The Activist Company: Examining a Company’s Pursuit of Societal Change Through Corporate Activism Using an Institutional Theoretical Lens

Abstract

Companies are more frequently taking public stands on often controversial social, political, economic, and environmental issues. Despite the importance of the topic, research on understanding the role of companies in societal change through activism is scarce. Using institutional theory, this article defines corporate activism as a company’s willingness to take a stand on social, political, economic, and environmental issues to create societal change by influencing the attitudes and behaviors of actors in its institutional environment. This framework conceptualizes corporate activism as a response to barriers that hinder the solution of an issue. These barriers stem from institutional actors’ attitudes and behaviors toward the issue, and corporate activism can address these barriers through influence and change strategies that can target the institutional environment “top-down” or “bottom-up.” This framework further investigates how the identity orientation of the company facilitates corporate activism. This research has important implications for managers, policy makers, and any other agents that aim to facilitate social change.

What does corporate social advocacy signal? Evidence from boycott participation decisions

“…In light of all of the above, and building on the importance of organizational identity in motivating social advocacy behaviours of companies (Eilert and Nappier Cherup, 2020), as well as the role of reputation signalling and corporate communication, we argue that social advocacy-based signals (i.e. a firm's publicly announced commitment to side with activists in the fight against hateful, misinformed and divisive information in society), and how they are conveyed, will be interpreted by signal receivers (i.e.…”

Marketing’s Role in Understanding Political Activity

“…Although countries define the boundaries of legal political engagement by businesses differently, globally there is growing perception that firms should actively manage the political environment in which they operate. This has resulted in growing and diversifying actions by firms in the political realm (see Eilert and Nappier Cherup 2020; Vredenburg et al 2020). For example, in the United States, companies spend billions of dollars each year on lobbying or through political action committees to influence government policies, elect particular candidates, or shape political issues (e.g., Martin et al 2018).…”

“…As a second broad overview at the company–citizen interface, Eilert and Nappier Cherup (2020) examine how companies use activism to create social change when traditional CSR approaches designed to do good cannot adequately create change. This framework is novel in its explication of the firm’s interaction with the institutional environment through activism.…”

The Powers and Perils of Societal Advertising

“…They are required to demonstrate their corporate social responsibility by integrating social demands into their business conduct, and practice what is ethically correct (Garriga and Melé 2004). Through public speech and actions involving the entire organization, brands may frequently engage in political activism and take a stand on controversial sociopolitical issues (Eiler and Nappier Cherup 2020; Moorman, 2020; Vredenburg et al 2020). In view of the marketing process, plans and activities are expected to consider consumer and societal long-run interests (Andreasen 1993; Kotler, Armstrong, and Opresnik 2017; Schmidt and Hitchon 1999), in order to achieve individual or systemic change (Kennedy and Parsons 2012).…”

“…In the past, advertising was accused of greenwashing and neglecting progressive social values, such as social justice (Ciochetto 2011). However, during recent years, business organizations have been increasingly incorporating aspects of their social stance into their advertising campaigns (Eilert and Nappier Cherup 2020). The current political polarization and socially-charged climate have led consumers to an expectation that brands ought to be expressing their viewpoints on controversial sociopolitical issues (Rim, Lee, and Yoo 2020; Vredenburg et al 2020).…”