Social Activism and Practice Diffusion: How Activist Tactics Affect Non-targeted Organizations
Abstract
This paper examines how social activist tactics affect the diffusion of social-responsibility practices. Studying collegiate adoptions of a controversial supplier-sanction practice championed by anti-sweatshop activists, we compare how non-targeted organizations are influenced by different types of practice adoptions in their environment. Drawing on interorganizational learning theory, we argue and show that disruption-linked adoptions—those that occur following activists’ disruptive protests against the adopting organization—appear to be taken under coercive pressure and therefore provide non-targeted organizations with poor inferences about the merits of the practice. In contrast, strong inferences are provided by evidence-linked adoptions—those that occur after activists use evidence-based tactics with the adopting organization—and by independent adoptions occurring without any activism. Hence the contagious effect of independent and evidence-based adoptions is greater than that of disruption-linked adoptions. We further explore differences in receptivity to contagious influence, proposing that features of an organization and its proximal environment that increase issue salience also increase susceptibility to diffusion. Our findings demonstrate the importance of including non-targeted organizations in research on social movements and corporate social responsibility. They also offer a new vantage for interorganizational diffusion research, based on how activists and other…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Prior work indicates that prominent organizations, especially those known for resisting activists, drive the spread and institutionalization of socially responsible practices by adopting progressive policies.
“Prior research has found that the diffusion and eventual institutionalization of socially responsible practices is largely driven by the adoption of progressive policies by prominent organizations, in particular by those that have reputations for or histories of being resistant to activists' requests”
From Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic (2018) · cites this paper as Briscoe, Gupta, and Anner, 2015
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 123 · Cited by 137
- Authors
- Briscoe, F., Gupta, A., & Anner, M. S.
- Affiliations
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- University of Washington (US)
- Venue
- Administrative Science Quarterly
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2015-03-19
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 300-332
- ISSN
- 0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
- 1930-3815
- OpenAlex
- W2170217900
- Cited by
- 137
- References
- 123
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 21.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Administrative Science Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability
- Keywords
- social activism, corporate social responsibility, inter-organizational learning, disruptive protest, coercive pressure, issue salience, social movements
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review