Investor Reaction to Corporate Activism

Maks-Solomon, Cory

doi:10.5465/ambpp.2020.20071abstract

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Political parties rarely mention it in their platforms, and public discourse about the morality of capital punishment has been sparse. Indeed, very few firms take public stances either in favor of, or opposing, capital punishment (Maks‐Solomon, 2020). Benetton serves as a notable exception in that it took a highly public stance against capital punishment in 2000.…”

Section: Salience Agreement and Csr Choicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…As an example of such a scenario, consider the case of corporate support for LGBTQ rights, a highly salient issue. Prominent companies and CEOs engage with this issue (Maks‐Solomon, 2020), often motivated by arguments based on market position (Maks‐Solomon & Drewry, 2021). At the same time, it remains highly polarizing (low agreement), with a 2016 Pew survey finding that 55% of respondents supported same‐sex marriage, while 37% were against.…”

Section: Salience Agreement and Csr Choicementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Corporate social counterpositioning: How attributes of social issues influence competitive response

Mohliver

Crilly

Kaul

2022

Strategic Management Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whilst existing research generally assumes corporate social responsibility (CSR) is seen as universally positive, firms increasingly adopt practices, and take stands, on highly polarizing social issues (e.g., gun-control, LGBTQ rights, abortion). To better understand this phenomenon, we develop a theory about when firms will emulate, ignore, or oppose each other's CSR efforts, based on attributes of the underlying social issue (its salience and polarization), the level of market competition, and the substantiveness of CSR. Our theory predicts several distinct equilibrium outcomes, including the potential for social counter-positioning, whereby rival firms take advantage of socio-political polarization to horizontally differentiate by taking opposing stances on a polarizing issue. Counterpositioning is more likely when salience is high, but agreement is low, when markets are competitive, and when CSR is largely symbolic. Managerial Summary: Firms increasingly find themselves drawn, willingly or not, to taking stances on a controversial social issue (e.g., gun rights, abortion), though doing so risks alienating (some) stakeholders. In this paper, we develop a theory of why, when, and how firms should take a stance on a polarizing issue.

show abstract

Section: Salience Agreement and Csr Choicementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Salience Agreement and Csr Choicementioning

confidence: 99%

Corporate social counterpositioning: How attributes of social issues influence competitive response

Mohliver

Crilly

Kaul

2022

Strategic Management Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A related idea for future research is to distinguish CMOs’ CSR and sociopolitical activism communication from that of other executives across functions and leadership roles. For some global brands (e.g., Unilever), other executives and functions lead CSR communication (Weed 2016) or are engaged in calculated sociopolitical activism strategies to sway public policy outcomes (Maks-Solomon 2020).…”

Section: Limitations and Future Research Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Global Brand Chief Marketing Officers’ Corporate Social Responsibility and Sociopolitical Activism Communication on Twitter

Özturan¹,

Grinstein²

2022

Journal of International Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chief marketing officers (CMOs) engage with their stakeholders on social media platforms with the intention to create a digital impact. CMO communication on societal issues is understudied despite heightened global attention to brands’ social practices. This poses three research questions: (1) How central is corporate social responsibility (CSR) and sociopolitical activism in the communication of global brands’ CMOs? (2) Does CMOs’ communication about CSR or sociopolitical activism have a digital impact? and (3) How do brand origin (i.e., geographic location of headquarters [HQ]) and CMO nationality (U.S. vs. non-U.S.) moderate the CSR/sociopolitical activism−digital communication impact? Drawing on expectancy violation theory, this research (Ntweets = 17,468 over NCMOs=81) finds that CMOs rarely publish CSR or sociopolitical activism communication on Twitter (5.3% and 3.2%) and demonstrates a higher digital impact of retweets for CSR and a lower impact for sociopolitical activism tweets than regular communication. Furthermore, non-U.S. HQ and CMO nationality strengthen the positive effect of CSR communication and weaken the negative effect of sociopolitical activism communication.

show abstract

When Is CEO Activism Conducive to the Democratic Process?

Feix

Wernicke

2023

J Bus Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Investor Reaction to Corporate Activism

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Corporate social counterpositioning: How attributes of social issues influence competitive response

Corporate social counterpositioning: How attributes of social issues influence competitive response

Impact of Global Brand Chief Marketing Officers’ Corporate Social Responsibility and Sociopolitical Activism Communication on Twitter

When Is CEO Activism Conducive to the Democratic Process?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About