The Organizational Dynamics of the U.S. Environmental Movement: Legitimation, Resource Mobilization, and Political Opportunity*

Abstract

We analyze the relationship between legitimation, resource mobilization, and political opportunity and the founding rate of national environmental organizations between 1895 and 1994. We address recent criticisms that organizational ecologists' reliance on the density dependence model—which treats legitimation as an unmeasured intervening variable—has failed to capture the active sociopolitical character of this process. We advocate a more historical approach to legitimation which relies on print media to construct direct measures of legitimation. Specifically, we use the yearly count of environmental books published as a measure of the legitimacy of environmentalism in the U.S. This count remains statistically significant and positively related to foundings even when other variables are added to the model. A negative second‐order effect of total books suggests that the recent proliferation of state and local environmental organizations is beginning to depress the founding rate of national organizations. Variations in resource mobilization and political opportunity also have affected foundings, though variables measuring the latter were not significant in the full model.

Understanding Collaborative Value Creation by Environmental Nonprofit and Renewable Energy Business Partnerships

“…ENPOs including the Sierra Club, the National Audubon Society, the Wilderness Society, and the National Wildlife Federation have demonstrated conservationist tendencies for many decades (Chiras and Reganold 2010). In the 1960s, the environmental movement began to consider the direct impacts that human activities had on society and the natural world, and a plethora of ENPOs were established focusing on emerging environmental issues (Johnson 2006;McLaughlin and Khawaja 2000;Mitchell et al 1992). These ENPOs characterized a new environmental movement separate from the conservationist frame (Dalton 1994), and began to acknowledge the link between energy production and pollution.…”

The influence of the Sustainable Seafood Movement in the US and UK capture fisheries supply chain and fisheries governance

“…A social movement must attract participants to subscribe to its cultural frame in order to succeed. In securing adherents, its legitimacy is established (McLaughlin and Khawaja, 2000). Once legitimacy is established it is easier for a social movement to attract resources to sustain and propel it forward.…”

“…Once legitimacy is established it is easier for a social movement to attract resources to sustain and propel it forward. Resource mobilization is critical to enable a movement to promote its objectives to a wider audience and contest the prevailing cultural frame (McLaughlin and Khawaja, 2000). Social movements are different from interest groups in that the former lack steady access to stable resources such that contention can become a key resource within a movement's control (Tarrow, 2011).…”

“…ENGOs initially served the role as the organizer of the movement, given their history of organizing coalitions around environmental issues (Dunlap and Mertig, 1991). ENGOs are often long-standing professional organizations that have vast networks and experience in carving out a role in policy debates (McLaughlin and Khawaja, 2000). As the initial organizers of the movement, ENGOs were able to bring together disparate actors across the movement to "build bridges" in order to foster social solidarity through generating new cultural frames to contest established ones (Ward and Phillips, 2008).…”

Emerging bridges over contested waters: coalitions, participatory process, social capital and community capacity for water quality protection

“…(See Table 3.1.) McLaughlin and Khawaja (2000), using a political opportunity structure frame (Eisinger 1973), have documented a relationship between the foundation of environmental organizations and the number of environmental publications (a measure of legitimization).…”