Session 2: Social Movements - KEDGE Business School PDF

Session 2. Social movements Course: Business and Social Change Prof Maria Teresa Uribe Jaramillo 1 Course plan Sessi Topic Reading Student work on 1 Socio-technical Geels, F.W...

Session 2. Social movements Course: Business and Social Change Prof Maria Teresa Uribe Jaramillo 1 Course plan Sessi Topic Reading Student work on 1 Socio-technical Geels, F.W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary Meeting groups transition reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. 2 Social movements Anguelovski, I. and Martínez Alier, J. (2014). The Quiz and business ‘Environmentalism of the Poor’ revisited Case 1 - Blood diamonds Case 2 - Single-use plastics 3 Informal economy Lazar, S., Sanchez, A. (2019). Understanding labour politics in Quiz and precarity an age of precarity Case 3 - Gig economy Case 4 – Sharing economy 4 Inequality and McKinsey (2022) What is diversity, equity, and inclusion? Quiz business https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/mckinsey- Case 5 – Trans rights explainers/what-is-diversity-equity-and-inclusion Case 6 - Neurodiversity 5 Group videos and Revision of topics, update on final assignment Quiz revision Group work 2 presentations videos Session outline Quiz on session 1 topic Social movements Student presentations Break Brand activism activity Time for group work 2 Quiz Go to Learn Go to Assessment folder Open link on Quiz for session 1 topic Answer 10 questions Social movements What are social movements? Social movements are made of up to several, more or less organized, individuals and groups with a general preference for, or resistance to, change concerning some aspects of social life (Mena and Waeger, 2014). Activist groups possess varying ideologies and are often split into radical and reformative (or moderate) branches. It has been noted that activist groups’ ideologies or “the set of beliefs and attitudes relating to problematic aspects of social and political topics that are shared and used by members of a group and that inform and justify choice and behaviour” (den Hold and de Bakker, 2007, p. 903) may change over time. Social movement theory (Mena and Waeger, 2014 and Bertels et al, 2014) Three lines of inquiry within the social movement theory: 1) Investigation of the formal and informal ways in which activist groups are organized – their mobilizing strategies. Studies have looked at mobilizing structures of movements that is the organizational forms and tactical repertoires that create agreed upon ways of engaging in collective action (Bertels et al, 2014). 2) Examination of framing processes, and looks at how activist groups assign meaning to and interpret relevant events and conditions in ways that are intended to mobilize potential adherents and constituents to gain support and demobilize antagonists. Research examines the framing processes employed by social movement organizations to fashion shared understanding that legitimate and motivate collective action (Bertels et al, 2014). 3) Focus on political opportunity structures – it investigates which focal points activist groups deploy most of their time and resources, how and why they might move from one focal point to another (scale and shift), and how a particular focal point’s characteristics impact on how different types of activist groups mobilize. Types of social movements Alternative –partial change of individual and societal behaviour (alcoholics anonymous) Redemptive – change of individual behaviour (religious movements) Reformative – partial social change (environmental movement, women’s rights movement) Transformative – radical social change (revolutionary in nature, political change movements) Social movement targeting business practice and CSR Social movement theory has been applied to corporate responsibility based activism. Mena and Wager (2014) define corporate responsibility (CR) based activism as the mobilization of existing activist groups, which may have different attitudes and employ different tactics, but are motivated by the same goal: improving firm practices with respect to social, environmental, or ethical CR issues.  Spectrum of environmental movement ❖agenda - landscape protection, nature conservation, climate change Radical/populist styles Moderate/conventional styles ❖Unconventional political action ❖Use of established consultation procedure and dialogue with (mass demonstrations and direct actions) government. ❖Uncompromising ❖Prepared to compromise (cooperate with authority) ❖Confrontational ❖Cooperative in accepting government decisions (but with minimum demands) Radical groups and CSR Radical CR-based activist groups emphasize problems within CR activities of firms Tend to be critical of firms’ steps towards addressing CR issues. They do not assess firms positively if they are more proactive than others on CR issues Radical activist groups spend much of their time and resources deinstitutionalizing what are considered current CR best practices, which they consider unsatisfactory, intermediary solutions Radical activist groups concentrate on targeting and criticizing more advanced and proactive firms and typically prefer disruptive tactics that gain high media and public attention (Mena and Waeger, 2014) Reformative groups and CSR On the other hand, reformative activist groups emphasize the importance of achieving workable solutions, even if these activities do not fully address CR issues comprehensively. Reformative groups value best practices as intermediary solutions and necessary steps stronger firm measures. Moderate ideologies of reformative groups lead them to acknowledge that firms as part of potential solutions, as well as being part of the problem itself Reformative groups favour proactive firms, where they perceive such proactivity as steps towards substantially improving CR issues in the long term. Reformative CR-based activist groups will therefore tend to focus their time and resource on working with proactive firms, as well as criticizing laggard firms at time (Mena and Waeger, 2014). Themes of work of environmental NGOs (Bertels et al 2014) Create: Convene, share best practice, coach businesses, certify, leverage existing legal structures Disrupt: Litigate, lobby, educate, campaign, protest Resources: Conduct research, train, the next generation, secure resources for others Amplify: Amplify the work of others Align: Align and/or coordinate among environmental NGOs Anti-leadership movements The idea of horizontal, leaderless organization has come to the attention of the mass media, see Arab Spring and Occupy movement – they have challenged the orthodoxy that social action needs clearly identifiable, hierarchically positioned leaders. Sutherland et al (2014) based on the empirical investigation of radically democratic, participative organizations, explores the anti-hierarchical and anti- authority organizational structure where decisions are made via consensus building. Advocacy networks (Kraemer et al, 2013) Transnational advocacy networks National advocacy networks (NAN) (TAN) International networks of actors who National activists, NGOs, community collaborate on a particular issue and use organizations, research organizations and informational and symbolic resources to independent media groups that are influence power holders (states and IO). engaged in national-level advocacy on “TANs bring together local, national and behalf of numerous local struggles in international social movements and remote parts of the country. international NGOs. Domestic activist Empowering local grassroots activists provide grassroots information about local through the provision of technical and struggles while their transnational strategic know-how and leveraging local supporters use their clout with information into broader campaigns to international organizations and other influence national power holders. governments to achieve domestic policy change and empower anti-corporate NANs and the grassroots groups they activism” (Kraemer et al, 2013, p. 825). support often do have various pathways of influencing the state and corporations. Boomerang model (Kraemer et al, 2013) Social movements, especially when amplified by TANs, can influence CSR practices and the investment decisions of MNCs. Boomerang model assumes that social movement transnationalization occurs because of weak powers of domestic activists and their lack of technical know-how and material resources to influence change. Thus, local organizations seek support from TANs, because they face high levels of repression domestically and lack political resource to influence policy locally. In countries, where civil society actors lack capacity to influence national decision-makers or there are barriers to influence, they can refer to boomerang model. National decision Global social makers movement Barriers to influence National social movement Student case presentations Group 1 – Blood diamonds Group 2 – Plastic waste Brand activism Brand activism Brand activism (Moorman 2020; Sarkar and Kotler 2018) is an emerging marketing tactic for brands seeking to stand out in a fragmented marketplace by taking public stances on social and political issues. However, when brands become activists in the socio-political sphere, their underpinning motives are increasingly scrutinized (Holt 2002). Consumers may not believe brands when they engage in activism Authenticity in brand ? “woke washing” – inauthentic brand activism – when activism is not aligned with a brand’s purpose, values, and corporate practice Brand activism Topics: Immigration, gender rights, LGBTQIA+, U.S. gun reform, and climate change Brand activism should involve alignment with corporate practices that uphold brand purpose and values Backed up by tangible changes within the organization to support employees, customers, and stakeholders through, for example, modifications to corporate practice and organizational policies, donations, partnerships aimed at social change.  Brand activism – Case study Nike – For one, don’t do it https://www.forbes.com/sites/sethcohen/2020/05/30/for-once-dont-do-it--- the-powerful-idea-behind-nikes-new-anti-racism-ad/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drcO2V2m7lw In May 2020, Nike released the 60-second video ad “For Once, Don’t Do It” to support racial justice, the video contained a message asking people to stop pretending there is no problem in America concerning racism. Using an inverse of their slogan “Just Do It”, Nike stakes its position to inspire people not to be silent about racism and social justice, supporting the anti-police brutality against black people protests around the US. With this ad, Nike takes credit for stepping up and sharing the people’s pain and hope, working on shaping a mindset people were seeking, to rise above the challenges the country was facing. The final words of the ad stated, “Don’t think you can’t be part of the change, let’s all be part of the change”.  In your group works discuss the brand activism – about racial discrimination or “me too” movement or other social issue What examples of brand activism do you remember from the recent past on racial violence or violence against women or other social issues? Why do you think companies engage in such brand activism? Who do these campaigns try to target? And are they effective? What is the reaction of consumers? Do they support brand activism? Please send 1 PPT slide to [email protected] and share in class discussion. References Anguelovski, I. and Martínez Alier, J. (2014). The ‘Environmentalism of the Poor’ revisited: Territory and place in disconnected glocal struggles. Ecological Economics, 102, 167-176. Bebbington, A., Hinojasa, L., Humphreys Bebbington, D., Burneo, M.L., Warnaars, X. (2008) Contention and ambiguity: Mining and the possibilities of development, Development and Change, 6: 887-914. Bertels, D., Hoffman, A.J., & DeJordy, R. (2014). The varied work of challenger movements: Identifying challenger roles in the US environmental movement. Organization Studies, 35 (8), 1171-1210. Kraemer, R., Whiteman, G. and Banerjee, B. (2013) Conflict and astroturfing in Niyamgiri: The important of national advocacy networks in anti-corporate social movements, Organization Studies, 34 (5-6): 823-852. Mena, S., & Weager, D. (2014). Activism for corporate responsibility: Conceptualizing private regulation opportunity structures. Journal of Management Studies, 51 (7), 1091-1117. ORSE. Strategic Partnership Between NGOs and Business. www.orse.org Preuss, L., Vazquez-Brust, D., Yakovleva, N., Foroughi, H. and Mutti, D., 2022. When social movements close institutional voids: Triggers, processes, and consequences for multinational enterprises. Journal of World Business, 57(1), p.101283. Sutherland, N. (2013) Book review: Social movements and activist ethnography, Organization, 20(4): 627-643. Sutherland, N., Land, C. and Böhm, S. (2013) Anti-leader(ship) in social movement organizations: The case of autonomous grassroots groups, Organization, 21(6): 759-781. Vredenburg, J., Kapitan, S., Spry, A., Kemper, J.A. (2020) Brands Taking a Stand: Authentic Brand Activism or Woke Washing? Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 39 (4), 444-460. Yaziji, M. and Doh, J.P. (2013) The role of ideological radicalism and resource homogeneity in social movement organization campaigns against corporations, Organization Studies, 34(5-6): 755-780. Next session Quiz on topic of Session 2 on Social movements Student presentations Case 3 Gig Economy and Case 4 Sharing Economy Session 3 Topic – Informal economy and precarity Time for group/individual report  Time for Group Work 2 Group Briefnote, Sketchnote and Video (30%) Any Questions? 27