Civic Engagement and Social Media

Political Participation Beyond Protest

J. Uldam, A. Vestergaard, J. Uldam, A. Vestergaard

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781137434166
• Topic: Ciencias sociales
• Subtopic: Estudios de medios

The Occupy movement and the Arab Spring have brought global attention to the potential of social media for empowering otherwise marginalized groups. This book addresses questions like what happens after the moment of protest and global visibility and whether social media can also help sustain civic engagement beyond protest.

Part I

Formal Modes of Civic Engagement and Cooperation with Institutional Actors

1

Online Activism, CSR and Institutional Change

Frank G.A. de Bakker

Introduction

Business has many influences on society and increasingly society aims to have more, and more direct, influence on business as well. A steady stream of research speaks to these business-society interactions, including the widespread attention to stakeholders and the way they influence, and are influenced by, business organizations (cf. Sharma & Henriques, 2005), or to questions of whether corporations could be regarded as ‘corporate citizens’ and what that would entail (Matten & Crane, 2005). With the apparent retreat of states from many markets, research increasingly highlights issues of governance and private politics (Baron, 2003), looking at how corporate behaviour could and should be governed and who should be involved in doing so.

Often these studies speak to the notion of corporate social responsibility (CSR), briefly summarized as ‘actions that appear to further some social good, beyond the interests of the firm and that which is required by law’ (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001: 117). The way CSR is being shaped in practice can be seen as a process in which firms and a variety of other actors are involved, for instance in defining what responsibility exactly entails, and how it should be implemented, monitored, or sanctioned. How are norms and standards of CSR developed or changed? Such questions also speak to institutional theory, which ‘is perhaps the dominant approach to understanding organizations’ (Greenwood et al., 2008: 2). More and more attention is now being devoted to how institutions change, or are changed, for instance focusing on issues of institutional work (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006) and institutional complexity (Greenwood et al., 2011; Pache & Santos, 2010) that discuss the often complicated processes through which different actors try to influence institutions. Many studies have examined how these actors have operated in these attempts. Of the many actors involved in institutional change processes, in this chapter I highlight the role of activist non-governmental organizations (den Hond & de Bakker, 2007; Yaziji & Doh, 2009) and their use of online and social media in such processes (cf. Castelló et al., 2013; Fieseler et al, 2010; van den Broek et al., 2012; Van Laer & Van Aelst, 2010). As Snow (2004: 536) noted, ‘activists promote particular ways of understanding the world’. They use a variety of tactics to engage in this promotion; with the rise of the Internet a wide range of new tactics has become available for activists. The Worldwide Web offers different modes of communication and allows for a greater speed in communication (Garrett, 2006). As ‘online media provide activist groups with potentially powerful tools of open, web-based communications’ (de Bakker & Hellsten, 2013: 809), the impact of the Internet on movements and activists has increasingly been documented in different fields such as media and communication studies (cf. Bennett, 2003; Bimber et al., 2005) and social movement studies (cf. Castells, 2012; Van Laer, 2010). This chapter focuses on how online media and their use by activists can be linked to processes of institutional change. I briefly examine several tactics activists can use to instigate institutional change on issues of CSR and then highlight the potential of the Internet, and especially online media, to execute these tactics. In doing so, I build on a growing stream of research that examines activism and the rise of social media, for instance through studies on ways to trace protest campaigns through Twitter (Gerbaudo, 2012), or on how online technologies such as social media have changed the activist landscape (Uldam, 2013). Such literature offers useful insights for examining how activists try to establish institutional change, as well as some empirical examples. In the next section I will first discuss how activists aim for institutional change on issues of CSR and how they use a variety of tactics in doing so. Then I will briefly highlight some prominent characteristics of online activism and online media tactics. Combining these perspectives then leads to a new typology to analyze how online activism could be used to change norms in CSR. The chapter ends with a discussion of the applicability of this typology and of the applicability of online tactics in general, followed by some concluding remarks.

Activists, CSR, and institutional change

The debate on CSR goes way back (Bowen, 1953; Carroll, 1999) but responsibilities of business are still being debated heavily, both in scholarly discussions and in the popular management press (cf. Crane et al., 2014). Over the last decades, CSR has become a topic that firms cannot neglect. Firms need to find new ways of coping with a variety of different stakeholder demands as noted in the abundant literature on stakeholder management (cf. Rasche & Esser, 2006; Sharma & Henriques, 2005). CSR is then usually defined in broad terms, for example as encompassing ‘the economic, legal, ethical and discretionary expectations that society has of organizations at a given point in time’ (Carroll, 1979: 500). Such broad definitions are open to various interpretations and therefore create room to manoeuvre for firms, who can select the interpretation that best suits their needs and their profiles to demonstrate to a wider audience how they act in some socially responsible manner. Although a range of studies have appeared on CSR, ranging from prescriptive studies to theory-building contributions (for reviews see Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; de Bakker et al., 2005), the interpretation of the concept remains contested and is often criticized, for instance as ‘greenwashing’ or ‘window dressing’ (Ramus & Montiel, 2005). Different actors are all providing their own takes on the definition of the concept and its implementation.

In this chapter I focus on how one specific category of actors aims to influence how CSR is defined: I look at activist groups. This term obviously links to a range of concepts such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs), civil society organizations, or secondary stakeholders, and in a broader sense to social movement organizations. Yet, I here opt for the term ‘activist groups’ to emphasize their intention to establish change. Building on earlier work (den Hond & de Bakker, 2007), I argue that activist groups aim for institutional change. They want to influence the way CSR is conceptualized and framed and therefore try to gather support and legitimacy for their interpretations of CSR (van Huijstee & Glasbergen, 2010). By formulating claims on what firms should or should not do in order to be acting responsibly, and by bringing these claims to the attention of a wide range of stakeholders through various tactics, activist groups seek to influence corporate policies and practices on issues of CSR (Spar & La Mure, 2003), and seek to influence norms in CSR, both within companies and within society at large.

Such activist tactics usually are not intended to create change at just one particular (target) firm but to have an impact on a range of firms or industries. For instance, building on Jensen (2003), den Hond and de Bakker (2007) pointed at the well-known controversy between Greenpeace and Shell over the Brent Spar oil rig in 1995. Greenpeace clearly indicated that their protest was aimed at preventing the sinking off old oil rigs into the deep sea becoming a standard practice: Shell’s plans provided a useful case for Greenpeace to highlight their position and to try to influence the common opinion on such disposal practices. By using a range of tactics that included consumer boycotts and direct action, Greenpeace succeeded in making Shell revisit its plans: ‘deepwater disposal’ was no longer a viable option internationally and a moratorium on such disposal was debated politically (Jørgensen, 2012), even though the scientific evidence Greenpeace put forward to substantiate their claims was contested. According to De Jong (2005), Greenpeace did not have the scientific credentials but still succeeded in mobilizing many different groups through its tactics, supported by the poor environmental awareness on the side of the firm and policy-makers. Greenpeace thus succeeded in influencing the norms on these deepwater disposal practices and the definition of responsible corporate behaviour in this context.

Such efforts by activists can be regarded as attempts to establish institutional change, trying to shape or maintain certain ‘field frames’ (Lounsbury et al., 2003) or ‘norm systems’ (den Hond & de Bakker, 2007). Field frames ‘provide order and stability in an organizational field, since they comprise the technical, legal, or market standards that define the normal modes of operation’ (den Hond & de Bakker, 2007: 904). These frames indicate what is seen as ‘normal’ in a particular field; once established such frames are fairly stable and considerable effort has to be made to alter them. A growing stream of research therefore focuses on how activists and other social movement organizations play a role in changing field frames, building on a combination of social movement studies and institutional theory (cf. Davis et al., 2005; de Bakker et al., 2013; Rao et al., 2000). After all, such activists aim to establish change in existing field frames, changing what is considered as the normal mode of operation, in order to make the dominant frames fit better with their own interests and ideologies. Nevertheless, as Schneiberg and Lounsbury (2008: 665) note, ‘our knowledge of how movements create favourable political contexts for the diffusion and translation of alternatives is relatively undeveloped’.

To change field frames, existing dominant frames first need to be called into question first, and activists then need to ensure that alternative field frames are developed and accepted (den Hond & de Bakker, 2007; Lounsbury et al., 2003). Activists will thus need to work on discussing the legitimacy of both these frames, first providing arguments to convince field members of the need to abandon an existing frame. They will engage in tactics aimed at deinstitutionalization. If they succeed, room is created for new frames to emerge and at that stage activists will start to deploy tactics aimed at winning field members over to their proposed alternative frame. Such attempts at reinstitutionalization could involve a range of changes in norms, standards, or operating procedures. Depending on their ideological position, different activist groups will select different tactics and call upon different forms of legitimacy when doing so (den Hond & de Bakker, 2007; Zald, 2000). More radical activist groups ‘offer a more comprehensive version of the problem and more drastic change as a solution’ (Zald & McCarthy, 1980: 8) whereas their more moderate or reformist counterparts ‘believe that although companies are part of the problem, they can also be part of the solution’ (den Hond & de Bakker, 2007: 903) and thus aim for more incremental changes within fields. These ideological positions also influence the choice of potential targets: during deinstitutionalization, reformist activists will target firms lagging behind to drag them along with their peers, while radical activists will focus on proactive firms in order to push the bar even higher, demonstrating to the field that even more change is feasible. During reinstitutionalization, reformist activists groups will be inclined to work with proactive firms to establish a new field frame. Radical activist groups will focus on changing the economic order without much collaboration with firms at all as they don’t see current firms as capable of demonstrating sufficient change (den Hond & de Bakker, 2007). Yet, in all these activities both types of activists can use a broad range of tactics, from more collaborative to more disruptive ones; in doing so the processes of deinstitutionalization and reinstitutionalization do not necessarily unfold as in discrete stages. These processes will often run simultaneously, or at least with overlaps, using a variety of tactics that could reinforce one another.

To discuss tactics activist groups have at their disposal, den Hond and de Bakker (2007) then build on the work of della Porta and Diani (1999) and distinguish two different logics through which activist tactics’ effectiveness can be understood: the logic of damage/gain which raises (or lowers) the cost of continuing some contested practices, and the logic of numbers which concerns the number of supporters or participants required to make a tactic work¹. The logic of damage can be divided into symbolic and material damage/gain, depending on whether the tactics aim to influence meanings and discourses (symbolic) or to have a direct influence on the firm’s resources and assets (material) (den Hond & de Bakker, 2007). These influences can either be harmful (damage) or beneficial (gain). Based on these logics, den Hond and de Bakker (2007) propose a typology of tactics, arguing that activists are likely to start their attempts for institutional change by using tactics that only require limited resources: low dependence on participatory forms of action and a focus on a symbolic impact. Examples of such tactics are shareholder activism and street theatre. Even a small number of dedicated activists can then have an impact. Whenever conflict endures and/or escalates, different activist groups will resort to different tactics, depending on their ideological positions and on whether they aim for deinstitutionalization of disavowed practices and field frames or for the (re-)institutionalization of a new frame or practice. More reformist activists will try to mobilize larger numbers of protesters through tactics aimed at a symbolic impact, such as demonstrations and petitions, while more radical activists will opt for tactics aimed at a material impact without involving large numbers of participants.

In their typology, den Hond and de Bakker (2007) discussed a range of tactics, including some that are increasingly being used in online environments, such as petitions or ‘hacktivism’. Examining the potential of the Internet and online media for activists to influence processes of institutional change in more detail could still provide a useful extension of current thinking about activists’ tactics to influence norms in CSR. In the next section I will examine the link between activist tactics, online media, and institutional change regarding CSR.

Activist tactics, online media, and CSR

The Internet and the rise of online media have opened up new areas for research on social movements and their tactics. These developments have offered a whole new range of tools for activists to organize their campaigns and to mobilize support for their claims. New terms such as ‘cyberactivism’ (McCaughey & Ayers, 2003) or ‘tweetjacking’ (Lyon & Montgomery, 2013) have gained prominence and the potential of online activism for activists and social movement organizations is clear. The opportunity to communicate directly with one’s audiences, ‘...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures and Tables
• Foreword
• Notes on Contributors
• Introduction: Social Media and Civic Engagement
• Part I Formal Modes of Civic Engagement and Cooperation with Institutional Actors
• Part II Informal Modes of Civic Engagement, Enacting Alternatives and Sustaining Involvement
• Index