Call for Papers

Social movements variously aim to create, eliminate or alter the shape of markets and the organizations operating therein, giving rise to a large and diverse literature over the past three decades (for reviews, see e.g. Leitzinger & Waeger, 2023; Weber & King, 2014). Much of this research has focused on the immediate tactical interactions between movement groups and organizations in the form of activist protest events and boycotts, as well as firms’ responses in the form of corporate political activity and non-market strategy (see Briscoe & Gupta, 2016 for a review). Similarly, research at the intersection between movements and markets has focused on micro-processes of emergence and resistance in the form of resistance to novel technologies and regulations, mobilization in the context of new categories and fields, or the support of the diffusion of products (King & Pearce, 2010).
 
Relatively absent in this research are analyses that connect these dynamics to the contexts in which they occur. Context refers to situational opportunities and constraints which impact both the occurrence and meaning of movements in markets (see also Johns, 2006). Context may operate at different levels of analysis. At the macro-level, mobilization and contestation processes are embedded within broad social structures, including, but not limited to, different types of national business systems or varieties of capitalism, as well as the political and legal contexts of states, which vary cross-nationally and follow different historical trajectories (Hall & Soskice, 2001; Jackson & Deeg, 2008; Kriesi et al., 1992; Matten & Moon, 2008; Suddaby et al., 2014). At a lower level of analysis, market actors themselves constitute a context for movement action as is evident from the increasing research on social movements within firms and other market actors (DeCelles et al., 2020; Kellogg, 2011; Schifeling & Soderstrom, 2022; Weber et al., 2009), where pre-existing factors, such as organizational routines, hierarchies, and structures as well as more fluid internal dynamics, such as the interaction between organizational members, shape the pattern of mobilization and counter-mobilization (Kellogg, 2009; Rheinhardt et al., 2023; Soderstrom & Weber, 2020; Waeger & Weber, 2019).
 
Context not only moderates the tactics and mobilization capacity of social movements and their targets, but constitutes their identities and interests, so that seemingly similar organizations (such as trade unions or institutional investors) or occupational groups within organizations (such as nurses or doctors) are constituted as divergent actors in respective national or organizational polities and across time (Aguilera et al., 2006; Aguilera & Jackson, 2003; Kellogg, 2009, 2011; Lohmeyer & Jackson, 2023; Matten & Moon, 2008). While many studies consider context, explicit conceptualization of context remains often implicit or thin, or relies on single-context concepts that impair comparisons across time and place (Whetten, 1989). Hence, theory on movements and markets remains frequently de-contextualized, and insights from one context tend not to travel well to others.
 
This sub-theme invites analyses that address the context of interactions between movements and target organizations. Most studies view context as a barrier to theoretical generalization and thus to be controlled, either statistically or experimentally. The sub-theme is interested in studies that use context for the purpose of developing new theory, as well as theorizing about the context itself. This includes studies in single contexts with a focus on how that specific context affects said interactions, as well as comparative studies that look at different organizational, local, and national contexts and/or between historical periods. In addition to comparative analyses connecting research on movements and markets to comparative-historical approaches to institutional analysis (Mahoney & Thelen, 2010; Schneiberg, 2007), we welcome studies that address contexts in the Global South and work on social movements in the context of established organizations, such as hospitals (Kellogg, 2009), or traditional firms (Buchter, 2021; Schifeling & Soderstrom, 2022). This work, we hope, will help develop a deeper understanding of the origins, conditions, and extent of the power of different movements in different contexts.
 
Example questions to be addressed are (but are not limited to):

• How is the role of tactics, actors, and interactions between activists and their targets affected by the institutional and organizational context in which they unfold?

• What accounts for the institutional actorhood of social movement groups in different political economies? Do the same / similar groups have similar standings and relationships in different institutional environments?

• Path dependencies and historical evolution of movements: How do protest and counter-tactics evolve over time? Can variations be explained by their temporal context? Are there path dependencies in the interactions between movements and their targets?

• Governance of movements and their targets: How are movements controlled (e.g., through organizational rules, members or structural institutional forces)? How are counter-tactics developed and governed?

• Are there institutional variations in movement tactics, interests and strength, as well as corporate counter-tactics and political strategies? What constraints and opportunities do institutional rules afford to movements and targets? When is it meaningful to transpose research into movements and organizations from Europe or North America to other societies and when is this not the case? How can the study of movements in new settings inform existing theory?

• Institutionalization of movement actors and extra-institutional contestation: What are the processes that lead to the institutionalization of movement actors and contestation? What organizational processes lead to the choice of extra-institutional forms of contestation (e.g., violent protest, illegitimate forms of repression and subversion of movements)?

• (When) do movements contribute to the stability and when do they contribute to the transformation of institutionalized economic and political systems and organizational polities?

References

• Aguilera, R.V., & Jackson, G. (2003): “The Cross-National Diversity of Corporate Governance: Dimensions and Determinants.” Academy of Management Review, 28 (3), 447–465.

• Aguilera, R.V., Williams, C.A., Conley, J.M., & Rupp, D.E. (2006): “Corporate Governance and Social Responsibility: a comparative analysis of the UK and the US.” Corporate Governance: An International Review, 14 (3), 147–158.

• Buchter, L. (2021): “Escaping the Ellipsis of Diversity: Insider Activists’ Use of Implementation Resources to Influence Organization Policy.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 66 (2), 521–565.
• DeCelles, K.A., Sonenshein, S., & King, B.G. (2020): “Examining Anger’s Immobilizing Effect on Institutional Insiders’ Action Intentions in Social Movements.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 65 (4), 847–886.
• Hall, P.A., & Soskice, D. (2001): “Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage.” Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Jackson, G., & Deeg, R. (2008): “Comparing capitalisms: understanding institutional diversity and its implications for international business.” Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (4), 540–561.
• Johns, G. (2006): “The Essential Impact of Context on Organizational Behavior.” Academy of Management Review, 31 (2), 386–408.
• Kellogg, K.C. (2009): “Operating Room: Relational Spaces and Microinstitutional Change in Surgery.” American Journal of Sociology, 115 (3), 657–711.
• Kellogg, K.C. (2011): “Hot Lights and Cold Steel: Cultural and Political Toolkits for Practice Change in Surgery.” Organization Science, 22 (2), 482–502.
• King, B.G, & Pearce, N.A. (2010): “The Contentiousness of Markets: Politics, Social Movements, and Institutional Change in Markets.” Annual Review of Sociology, 36 (1), 249–267.
• Kriesi, H., Koopmans, R., Duyvendak, J.W., & Giugni, M.G. (1992): “New social movements and political opportunities in Western Europe.” European Journal of Political Research, 22 (2), 219–244.
• Leitzinger, J., & Waeger, D. (2023): “Keep Your Eyes on the Prize: A goals-based approach to studying social movements in markets.” Organization Theory, 4 (2), https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/26317877231179232.
• Lohmeyer, N., & Jackson, G. (2023): “Vocabularies of Motive for Corporate Social Responsibility: The Emergence of the Business Case in Germany, 1970–2014.” Business Ethics Quarterly, published online on April 14, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2022.45.
• Mahoney, J, & Thelen, K. (2009): “A Theory of Gradual Institutional Change.” In: J. Mahoney & K. Thelen (eds.): Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–37.
• Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008): “‘Implicit’ and ‘Explicit’ CSR: A Conceptual Framework for a Comparative Understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility.” Academy of Management Review, 33 (2), 404–424.
• Rheinhardt, A., Briscoe, F., & Joshi, A. (2023): “Organization-as-Platform Activism: Theory and Evidence from the National Football League ‘Take a Knee’ Movement.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 68 (2), 395–428.
• Schifeling, T., & Soderstrom, S. (2022): “Advancing Reform: Embedded Activism to Develop Climate Solutions.” Academy of Management Journal, 65 (6), 1775–1803.
• Schneiberg, M. (2007): “What’s on the path? Path dependence, organizational diversity and the problem of institutional change in the US economy, 1900–1950.” Socio-Economic Review, 5 (1), 47–80.
• Soderstrom, S.B., & Weber, K. (2020): “Organizational Structure from Interaction: Evidence from Corporate Sustainability Efforts.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 65 (1), 226–271.
• Suddaby, R., Foster, W.M., & Mills, A.J. (2014): “Historical Institutionalism.” In: M. Bucheli & R.D. Wadhwani (eds.): Organizations in Time: History, Theory, Methods. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 100–123.
• Waeger, D.A., & Weber, K. (2019): “Institutional Complexity and Organizational Change: An Open Polity Perspective.” Academy of Management Review, 44 (2), 335–359.
• Weber, K., & King, B. (2014): “Social Movement Theory and Organization Studies.” In: P. Adler (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of Sociology, Social Theory, and Organization Studies: Contemporary Currents, New York: Oxford University Press, 487–509.
• Weber, K., Rao, H., & Thomas, L.G. (2009): “From Streets to Suites: How the Anti- Biotech Movement Affected German Pharmaceutical Firms.” American Sociological Review, 74 (1), 106–127.
• Whetten, D.A. (1989): “What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution?” Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), 490–495.
•