Cited by 113Corporate Social Responsibility ReportingPolitical Influence and Corporate StrategiesEnvironmental Sustainability in Business

Domesticating Radical Rant and Rage: An Exploration of the Consequences of Environmental Shareholder Resolutions on Corporate Environmental Performance

Lee, Min-Dong Paul, Lounsbury, Michael·2011·Business & Society

Abstract

This article examines the effect of social shareholder activism on one of the most visible aspects of corporate social behavior, namely corporate pollution management practice. Social shareholder activism is a distinct form of social movement that engages firms “in the suites.” We theorize the effect of social shareholder activism using three social movement mechanisms: (a) disruption of routines, (b) reframing of issues using extant institutional logics, and (c) mobilization of relevant third-party constituents. Our empirical analysis using 13-year panel data of 58 public corporations strongly confirm the positive effect of environmental shareholder resolutions on the targeted firm’s pollution management practice. We have also found that certain firms targeted by social shareholder activism are more likely to respond positively to the demands than others. In particular, firms that can potentially incur higher disruption costs and are more dependent on reputation for critical resources such as larger firms as well as firms in industries that are closer to end-user consumers are more likely to concede to the demands from shareholder activists.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0007650310394640

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Shareholder resolutions often fail to receive enough support to change corporate policies, but they serve as disruptive activity and can threaten a firm's reputation.

    “Such resolutions often fail to receive enough support to change corporate policies, but they nevertheless serve as a form of ''disruptive activity'' and can thus threaten a firm's reputation (Lee and Lounsbury, 2011;McDonnell, King, and Soule, 2015).”

    From Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic (2018) · cites this paper as Lee and Lounsbury, 2011

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lee, M.-D. P., & Lounsbury, M.
Affiliations
  • University of South Florida (US)
  • University of Alberta (CA)
Corresponding author
Lee, Min-Dong Paul
Venue
Business & Society
Published
2011-02-24
Volume
50
Issue
1
Pages
155-188
ISSN
  • 0007-6503 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-4205
OpenAlex
W2030210888
Cited by
113
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 2
FWCI
22.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Business & Society (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Political Influence and Corporate Strategies
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Environmental Sustainability in Business
Keywords
corporate environmental performance, pollution management, social movement theory, institutional logics, disruption costs, corporate reputation, firm size, corporate social responsibility

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