Ripple effects: How collaboration reduces social movement contention

Abstract

AbstractResearch SummaryResearch suggests firms can reduce stakeholder contention (e.g., lawsuits, protests) by collaborating with threatening stakeholders. We propose that by tapping into stakeholder networks and identities, collaborations also produce ripple effects beyond the firm's partner to attenuate contention from a broader set of stakeholders. Using variation in firms' and stakeholders' willingness to collaborate exogenous to contention to account for selection, our examination of contentious and collaborative interactions between 136 environmental movement organizations and 600 US firms corroborates our arguments. Firms face less contention when they collaborate with a better‐connected stakeholder motivated to share affirming information about the firm, or with a more contentious and authentic stakeholder. Our findings generalize to stakeholder criticism beyond movement organizations, suggesting collaborations are powerful tools for fashioning less contentious environments.Managerial SummaryCompanies can reduce conflict from hostile stakeholders like social activists by collaborating with their friends. We find social movement organizations mount fewer protests, boycotts, lawsuits, and other conflict against a company that collaborates with an organization that is either well connected in the movement or known for mobilizing movement's grassroots. This suggests that cross‐sector collaborations quell conflict through passing affirming information about a company through interorganizational networks or through the broadcast of an affirming signal to the broader stakeholder environment. We find that criticism from a wide range of stakeholders (e.g., media) also abates, suggesting that collaborations are powerful tools for fashioning less contentious environments.