公司对懒惰主义的回应:电子请愿何时以及为何有效?

IF 7 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS Journal of Management Studies Pub Date : 2023-10-18 DOI:10.1111/joms.13010
Ronei Leonel, Kathleen Rehbein, Michelle Westermann-Behaylo, Elise Perrault
{"title":"公司对懒惰主义的回应:电子请愿何时以及为何有效?","authors":"Ronei Leonel,&nbsp;Kathleen Rehbein,&nbsp;Michelle Westermann-Behaylo,&nbsp;Elise Perrault","doi":"10.1111/joms.13010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>E-petitions have evoked an important debate about the potential for digital activism to pressure firms to change social policies and practices. One prevailing perspective is that slacktivism, a tendency of online supporters to provide only token support, undermines any possible impact. An alternative perspective is that social media dynamics underlying digital activism offer new pathways for social activists to pressure firms toward social change. To explore this debate, we combine insights from research on social movements, social media, and the logic of connective action to theorize the impact of social media mechanisms such as e-petition connectivity and velocity. With a hand-coded database of 1587 e-petitions targeting Fortune 500 firms from 2012 to 2017 through the platform Change.org, we empirically evaluate whether these e-petitions matter. Our empirical results strongly suggest that e-petitions do matter, and we explain when digital activism has impact. The activation of social media mechanisms spreads negative information and directly intensifies the threat to the targeted firm's reputation, pressuring firms to concede to e-petitioner demands. Furthermore, our findings indicate that firm visibility and resource availability can represent boundary conditions for the firm's vulnerability and ability to respond to digital activism.</p>","PeriodicalId":48445,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Studies","volume":"61 7","pages":"3148-3183"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/joms.13010","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Firms’ Response to Slacktivism: When and Why are E-Petitions Effective?\",\"authors\":\"Ronei Leonel,&nbsp;Kathleen Rehbein,&nbsp;Michelle Westermann-Behaylo,&nbsp;Elise Perrault\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/joms.13010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>E-petitions have evoked an important debate about the potential for digital activism to pressure firms to change social policies and practices. One prevailing perspective is that slacktivism, a tendency of online supporters to provide only token support, undermines any possible impact. An alternative perspective is that social media dynamics underlying digital activism offer new pathways for social activists to pressure firms toward social change. To explore this debate, we combine insights from research on social movements, social media, and the logic of connective action to theorize the impact of social media mechanisms such as e-petition connectivity and velocity. With a hand-coded database of 1587 e-petitions targeting Fortune 500 firms from 2012 to 2017 through the platform Change.org, we empirically evaluate whether these e-petitions matter. Our empirical results strongly suggest that e-petitions do matter, and we explain when digital activism has impact. The activation of social media mechanisms spreads negative information and directly intensifies the threat to the targeted firm's reputation, pressuring firms to concede to e-petitioner demands. Furthermore, our findings indicate that firm visibility and resource availability can represent boundary conditions for the firm's vulnerability and ability to respond to digital activism.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48445,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Management Studies\",\"volume\":\"61 7\",\"pages\":\"3148-3183\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/joms.13010\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Management Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joms.13010\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Management Studies","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joms.13010","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

电子请愿引发了一场关于数字行动主义是否有可能迫使企业改变社会政策和做法的重要辩论。一种流行的观点认为,在线支持者倾向于只提供象征性的支持,这种 "懈怠主义 "会削弱任何可能的影响。另一种观点则认为,数字行动主义背后的社交媒体动态为社会活动家向企业施压以实现社会变革提供了新的途径。为了探讨这一争论,我们结合了对社会运动、社交媒体和连接行动逻辑的研究,对电子请愿的连接性和速度等社交媒体机制的影响进行了理论分析。我们通过Change.org平台手工编码了2012年至2017年期间针对财富500强企业的1587份电子请愿书数据库,对这些电子请愿书是否重要进行了实证评估。我们的实证结果有力地表明,电子请愿的确很重要,而且我们还解释了数字行动主义何时会产生影响。社交媒体机制的激活传播了负面信息,直接加剧了对目标企业声誉的威胁,迫使企业屈从于电子请愿者的要求。此外,我们的研究结果表明,企业的知名度和资源可用性是企业应对数字激进主义的脆弱性和能力的边界条件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Firms’ Response to Slacktivism: When and Why are E-Petitions Effective?

E-petitions have evoked an important debate about the potential for digital activism to pressure firms to change social policies and practices. One prevailing perspective is that slacktivism, a tendency of online supporters to provide only token support, undermines any possible impact. An alternative perspective is that social media dynamics underlying digital activism offer new pathways for social activists to pressure firms toward social change. To explore this debate, we combine insights from research on social movements, social media, and the logic of connective action to theorize the impact of social media mechanisms such as e-petition connectivity and velocity. With a hand-coded database of 1587 e-petitions targeting Fortune 500 firms from 2012 to 2017 through the platform Change.org, we empirically evaluate whether these e-petitions matter. Our empirical results strongly suggest that e-petitions do matter, and we explain when digital activism has impact. The activation of social media mechanisms spreads negative information and directly intensifies the threat to the targeted firm's reputation, pressuring firms to concede to e-petitioner demands. Furthermore, our findings indicate that firm visibility and resource availability can represent boundary conditions for the firm's vulnerability and ability to respond to digital activism.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
16.40
自引率
5.70%
发文量
99
期刊介绍: The Journal of Management Studies is a prestigious publication that specializes in multidisciplinary research in the field of business and management. With a rich history of excellence, we are dedicated to publishing innovative articles that contribute to the advancement of management and organization studies. Our journal welcomes empirical and conceptual contributions that are relevant to various areas including organization theory, organizational behavior, human resource management, strategy, international business, entrepreneurship, innovation, and critical management studies. We embrace diversity and are open to a wide range of methodological approaches and philosophical perspectives.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Issue Information - Notes for Contributors Issue Information Issue Information - Notes for Contributors Business, Conflict, and Peace: A Systematic Literature Review and Conceptual Framework
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1