration
praising social initiatives and the direct or indirect influ-
ence of SMOs through the media result in greater public Abstracting reality in order to uncover mechanisms that are
awareness. This, in turn, brings the ideologies advanced byquite general is inherent in my approach, but I do not see
activists to the attention of organizational decision makers,
the above three-level mechanisms as neat, orderly, and
encouraging managers to respond to movement pressures.independent. Rather, each individual actor is embedded
By making opportunities to invest in corporate social ini-within an organization, and each organization is part of an
tiatives more salient and communicating best practices, organizational field, all of which interact with one another
ideologically motivated social movements increase man-
(Athanasopoulou and Selsky 2012). Moreover, as social
agers' awareness of such options; options that might havemovements' ideologically motivated action transcends
been either unknown or less prominent absent sociallevels of analysis, a fuller understanding of how it leads
movement activity. As the attention-based view of the firm
firms to engage with social initiatives requires that the three
would suggest (Ocasio 1997), increased attention toward
levels are considered in tandem. The best way to illustrate
social initiatives should raise the likelihood that a firm will this point is by example.
invest in such initiatives. It was argued earlier that social movements 'craft res-
Through their influence on managerial attention, onance' between their ideological beliefs about the role of
movements can also indirectly shape managers' percep-business and those of other stakeholders. But how does the
tions of the urgency and feasibility of investing in socialsupport of these stakeholders translate to firm-level deci-
initiatives. Urgency is the perceived cost of non-response sions? I identified four mechanisms related to this question,
to an issue, which could mean either resolving a problem orlinked to four key external stakeholder groups: First, all
capitalizing on an opportunity (Dutton and Duncan 1987). practices - not only corporate social initiatives - need
SMOs make ideologies that propose the need to changelegitimacy in order to diffuse in an organizational field and
business practices more visible, as they attribute respon- support from the public is needed for CSR to achieve
sibility for a variety of social ills to the business commu-legitimacy. Second, with regard to consumers, organiza-
nity and threaten to damage firms' reputation andtions have obvious motivations to satisfy their demands,
legitimacy. Both visibility and attributions of responsibilityinsofar as increased demand will bring value to share-
lead managers to assign a higher sense of urgency to an holders. The more consumers value the products of socially
issue (Julian et al. 2008; Dutton and Duncan 1987), makingresponsible firms the more likely it is that firms will engage
it more likely that firms will act on those issues (Julian in such initiatives as they will expect a greater return on
et al. 2008; Bansal 2003). For instance, if the environ-their investment. Third, concerning potential employees, if
mental movement is more active in a firms' institutionala firm faces a population of applicants that care about
field, managers of that firm are more likely to perceive social issues it will be more likely to invest in social ini-
environmental protection a more urgent matter and con- tiatives. By advertising its social or environmental initia-
sider engaging in environmental initiatives. Moreover, as tives or by taking advantage of its strategy's recognition in
the attention managers pay to social initiatives grows, so do
popular press (Bauer and Aiman-Smith 1996; Gray et al.
£) Springer
Discussion
1995), a firm can communicate its value system to potential
applicants and attract more and better applicants. On the
contrary, if the social behavior of the firm is perceived
By identifying the mechanisms by which social movements
negatively by populations within its field, potential recruits
affect the adoption of corporate social initiatives (suc-
will be less interested in joining the firm, whichcinctly
decreases
summarized in Fig. 2), this essay contributes to
the firm's access to human resources of high quality
currentand
debates in the areas of social movements and CSR,
may increase its recruiting costs (Maurer etadvancesal. 2011).
understanding of how ideologies are manifested
Fourth, the presence of a strong social movement in in firms'
movement-business interactions, and opens up several
organizational fields creates credible threat thatopportunities
they will for future research. I discuss each in turn
influence policy and that business activities with
below. social
implications might be regulated. This provides incentives
Implications
for forward looking-firms to engage in social initiatives in for the Literature on Social Movements
and CSR
order to prevent stricter regulation (Banerjee 2008; Lyon
and Maxwell 2003) or to gain a head start over competitors
(Porter and van der Linde 1996). It is a common premise that external stakeholders matter
As the above discussion shows, social change cannot be CSR strategies, as they attend to their social
for firms'
understood only by looking at one level of impact.
analysis.
But if stakeholder expectations are important to
Whereas the behavior that I seek to understand is at the
firms, how are these expectations formed, and why do
organizational level (a firm's engagement with social ini-
managers come to know about some but not others? Sim-
ilarly, do stakeholders always attend to firms' social
tiatives is a firm-level outcome), the trigger, social move-
ments' role in crafting resonance with other stakeholders, is
impact? Prior work has fallen short of providing sufficient
at the field level. Moreover, it is clear that although the
answers to these questions (Madsen and Rodgers 2015) by
mechanisms described above (those related to diffusion ,
taking stakeholder ideas as given and assuming that they
consumer support , prospective employees' attitudes ,somehow,
and 'magically' or at least unproblematically, reach
(threat of) regulatory modification) are at the field level,
firms. I attenuate this conceptual disconnect by explicitly
they could not be understood without considering firm-
recognizing social movements as collective actors that both
level goals. create and mediate expectations about the obligations of
A second example should shed additional light on the firms. While a full integration of the literatures on social
point I wish to make. As suggested above, social move- movements and CSR may be unfeasible or even unwar-
ments' pubic campaigns and framing attempts lead not ranted, I hope that this paper will help researchers in each
only to external, but also to internal support, as organiza- camp better understand how their counterparts view similar
tional members' values come to resonate with movement social dynamics.
ideologies. In addition, social movement campaigns shape Moreover, rooted in a long tradition of viewing social
movement behavior as primarily disruptive (Weber and
the cognition of decision makers: their attention as well as
their feasibility and urgency assessments. These lead King to 2014), the focus of prior work on social movements
top-down (from senior management) or bottom-up (from has been depicted only as a direct relationship: "activists
notice a particular social problem, target the offending
rank-and-file employees) initiatives inside firms that create
support for corporate social initiatives. In summary, orga-firms, and, if successful, can coerce these firms to concede
nizational members' values and cognition cannot be to their more socially responsible agenda" (McDonnell
understood without situating them in context; and con-et al. 2015). But scholars' attention to contentiousness has
versely, individual cognition and expressions of values can
often come at the expense of other forms of claim-making
(Zald 2000), analyzing only one piece of the puzzle. The
have trickle-up effects that translate to organizational-level
outcomes. account developed here offers a more balanced perspec-
tive
Despite this inherent complexity, for the sake of - one that does not suffer from 'a narrow focus on
greater
open confrontation' (Morrill et al. 2003) - and broadens
specificity, I broke down the investigation of mechanisms
to the three abovementioned levels of analysis. Keeping in of causal mechanisms that researchers can utilize
the gamut
mind that systematically grappling with all the many
to understand the impact of social movements on firms.
complexities that this theoretical link entails canMoreover,
only be although the primary benefits of this study stem
achieved through cumulative theoretical and empirical
from the attempt to initiate an integrated understanding of
advances, this study has offered an important first step
the mechanisms by which social movements lead to cor-
toward the development of a multi-level theory linking
porate social initiatives, some of the individual components
of my analysis appear to add value on their own. For
social movements with corporate social initiatives.
Ê Springer
746 P. Georgallis
market ideology.'
example, this This ideology emphasizes
paper the values of
tional' 'free enterprise' and 'freedom of the market,' and is
corporate s
intention to
associated with neo-liberal adopt
political orientations linked to
symbolic the so-called Chicago
pro-socischool of economics (Friedman
increased receptivity to future activist challenges 2002; Miller 1962). While the moral implications of this
(McDonnell et al. 2015) may later compel them to adopt ideology are still debated (Cosans 2009, p. 391), its most
actual social initiatives. central legacy is a proliferation of the idea that the only
An indirect and perhaps tentative contribution of thisresponsibility of managers is the pursuit of profit, within
the 'rules of the game' but without having to morally
study is to stakeholder theory. Depending on their ability to
reflect on their actions (see Ulrich 2008, p. 376 for a dis-
craft resonance between their beliefs and those of other key
stakeholders, social movements may be able to alter cussion).8
a But this is inconsistent with social movement
priori ranking of stakeholders by managers, or elevate theideologies, which almost always include a moral compo-
status of a focal stakeholder within this 'ranking.' For nent that implies broader expectations about the role of
instance, when social movements are better able to capturebusiness in society. Thus, because activists care about
the attention of regulators, the threat of regulatory modi-
different outcomes than managers, their relationships often
fication becomes more prominent, augmenting the impor- manifest in an ideological clash (cf. Munro 2014; Spicer
tance of regulators. Similarly, when they are more and Böhm 2007).
successful in disseminating their ideas to the public, It is perhaps instructive at this point to offer a specific
questions of legitimacy will lead managers to prioritize theexample where managerial and social movement ideolo-
public as a salient stakeholder. Overall, what this study gies collide. As suggested by Ghoshal (2005), the man-
suggests that stakeholder salience (Mitchell et al. 1997) is agerial ideology of free-markets that dominates western
not exogenous to social movement activity, but may veryperceptions of the corporation does not recognize dilem-
well depend on their collective action repertoires. mas inherent in the pursuit of divergent values and pref-
erences in society; in particular, it does not fully
Social Movement and Managerial Ideologies incorporate the trade-offs associated with the simultaneous
pursuit of economic, social, and environmental prosperity
What are the benefits of conceptualizing social movements(Hahn et al. 2010). Nowhere is this more apparent than in
as 'ideologically structured action' (Zald 2000)? The the area of the environment and the recent debates about
answer to this question points to another contribution of climate change. While there are many and disparate views
this study, which concerns the recognition that beliefs within the environmental movement leading to different
about the role of business in society are not just mental or 'shades of green' (Hoffman 2009), what the ideology of
cognitive, but they are also social; they are shared by environmentalism always entails is the value of intercon-
members of a group and often ideological in nature. In nectedness between human activity and nature; the view
particular, ideologies are proffered by SMOs who use them
to contribute to changes in social practice. Consider, for 8 Most scholars associate this view with the work of Milton
instance, that prior work has failed to offer convincing Friedman. My reading of his work does not resolve the persistent
arguments about when personal values lead to actual ambiguity as to the moral or ethical expectations required from
behavior within firms. The identification of how social managers. In his popular New York Times article, Friedman (1970)
argued that managers have the responsibility to "make as much
movements emphasize values that motivate top-down or
money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of society, both
bottom-up initiatives signifies that values are related to (or
those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom'* (1970,
can even be manipulated by) activists' attempts to change p. 33). In his book Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman describes the
managerial and employee behavior. By making the link 'rules of the game' more narrowly, as "open and free competition,
without deception or fraud" (2002, p. 133). He goes on to argue that
between the ideologically infused campaigns of activists
"few trends could so thoroughly undermine the very foundation of
with personal values, I offer one account for when the well-
our free society as the acceptance by corporate officials of a social
known 'values-action gap' inside organizations might responsibility other than to make as much money for their
dissipate. stockholders as possible" (2002, p. 133) and that it is the responsi-
bility of the rest of us to establish a framework of law such that each
An added question that this paper sheds light on con-
individuals' pursuit of self-interest will benefit society. Overall, what
cerns the relation between the ideological views of social
Friedman considers to be the 'rules of the game' is unclear, or at least
movements and those that dominate economic behavior debated (Cosans 2009). Yet, the "most common reading of Friedman
is that his analysis minimizes any moral duties beyond following the
and managerial discourse. In particular, when activists
law" (Cosans 2009, p. 391). This reading is congruent with the
demand that firms resolve social problems, do we witness a
widespread idea that, at least within the bounds of the law, managers
collision of ideologies? As discussed above, social move-
are somehow freed from "any sense of moral responsibility"
ment ideologies are inconsistent with the prevailing 'free-
(Ghoshal 2005, p. 76).
â Springer
that "nature is not an inert entity to be used andculture,"

domi- defined as "the beliefs and values that are shared
by members
nated," "rather, nature is an intricate, interconnected web of an organization" (Martin 1992; Van den
of which we form a small part of' (Garner 1996, Steen 2010), can shape the efficacy of insider activism.
p. 340).
Clearly, this ideology is in stark contrast with the Companies
idea that with a strong corporate culture are character-
business has no social responsibility, as corporate ized by more communication and less monitoring (Van den
activity
Steen
has - even within regulatory constraints - frequently led 2010),
to and thus bottom-up corporate social initiatives
environmental degradation such as water and air by employees are more likely to be implemented by
pollution
at the local level, and climąte change at the global level On the contrary, in firms where shared values
management.
(Hoffman 2001). are uncommon, bottom-up initiatives are less likely to be
This contrast is quite apparent in cases of directcarried out. Another example is that of corporate mission.
activist
attacks on corporations (Crossley 2003; Eesley andMission
Lenoxstatements reflect and provide direction on a firm's
2006; King and Soule 2007). However, ideological dif-
unique corporate identity, and this may have implications
ferences are sometimes set aside so that activists can for both the level and nature of social initiatives that they
engender change, as illustrated by cases of firm-NGOengage in. One can presume that firms whose mission
emphasizes financial success will be less susceptible to
collaborations. Finally, in cases of internal activism,
organizational members may need to 'frame' their social
pro- movement influence compared to those whose mis-
posed social initiatives as good for the firms' bottom sion
line also stresses non-financial considerations such as
employees, society, or the environment. And when it
(Scully and Segal 2002). That is, they need to camouflage
comes to the choice between different social initiatives,
their intensions and completely mask their ideological
views in order to achieve desired change. Overall,causes
the that social movements bring to the public debate are
collision of ideologies between firms and movements ismore
not likely to be implemented by a company if they fit
always observable and, even when firms are led to behave that specific company's mission (Cunningham et al.
with
2009). Other examples of attributes that could condition
more responsibly, these deeply rooted ideological differ-
ences are unlikely to disappear. movements' propensity to trigger corporate social initia-
tives include corporate visibility, prior reputation, or firm
Limitations and Future Research Paths litigiousness. More generally, future research needs to
examine how movement, firm, and contextual attributes
Despite its contributions, the proposed account does not shape the efficacy of movement actions that fuel corporate
entail a complete theory; rather, it can serve as a guidesocial initiatives, giving rise to (or hindering) the mecha-
toward a fuller understanding of the causal link betweennisms identified here.
social movements and corporate social initiatives. In this A second cautionary note relates to the boundary con-
context, it is important to note that a causal relation ditions
is of the proposed theoretical account. For instance,
perceived here as relying on underlying mechanisms thatempirical work should consider that while most social
movements will lead to social initiatives because of the
generate tendencies , not universally applicable laws. As
moral nature of their ideologies, it is very likely that there
such, two cautionary notes provide guidance for future
research. will be some exceptions. In particular, it is not evident how
far-right movements (nationalist movements or fascist
First, because theoretical mechanisms are not invariably
movements) or revolutionary movements (e.g., Arab
triggered, it is important for future work to delineate under
Spring) will relate to how firms behave with regard to
what conditions each of the mechanisms is likely to operate
social issues. The same could be told about anti-global-
or gain prevalence over others. While activists can use this
preliminary account to choose the specific ways in which ization movements (Sullivan et al. 2011; Juris 2008), but
they can ultimately impact firms, they will not always have only at first glance, as the recent wave of anti-corporate
the full set of choices at their discretion. For instance, the
protest has been linked to civil justice claims (Munro 2014;
choice between organized public campaigns and less for- Spicer and Böhm 2007) which may spur social initiatives
related to the distribution of resources; as I have argued,
mal action may depend on the openness of the institutions
social movements face (Spicer and Böhm 2007). Similarly,corporate social initiatives may not be promoted by social
activists' capacity to influence company reputation may movements per se , but still be inadvertently caused by
them. For example, I discussed earlier that indigenous
depend on their skill set in garnering media attention, and
their potential to shape public discourse and craft reso- movements that fight against large corporations in extrac-
tive sectors (e.g., Kraemer et al. 2013; Sagebien et al.
nance with other stakeholders may hinge on external fac-
tors such as freedom of the press. 2008) rarely do so in order to prompt social initiatives, but
Firm attributes can also be critical in shaping thetheir struggles threaten corporate reputation, leading firms
potency of movement actions. For example, "corporate in turn to adopt such initiatives as a reputation management
£) Springer
748 P. Georgallis
strategy. Finally,
acknowledging the current reality that business activity is e
firms to engage
dominated wi
by an ideology that prioritizes economic con-
will of cerns (Margolis and Walsh 2003), I ask
course why firms engage
matt
with social issues, and how, in particular,
environmental mov social move-
county ments contributeregion,
or to this decision. o
environmental ini
Concluding Remarks
movement for soc
likely to invest in i
exclusion. The decision of which movement to focus on In conclusion, this study was motivated not only by the
observation that "scholarship in our field has pursued
and which social initiatives it may relate to can only be left
to the empiricist, but acknowledging these nuancessociety's
is economic objectives much more than it has its
critical for theoretical and empirical research to advance
social ones" (Walsh et al. 2003; see also Pfeffer 2016), but
the theoretical account put forth in this essay. also by the desire to explain how social forces drive firms
Another boundary condition that I would like to draw to engage in social initiatives. Viewing social movements
attention to relates to the recognition that the proposedas ideologically motivated, this essay suggests that they are
account is not deterministic (i.e., it does not suggest that
able to induce firms to invest in such practices by forming
social movement activity will always lead companies toexpectations of other critical stakeholders, shaping
the
adopt social initiatives); engaging in such initiatives is only
firms' reputation and legitimacy, and precipitating value-
one possible firm response to ideologically motivated
laden managerial action. Clearly, I do not suggest that
activism. To gain further insights, scholars could examine
social movements and the ideologies they proffer are the
when activist campaigns backfire, with firms responding to force driving business transformation. However, my
only
activists by engaging in symbolic behavior, such as goal
for is not to be exhaustive; it is to shed light on one
example greenwashing (Lyon and Montgomery 2015)important
or antecedent of corporate social initiatives and to
creating astroturf groups [organizations funded by corpo-
highlight the multi-level nature of the relationship between
rations but that Masquerade' as grassroots groups (Walker
social movements and corporations.
2014)], and how activists in turn respond to such actions.
Acknowledgments The author would like to thank the guest editors
Such questions are critical, and call for more dynamic
and two anonymous reviewers for their guidance. Susan Kayser and
models that incorporate reciprocal interactions between
Tatiana Sokolova also offered helpful comments. Financial support
firms and social movements and that might enable us for
to the authors' research from the Erb Institute for Global Sustainable
understand the implications of the choice between corpo-
Enterprise, the Energy Institute, and the Dow Sustainability Fellow-
ship program at the University of Michigan is greatly appreciated.
rate social initiatives and symbolic action for organizations
and society. A more dynamic view of movement-firm
interactions (e.g., McDonnell et al. 2015; Levy and Scully
References
2007) is a natural next step for future research to undertake.
Finally, corporate social initiatives have a short history,
Albinger, H. S., & Freeman, S. J. (2000). Corporate social perfor-
situating this paper within a particular historical andmance and attractiveness as an employer to different job seeking
political context. Within this context, capitalism is thepopulations. Journal of Business Ethics, 28(3), 243-253.
dominant political system and most business activity Argandoña,
- A. (2003). Fostering values in organizations. Journal of
Business Ethics, 45(1), 15-28.
especially within capitalisms' neo-liberal variant - is dri-
Argenti, P. A. (2004). Collaborating with activists: How Starbucks
ven by a focus on the pursuit of profit (Friedman 1970; works with NGOs. California Management Review, 47('),
Ghoshal 2005). This context provides an important91-116.
Athanasopoulou, A., & Selsky, J. W. (2012). The social context of
boundary condition for my analysis and makes the mech-
corporate social responsibility: Enriching research with multiple
anisms that were identified more likely to operate in the
perspectives and multiple levels. Business and Society, 54(3),
Western world where capitalism has stronger roots. Of322-364.
course, this political system has faced strong criticism and
Baba, S., & Raufflet, E. (2014). Managing relational legacies: Lessons
even the notion of CSR itself has been under attack, with from British Columbia, Canada. Administrative Sciences, 4(1),
15-34.
some critical scholars suggesting that it perpetuates a
Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for
problematic worldview. I do not take a normative stance in evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 496-515.
this paper. This study does not examine under what con-Baneijee, S. B. (2000). Whose land is it anyway? National interest,
ditions social initiatives can actually 'get the job done' indigenous stakeholders, and colonial discourses: The case of the
Jabiluka uranium mine. Organization and Environment, 13(1),
(i.e., contribute to veritable improvements for the targeted3-38.
actors or society as a whole), or if they are 'part of Baneijee,
the S. B. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: The good, the
problem' (Fleming and Jones 2012). Rather, bad and the ugly. Critical Sociology, 34(1), 51-79.
Ô Springer
The Link Between Social Movements and Corporate Social Initiatives: Toward a Multi -level... 749
Bansal, P. (2003). From issues to actions: The importance of& Marquis, C. (2005). Prospects for organization theory
Davis, G. F.,
individual concerns and organizational values in responding
in theto
early twenty-first century: Institutional fields and mech-
natural environmental issues. Organization Science,anisms.
14(5), Organization Science, 16(4), 332-343.
510-527. De Bakker, F. G. A., & den Hond, F. (2008). Introducing the politics
Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of of stakeholder influence: A review essay. Business and Society,
ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 47(1), 8-20.
43(4), 717-736. De Bakker, F. G., den Hond, F., King, B., & Weber, K. (2013). Social
Barnett, J. H., & Karson, M. J. (1987). Personal values and business movements, civil society and corporations: Taking stock and
decisions: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Business looking ahead. Organization Studies, 34(5-6 ), 573-593.
Ethics, 6(5), 371-382. Den Hond, F., & de Bakker, F. G. A. (2007). Ideologically motivated
activism: How activist groups influence corporate social change
Baron, D. P. (2001). Private politics, corporate social responsibility,
and integrated strategy. Journal of Economics and Managementactivities. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 901-924.
Strategy, 10(1), 7-45. Den Hond, F., de Bakker, F. G., & Doh, J. (2012). What prompts
Bartley, T., & Child, C. (2011). Movements, markets and fields: The companies to collaboration with NGOs? Recent evidence from
effects of anti-sweatshop campaigns on US firms, 1993-2000.the Netherlands. Business and Society. 54(21. 187-228.
Social Forces, 90(2), 425-451. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited:
Bauer, T. N., & Aiman-Smith, L. (1996). Green career choices: TheInstitutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organiza-
influences of ecological stance on recruiting. Journal of Businesstional fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.
and Psychology, 10(4), 445-458. Doh, J. P., & Guay, T. R. (2006). Corporate social responsibility,
Benford, R. D. (1997). An insider's critique of the social movement public policy, and NGO activism in Europe and the United
framing perspective. Sociological Inquiry, 67(4), 409-430. States: An institutional-stakeholder perspective. Journal of
Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and socialManagement Studies, 43(1), 47-73.
movements: An overview and assesment. Annual Review of
Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social
Sociology, 26(1), 611-639. values and organizational behavior. Pacific Sociological Review,
Bitektine, A. (2011). Toward a theory of social judgments of 18(1), 122-136.
Dutton, J. E., & Duncan, R. B. (1987). The creation of momentum for
organizations: The case of legitimacy, reputation, and status.
Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 151-179. change through the process of strategic issue diagnosis. Strategic
Böhm, S., Dinerstein, A. C., & Spicer, A. (2010). (Im) possibilities of Management Journal, 8(3), 279-295.
autonomy: Social movements in and beyond capital, the state Edwards, B., & McCarthy, J. D. (2004). Resources and social
and development. Social Movement Studies, 9(1), 17-32. movement mobilization. In D. A. Snow, A. A. Soule, & H. Kriesi
Brammer, S., Jackson, G., & Matten, D. (2012). Corporate social (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements (pp.
responsibility and institutional theory: New perspectives on 116-152). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
private governance. Socio-Economic Review, 10(1), 3-28. Eesley, C., & Lenox, M. J. (2006). Firm responses to secondary
Briscoe, F., Chin, M. K., & Hambrick, D. (2014). CEO ideology as an stakeholder action. Strategic Management Journal, 27(8),
element of the corporate opportunity structure for social 765-781.
activists. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1786-1809. Ehrgott, M., Reimann, F., Kaufmann, L., & Carter, C. R. (2011).
Campbell, J. (2005). Where do we stand? Common mechanisms in Social sustainability in selecting emerging economy suppliers.
organizations and social movements research. In G. F. Davis, D. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(1), 99-119.
McAdam, W. R. Scott, & M. N. Zald (Eds.), Social movements Elster, J. (1989). Nuts and bolts for the social sciences. Cambridge:
and organizational theory (pp. 41-68). New York: Cambridge Cambridge University Press.
University Press. Rammer, C. (2015). Does corporate social responsibility lead to
Caprara, G. V., Schwartz, S., Capanna, C., Vecchione, M., & superior financial performance? A regression discontinuity
Barbaranelli, C. (2006). Personality and politics: Values, traits, approach. Management Science, 61(11), 2549-2568.
and political choice. Political Psychology, 27(1), 1-28. Reming, P., & Jones, M. T. (2012). The end of corporate social
Caroli, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for responsibility : Crisis and critique. London: Sage Publications.
corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research Friedman, M. (1970, Sept. 13). The social responsibility of business is
and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, to increase its profits (pp. 32-33). New York Times Magazine.
12(1), 85-105. Friedman, M. (2002). Capitalism and freedom (40th Anniversary
Castaldo, S., Perrini, F., Misani, N., & Tencati, A. (2009). The edition). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
missing link between corporate social responsibility and con- Garner, R. (1996). Contemporary movements and ideologies.
sumer trust: The case of fair trade products. Journal of Business McGraw-Hill humanities, social sciences & world languages.
Ethics, 84(1), 1-15. Irwin: McGraw-Hill.
Cosans, C. (2009). Does Milton Friedman support a vigorous business Georgallis, P. G., Dowell, G., & Durand, R. (2014). Firm density, social
ethics? Journal of Business Ethics, 87(3), 391-399. movement support, and government endorsement of nascent
Crossley, N. (2002). Making sense of social movements. London: industries. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2014(1), 15269.
McGraw-Hill Education. Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good
Crossley, N. (2UU3). bven newer social movements/ Anti-corporate management practices. Academy of Management Learning and
protests, capitalist crises and the remoralization of society. Education, 4(1), 75-91.
Organization, 10(2), 287-305. Gray, K., Kouhy, K., & Lavers, ö. (lyv^;. corporate social ana
Cunningham, S., Cornwell, T. B., & Coote, L. V. (2009). Expressing environmental reporting: A review of the literature and a
identity and shaping image: The relationship between corporate longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Accounting, Auditing &
mission and corporate sponsorship. Journal of Sport Manage- Accountability Journal, 8(2), 47-77.
ment, 23(1), 65-86. Greenwood, K., Suddaby, K., & Hinings, c. k. (zuuz). lneonzmg
Dacin, M. T., Oliver, C., & Roy, J. P. (2007). The legitimacy ot change: The role of professional associations in the transforma-
strategic alliances: An institutional perspective. Strategic Man- tion of institutionalized fields. Academy of Management Journal,
agement Journal, 28(2), 169-187. 45(1), 58-80.
Ô Springer
750 P. Georgallis
Guth, Maguire,D.,
W. S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence,
& T. B.Tagiu
(2004). Institutional
strategy. Harvard Business Review, 43(5), 123-132. entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HTV/AIDS treatment advo-
Hahn, T., Figge, F., Pinkse, J., & Preuss, L. (2010). Trade-offs in cacy in Canada. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5),
corporate sustainability: You can't have your cake and eat it. 657-679.
Business Strategy and the Environment, 79(4), 217-229. Margolis, J. D., Elfenbein, H. A., & Walsh, J. P. (2009). Does it pay
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The to be good... and does it matter? A meta-analysis of the
organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of relationship between corporate social and financial performance.
Management Review, 9(2), 193-206. http://ssrn.com/abstract= 1 86637 1 .
Hawn, O., & Ioannou, I. (2015). Mind the gap: The interplay betweenMargolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies:
external and internal actions in the case of corporate social Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science
responsibility. Strategic Management Journal, 36(7), Quarterly, 45(2), 268-305.
1053-1081. Marquis, C., Glynn, M. A., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Community
Hedström, P., & Swedberg, R. (1996). Social mechanisms. Acta
isomorphism and corporate social action. Academy of Manage-
Sociologica, 39(3), 281-308. ment Review, 32(3). 925-945.
Hensmans, M. (2003). Social movement organizations: A metaphor Martin, J. (1985). Organizational culture. New York: Wiley.
Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives.
for strategic actors in institutional fields. Organization studies,
24(3), 355-381. Oxford University Press.
Hoffman, A. J. (2001). From heresy to dogma: An institutional Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). Implicit and explicit CSR: A
history of corporate environmentalism. Stanford, CA: Stanfordconceptual framework for a comparative understanding of
University Press. corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review,
Hoffman, A. J. (2009). Shades of green. Stanford Social Innovation 33(2), 404-424.
Review, 7(2), 40-49. Maurer, C. C., Bansal, P., & Crossan, M. M. (2011). Creating
Howard-Grenville, J. A., & Hoffman, A. J. (2003). The importance of economic value through social values: Introducing a culturally
cultural framing to the success of social initiatives in business. informed resource-based view. Organization Science, 22(2),
Academy of Management Executive, 77(2), 70-84. 432-448.
Julian, S., Ofori-Dankwa, J., & Justis, R. (2008). Understanding Mayntz, R. (2004). Mechanisms in the analysis of social macro-
strategic responses to interest group pressures. Strategic Man- phenomena. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 34(2), 237-259.
agement Journal, 29(9), 963-984. McAdam, D., McCarthy, J., & Zald, M. (1996). Introduction:
Juris, J. S. (2008). Networking futures: The movements against Opportunities, mobilizing structures and framing processes. In
corporate globalization. Durham: Duke University Press. D. McAdam, J. McCarthy, & M. Zald (Eds.), Comparative
King, B. G. (2008). A political mediation model of corporate response perspectives on social movements (pp. 1-20). Cambridge:
to social movement activism. Administrative Science Quarterly, Cambridge University Press.
53(3), 395-421. McCarthy, J., & Zald, M. (1977). Resource mobilization and social
King, B. G., & Pearce, N. A. (2010). The contentiousness of markets: movements: A partial theoiy. American Journal of Sociology,
Politics, social movements, and institutional change in markets. 52(6), 1212-1241.
Annual Review of Sociology, 36 , 249-267. McDonnell, M. H., & King, B. (2013). Keeping up appearances
King, B. G., & Soule, S. (2007). Social movements as extra- reputational threat and impression management alter social
institutional entrepreneurs: The effect of protests on stock price movement boycotts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(3),
returns. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(3), 413-442. 387-419.
Kraemer, R., Whiteman, G., & Baneijee, B. (2013). Conflict and
McDonnell, M. H., King, B., & Soule, S. (2015). A dynamic process
astroturflng in Niyamgiri: The importance of national advocacy model of contentious politics: Activist targeting and corporate
networks in anti-corporate social movements. Organization receptivity to social challenges. American Sociological Review,
Studies, 34(5-6), 823-852. 50(3), 654-678.
Lee, T. (2002). Mobilizing public opinion: Black insurgency and McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, P. M. (2006). Corporate
racial attitudes in the civil rights era. Chicago: University of social responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Manage-
Chicago Press. ment Studies 43(1), 1-18.
Levy, D., & Scully, M. (2007). The institutional entrepreneur Miller,
as H. L. (1962). On the "Chicago School of Economics".
modem prince: The strategic face of power in contested fields. Journal of Political Economy, 70(1), 64-69.
Organization Studies. 28(1). 971-991. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory
Liedtka, J. (1989). Value congruence: The interplay of individual and
of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle
organizational value systems. Journal of Business Ethics, 5(10),of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review,
805-815. 22(4), 853-886.
Lyon, T. P., & Maxwell, J. W. (2003). Self-regulation, taxation and C., Zald, M. N., & Rao, H. (2003). Covert political conflict in
Morrill,
public voluntary environmental agreements. Journal of Public organizations: Challenges from below. Annual Review of
Economics, 57(7), 1453-1486. Sociology, 29 , 391-415.
Lyon, T. P., & Montgomery, A. W. (2015). The means and end of I. (2014). Organizational ethics and Foucault' s 'art of living':
Munro,
greenwash. Organization & Environment, 25(2), 223-249. Lessons from social movement organizations. Organization
MacKay, B., & Munro, I. (2012). Information warfare and new Studies, 35(8), 1127-1148.
organizational landscapes: An inquiry into the exxon mobil-Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm.
greenpeace dispute over climate change. Organization Studies, Strategic Management Journal, 75(S1), 187-206.
33(11), 1507-1536. Oliver, P. E., & Johnston, H. (2000). What a good idea! Ideologies
Maasen, r. M., & Kodgers, Z. J. (2015). Looking good by doing and frames in social movement research. Mobilization, 5(1),
good: The antecedents and consequences of stakeholder attention37-54.
to corporate disaster relief. Strategic Management Journal,
Pfeffer, J. (2016). Why the assholes are winning: Money trumps all.
36(5), 776-794. Journal of Management Studies. doi:10.1111/joms.l2177.
£) Springer
Sullivan, S., Spicer, A., & Böhm, S. (2011). Becoming global

Piven, F. F., & Cloward, R. A. (1979). Poor people's movements:
(un)civil society: Counter-hegemonic struggle and the Indy-
Why they succeed, how they fail. New York: Vintage Books.
media network. Globalizations, 8(5), 703-717.
Porter, M., & Van der Linde, C. (1996). Green and competitive:
Tilly,
Ending the stalemate. Harvard Business Review , 75(5), C., & Wood, L. J. (2009). Social movements 1978-2008.
120-134.
Boulder:
Raeburn, N. C. (2004). Changing corporate America from inside out : Paradigm Publishers.
Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1997). Corporate social
Lesbian and gay workplące rights (Vol. 20). Minessota:
University of Minnesota Press. performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective
Rao, H. (1998). Caveat emptor: The construction of nonprofit
employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 658-672.
consumer watchdog organizations. American JournalUlrich, P. (2008). Integrative economic ethics : Foundations of a
of Sociol-
ogy , 703(4), 912-961. civilized market economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Rindova, V. P., Pollock, T. G., & Hayward, M. L. (2006). Celebrity
Ulrich, P., of
firms: The social construction of market popularity. Academy & Sarasin, C. (Eds.). (1995). Facing public interest. The
Management Review, 37(1), 50-71. ethical challenge to business policy and corporate communica-
tions.the
Roulet, T. J., & Touboul, S. (2014). The intentions with which Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Van den Steen,
road is paved: Attitudes to liberalism as determinants of E. (2010). On the origin of shared beliefs (and
corporate culture). The Rand Journal of Economics, 41(4),
greenwashing. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(2), 305-320.
Rucht, D. (1999). The impact of environmental movements in 617-648.
western
Van Dijk,
societies. In M. Giugni, D. McAdam, & C. Tilly (Eds.), HowT. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciphnary approach.
social movements matter (pp. 204-224). Minessota: University London: Sage Publications.
of Minessota Press. Van Dyke, N., Soule, S., & Taylor, V. (2004). The targets of social
Sagebien, J., Lindsay, N., Campbell, P., Cameron, R., & Smith, N. movements: Beyond a focus on the state. In D. J. Myers & D.
(2008). The corporate social responsibility of Canadian mining M. Cress (Eds.), Authority in contention (pp. 27-51). Bingley:
companies in Latin America: A systems perspective. Canadian Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Foreign Policy Journal, 14(3), 103-128. Walker, E. T. (2014). Grassroots for hire: Public affairs consultants
Santoro, W. A., & McGuire, G. M. (1997). Social movement insiders: in American democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University
The impact of institutional activists on affirmative action and Press.
comparable worth policies. Social Problems, 44(4), 503-519.Walsh, J. P., Weber, K., & Margolis, J. D. (2003). Social issues and
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of management: Our lost cause found. Journal of Management,
values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. 29(6), 859-881.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25(1), 1-65. Weber, K., Heinze, K., & DeSoucey, M. (2008). Forage for thought:
Scully, M. A., & Segal, A. (2002). Passion with an umbrella: Mobilizing codes in the movement for grass-fed meat and dairy
Grassroots activists in the workplace. Research in the Sociology products. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(3), 529-567.
of Organizations, 19, 125-168. Weber, K., & Soderstrom, S. (2012). Social movements, business, and
Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1992). Master Frames and cycles of the environment. In P. Bansal & A. J. Hoffman (Eds.), The
protest. In A. D. Morris & C. M. Mueller (Eds.), Frontiers in Oxford handbook of business and the natural environment (pp.
social movement theory (pp. 133-155). New Haven: Yale 248-268). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
University Press. Weber, K., & King, B. G. (2014). Social movement theory and
Soule, S. (2009). Contention and corporate social responsibility. organization studies. In P. Adler, P. Gay, G. Morgan & M. Reed
Cambridge studies in contentious politics. Cambridge: Cam- (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of sociology, social theory, and
bridge University Press. organization studies: Contemporary currents, Oxford University
Soule, S. A., Swaminathan, A., & Tihanyi, L. (2014). The diffusion of Press, doi: 10. 1093/oxfordhb/978019967 1083 .01 3.0021 .
foreign divestment from Burma. Strategic Management Journal, Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution?
35(1), 1032-1052. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490-495.
Wilson, J. (1973). Introduction to social movements. New York:
Spicer, A., & Böhm, S. (2007), Moving management: Theorizing
struggles against the hegemony of management. Organization Basic Books.
Studies, 28(11), 1667-1698. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of
Spicer, A., & Fleming, P. (2007). Intervening in the inevitable: Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2), 1-27.
Zald, M. N. (2000). Ideologically structured action: An enlarged
Contesting globalization in a public sector organization. Orga-
nization, 14(4), 517-541. agenda for social movement research. Mobilization, 5(1), 1-16.
Strang, D., & Meyer, J. W, (1993). Institutional conditions tor Zald, M. N., & Berger, M. A. (1978). Social movements in
diffusion. Theory and Society, 22(4), 487-511. organizations: Coup ďetat, insurgency, and mass movements.
Strang, D., & Soule, S. A. (1998). Diffusion in organizations and American Journal of Sociology, 83(4), 823-861.
social movements: From hybrid corn to poison pills. Annual
Review of Sociology, 24(1), 265-290.
Springer

Georgallis-LinkSocialMovements-2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Georgallis-LinkSocialMovements-2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Link Between Social Movements and Corporate Social Initiatives: Toward a Multi-level

The Link Between Social Movements

Received: 31 December 2014 /Accepted: 6 March 2016 /Published online: 15

NGOs - serve as mobilizing structures that activists

use mechanism-based theorizing (Davis and (Levy Marquis

Fig. 2 The relationsh

movements?Organizational legitimacy is another

ceteris paribus , likely to lead them to engage in more

Managers ideologically 'incorporate' (pun intended)

that "nature is not an inert entity to be used andculture,"

Sullivan, S., Spicer, A., & Böhm, S. (2011). Becoming global

You might also like