Movements, Markets and Fields: The Effects of  Anti-Sweatshop Campaigns on U.S. Firms, 1993-2000

Good Firms, Good Targets: The Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility, Reputation, and Activist Targeting

“…Movement protests and boycotts inflict reputational damage on firms, which increases the costs of doing of business and hurts market value (King and Soule 2007;King 2008b;Bartley and Child 2011). Recognizing that failing to abide by moral and ethical standards puts their reputation at risk motivates firms to take pre-emptive action and engage in more prosocial behavior.…”

“…For example, a company like Starbucks, which is one of the most reputable companies in the United States, must be more careful in monitoring their behavior because any mistakes are magnified due to their high reputation. Activists, who realize that their leverage over firms comes from their ability to mobilize public retaliation via negative media attention (King 2008;Bartley and Child 2011), may see Starbucks'…”

The Effect of Online Protests and Firm Responses on Shareholder and Consumer Evaluation

“…Although the impact of protests on firms is difficult to measure (Bartley and Child 2011;King and Soule 2007;Vasi and King 2012), a number of studies have assessed the effect of such actions. Bartley and Child (2011) examine the effects of anti-sweatshop protests on consumer and shareholder evaluations: reputation, sales, and share prices.…”

“…An increasing body of research indeed indicates that consumer protests can severely damage such a firm's reputation (Bartley and Child 2011;King 2008;King and Soule 2007). Feedback from stakeholders who are important for the survival of the targeted firm often mediates the effect of protests on corporate decision makers (Vasi and King 2012).…”

Signaling without Certification: The Critical Role of Civil Society Scrutiny

“…Studies examining the impacts of social movements have shown that such negative press resulting from civil society scrutiny can impose costly reputational damage (e.g., Bartley and Child, 2011;King and Soule, 2007). However, even when no lasting reputational damage occurs, such exposure is likely to negate the benefits of participation because it can make the firm's participation seem merely symbolic.…”