The Radical Flank Revisited: How Regulatory Discretion Shapes the Effectiveness of Social Activism on Business Outcomes

References

• Amenta E, Caren N, Chiarello E, Su Y (2010) The political consequences of social movements. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 36:287–307.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson D, Moggridge H, Warren P, Shucksmith J (2015) The impacts of ‘run‐of‐river’ hydropower on the physical and ecological condition of rivers. Water Environment. J. 29(2):268–276.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andreen W (2012) Of fables and federalism: A re-examination of the historical rationale for federal environment regulation. Environment. Law. 42:627–679.Google Scholar
• Avidan M, Etzion D, Gehman J (2019) Opaque transparency: How material affordances shape intermediary work. Regulation Governance 13(2):197–219.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Banaszak L, Ondercin H (2016) Explaining the dynamics between the women’s movement and the conservative movement in the United States. Soc. Forces 95(1):381–410.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barnett M, Hoffman A (2008) Beyond corporate reputation: Managing reputational interdependence. Corporate Reputation Rev. 11(1):1–18.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baron D (2001) Private politics, corporate social responsibility, and integrated strategy. J. Econom. Management Strategy 10(1):7–45.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baron D, Diermeier D (2007) Introduction to the special issue on nonmarket strategy and social responsibility. J. Econom. Management Strategy 16(3):539–545.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baron D, Neale M, Rao H (2016) Extending nonmarket strategy: Political economy and the radical flank effect in private politics. Strategy Sci. 1(2):105–126.Link, Google Scholar
• Besley T, Case A (1995) Does electoral accountability affect economic policy choices? Evidence from gubernatorial term limits. Quart. J. Econom. 110(3):769–798.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Briscoe F, Gupta A (2016) Social activism in and around organizations. Acad. Management Ann. 10(1):671–727.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burstein P, Linton A (2002) The impact of political parties, interest groups, and social movement organizations on public policy: Some recent evidence and theoretical concerns. Soc. Forces 81(2):381–408.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Calvert R, McCubbins M, Weingast B (1989) A theory of political control and agency discretion. Amer. J. Political Sci. 33(3):588–611.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carmin J (1999) Voluntary associations, professional organisations and the environmental movement in the United States. Environment. Politics 8(1):101–121.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carpenter D (2010) Reputation and Power: Organizational Image and Pharmaceutical Regulation at the FDA (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
• Copeland C (2015) Clean Water Act Section 401: Background and issues. Retrieved September 13, 2022, https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97-488.pdf.Google Scholar
• Dorobantu S, Henisz W, Nartey L (2017) Not all sparks light a fire: Stakeholder and shareholder reactions to critical events in contested markets. Admin. Sci. Quart. 62(3):561–597.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Doshi A, Dowell G, Toffel M (2013) How firms respond to mandatory information disclosure. Strategic Management J. 34(10):1209–1231.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Downey D, Rohlinger D (2008) Linking strategic choice with macro-organizational dynamics: Strategy and social movement articulation. Res. Soc. Movements Conflicts Change 28:3–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Duflo E, Greenstone M, Pande R, Ryan N (2016) The value of regulatory discretion: Estimates from environmental inspections in India. NBER Working Paper No. w20590, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Durand R, Hawn O, Ioannou I (2019) Willing and able: A general model of organizational responses to normative pressures. Acad. Management Rev. 44(2):299–320.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eesley C, Lenox M (2006) Firm responses to secondary stakeholder action. Strategic Management J. 27(8):765–781.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eesley C, Decelles KA, Lenox M (2015) Through the mud or in the boardroom: Examining activist types and their strategies in targeting firms for social change. Strategic Management J. 37(12):2425–2440.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ellefsen R (2018) Relational dynamics of protest and protest policing: Strategic interaction and the coevolution of targeting strategies. Policing Soc. 28(7):751–767.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (2020) Licensing processes. Retrieved September 13, 2022, https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/hydropower/licensing/licensing-processes.Google Scholar
• Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (2022) Docket Library. Retrieved September 13, 2022, https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/docket_search.asp.Google Scholar
• Flatt C (2020) The fight over Washington’s Snake River dams is likely heading back to court. Retrieved September 13, 2022, https://www.nwpb.org/2020/10/24/the-fight-over-washingtons-snake-river-dams-is-likely-heading-back-to-court/.Google Scholar
• Freeman J (2000) Private parties, public functions and the new administrative law. Admin. Law Rev. 52(3):813–858.Google Scholar
• Fremeth A, Holburn G, Piazza A (2021) Activist protest spillovers into the regulatory domain: Theory and evidence from the US nuclear power generation industry. Organ. Sci. 33(3):1163–1187.Link, Google Scholar
• Gailmard S (2002) Expertise, subversion, and bureaucratic discretion. J. Law Econom. Organ. 18(2):536–555.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gao C, McDonald R (2022) Shaping nascent industries: Innovation strategy and regulatory uncertainty in personal genomics. Admin. Sci. Quart. 67(4):915–967.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gilad S, Yogev T (2012) How reputation regulates the regulators: Illustrations from the regulation of retail finance. Barnett ML, Pollock TG, eds. Oxford Handbook of Reputation (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), 320–340.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grandy J, Hiatt S (2020) State agency discretion and entrepreneurship in regulated markets. Admin. Sci. Quart. 65(4):1092–1131.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gupta D (2002) Radical flank effects: The effect of radical-moderate splits in regional nationalist movements. Paper Presented, Conference of Europeanists, Chicago.Google Scholar
• Haines H (1984) Black radicalization and the funding of civil rights: 1957–1970. Soc. Problems 32(1):31–43.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haines H (1988) Black Radicals and the Civil Rights Mainstream, 1954–1970 (University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville).Google Scholar
• Haines H (2013) Radical flank effects. della Porta D, Klandermans B, McAdam D, Snow DA, eds. Wiley‐Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social & Political Movements (Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ), 1048–1050.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hanretty C, Koop C (2009) Measuring regulators’ statutory independence. Proc. APSA Toronto Meeting.Google Scholar
• Hecht A (2004) Obstacles to the devolution of environmental protection: States’ self-imposed limitations on rulemaking. Duke Environment. Law Policy Forum 15(1):105–162.Google Scholar
• Hiatt S, Carlos W (2019) From farms to fuel tanks: Stakeholder framing contests and entrepreneurship in the emergent U.S. biodiesel market. Strategic Management J. 40(6):865–893.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hiatt S, Park S (2013) Lords of the harvest: Third-party influence and regulatory approval of genetically modified organisms. Acad. Management J. 56(4):923–944.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hiatt S, Park S (2022) Shared fate and entrepreneurial collective action in the U.S. wood pellet market. Organ. Sci. 33(5):2065–2083.Link, Google Scholar
• Hiatt S, Grandy J, Lee B (2015) Organizational responses to public and private politics: An analysis of climate change activists and US oil and gas firms. Organ. Sci. 26(6):1769–1786.Link, Google Scholar
• Hiatt S, Sine W, Tolbert P (2009) From Pabst to Pepsi: The deinstitutionalization of social practices and the creation of entrepreneurial opportunities. Admin. Sci. Quart. 54(4):635–667.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoffman A, Bertels S (2010) Who is part of the environmental movement? Lyon TP, ed. Good Cop/Bad Cop: Environmental NGOs and Their Strategies Toward Business (RFF Press, New York), 48–69.Google Scholar
• Huber JD, Shipan CR (2002) Deliberate Discretion? The Institutional Foundations of Bureaucratic Autonomy (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ingold K, Varone F, Stokman F (2013) A social network-based approach to assess de facto independence of regulatory agencies. J. Eur. Public Policy 20(10):1464–1481.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahn ME (1997) Particulate pollution trends in the United States. Regulation Sci. Urban Econom. 27(1):87–107.Crossref, Google Scholar
• King B, Soule S (2007) Social movements as extra-institutional entrepreneurs: The effect of protests on stock price returns. Admin. Sci. Quart. 52(3):413–442.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kiser E (1999) Comparing varieties of agency theory in economics, political science, and sociology: An illustration from state policy implementation. Sociol. Theory 17(2):146–170.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Koop C, Lodge M (2014) Exploring the co-ordination of economic regulation. J. Eur. Public Policy 21(9):1311–1329.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Koopmans R (1993) The dynamics of protest waves: West Germany, 1965 to 1989. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 58(5):637–658.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kosnik L (2010) Time to pick a fight? Interest group decision making to enter the hydropower regulatory process. East. Econom. J. 36(1):11–32.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leaver C (2009) Bureaucratic minimal squawk behavior: Theory and evidence from regulatory agencies. Amer. Econom. Rev. 99(3):572–607.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee B, Hiatt S, Lounsbury M (2017) Market mediators and the tradeoffs of legitimacy-seeking behaviors in a nascent category. Organ. Sci. 28:447–470.Link, Google Scholar
• Lee M, Ramus T, Vaccaro A (2018) From protest to product: Strategic frame brokerage in a commercial social movement organization. Acad. Management J. 61(6):2130–2158.Crossref, Google Scholar
• List J, McHone W, Millimet D (2003) Effects of air quality regulation on the destination choice of relocating plants. Oxford Econom. Papers 55(4):657–678.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Livermore MA, Revesz RL (2012) Regulatory review, capture, and agency inaction. Georgetown Law J. 101:1337–1398.Google Scholar
• Lupia A, McCubbins M (2000) Representation or abdication? How citizens use institutions to help delegation succeed. Eur. J. Political Res. 37(3):291–307.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lyon T (2018) Non-market strategy and social movements research: What are the gains from trade? Briscoe F, King B, Leitzinger J, eds. Social Movements, Stakeholders and Non-Market Strategy: Research in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. 56 (Emerald, Bingley, UK), 349–367.Crossref, Google Scholar
• MacDonald J, Franko W (2007) Bureaucratic capacity and bureaucratic discretion: Does Congress tie policy authority to performance? Amer. Political Res. 35(6):790–807.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maggetti M, Papadopoulos Y (2018) The principal-agent framework and independent regulatory agencies. Political Stud. Rev. 16(3):172–183.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marquis C, Bird Y (2018) The paradox of responsive authoritarianism: How civic activism spurs environmental penalties in China. Organ. Sci. 29(5):948–968.Link, Google Scholar
• McAdam D (1992) Radicals and others: The animal rights crusade. The growth of a moral protest. Science 255(5050):1448–1450.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McCammon H, Bergner E, Arch S (2015) Are you one of those women? Within-movement conflict, radical flank effects, and social movement political outcomes. Mobilization (San Diego California) 20(2):157–178.Google Scholar
• McCammon H, Campbell K, Granberg E, Mowery C (2001) How movements win: Gendered opportunity structures and U.S. women’s suffrage movements, 1866–1919. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 66(1):49–70.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McCubbins M, Schwartz T (1984) Congressional oversight overlooked: Police patrols vs. fire alarms. Amer. J. Political Sci. 28(1):165–179.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McCubbins M, Noll R, Weingast B (1987) Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. J. Law Econom. Organ. 3(2):243–277.Google Scholar
• McDonnell M, King B (2013) Keeping up appearances: Reputational threat and impression management after social movement boycotts. Admin. Sci. Quart. 58(3):387–419.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McDonnell M, Werner T (2016) Blacklisted businesses: Social activists’ challenges and the disruption of corporate political activity. Admin. Sci. Quart. 61(4):584–620.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McDonnell M, Odziemkowska K, Pontikes E (2021) Bad company: Shifts in social activists’ tactics and resources after industry scandals. Organ. Sci. 32(4):1033–1055.Link, Google Scholar
• Montgomery A, Dacin M (2020) Water wars in Detroit: Custodianship and the work of institutional renewal. Acad. Management J. 63(5):1455–1484.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Munro L (2005) Strategies, action repertoires and DIY activism in the animal rights movement. Soc. Movement Stud. 4(1):75–94.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Odziemkowska K (2022) Frenemies: Overcoming audiences’ ideological opposition to firm-activist collaborations. Admin. Sci. Quart. 67(2):469–514.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Owen D (2017) Little streams and legal transformations. Utah Law Rev. 2017(1):1–55.Google Scholar
• Ozcan P, Gurses K (2018) Playing cat and mouse: Contests over regulatory categorization of dietary supplements in the United States. Acad. Management J. 61(5):1789–1820.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pacheco D, York J, Hargrave T (2014) The co-evolution of industries, social movements, and institutions: The case of wind power. Organ. Sci. 25(6):1609–1632.Link, Google Scholar
• Peretti J (2004) The Nike sweatshop email: Political consumerism, Internet, and culture jamming. Micheletti M, Føllesdal A, Stolle D, eds. Politics, Products, and Markets: Exploring Political Consumerism Past and Present (Routledge, London), 127–143.Google Scholar
• Piazza A, Perretti F (2015) Categorical stigma and firm disengagement: Nuclear power generation in the United States, 1970–2000. Organ. Sci. 26(3):724–742.Link, Google Scholar
• Piazza A, Wang D (2020) Claim specialization, tactical diversity and the protest environment in the success of US antinuclear activism. Mobilization 25(1):93–114.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pires R (2011) Beyond the fear of discretion: Flexibility, performance, and accountability in the management of regulatory bureaucracies. Regulation Governance 5(1):43–69.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Potoski M, Woods N (2001) Designing state clean air agencies: Administrative procedures and bureaucratic autonomy. J. Public Admin. Res. Theory 11(2):203–222.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reinecke J, Ansari S (2020) Microfoundations of framing: The interactional production of collective action frames in the occupy movement. Acad. Management J. 64(2):378–408.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reinhardt F, Hiatt S (2012) Colbún and the future of Chile’s power. Harvard Business School Case 713047, Harvard, Boston.Google Scholar
• Rohlinger D (2006) Friends and foes: Media, politics, and tactics in the abortion war. Soc. Problems 53(4):537–561.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rowe J, Carroll M (2014) Reform or radicalism: Left social movements from the Battle of Seattle to Occupy Wall Street. New Political Sci. 36(2):49–171.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sabalow R, Doyle M (2015) Klamath Basin water accords crumble as Congress fails to act. Sacramento Bee (December 19).Google Scholar
• Sandhu S, Kulik C (2019) Shaping and being shaped: How organizational structure and managerial discretion co-evolve in new managerial roles. Admin. Sci. Quart. 64(3):619–658.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sasso B (2015) How a ragtag band of activists won the battle for net neutrality. Retrieved September 13, 2022, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/how-a-ragtag-band-of-activists-won-the-battle-for-net-neutrality/456606/.Google Scholar
• Schifeling T, Hoffman A (2019) Bill McKibben’s influence on the US climate change discourse: Shifting field-level debates through radical flank effects. Organ. Environment. 32(3):213–233.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schock K (2013) The practice and study of civil resistance. J. Peace Res. 50(3):277–290.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schofield J (2001) The old ways are the best? The durability and usefulness of bureaucracy in public sector management. Organization 8(1):77–96.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schurman R (2004) Fighting “Frankenfoods”: Industry opportunity structures and the efficacy of the anti-biotech movement in Western Europe. Soc. Problems 51(2):243–268.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scott C (2000) Accountability in the regulatory state. J. Law Soc. 27(1):38–60.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sine W, Lee B (2009) Tilting at windmills? The environmental movement and the emergence of the US wind energy sector. Admin. Sci. Quart. 54(1):123–155.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Skocpol T, Finegold K (1982) State capacity and economic intervention in the early New Deal. Political Sci. Quart. 97(2):255–278.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Snow D, Cross R (2011) Radicalism within the context of social movements: Processes and types. J. Strategic Security 4(4):115–130.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Soule S, King B (2006) The stages of policy process and the equal rights amendment, 1972–1982. Amer. J. Sociol. 111(6):1871–1909.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Soule S, McAdam D, McCarthy J, Su Y (1999) Protest events: Cause or consequence of state action? The U.S. women’s movement and federal congressional activities, 1956–1979. Mobilization (San Diego California) 4(2):239–256.Google Scholar
• Stumpf J (2018) Most endangered rivers victory: Washington’s Skykomish River. Retrieved September 13, 2022, https://www.americanrivers.org/2018/04/most-endangered-rivers-victory-washingtons-skykomish-river/.Google Scholar
• Taylor V, Van Dyke N (2004) ‘Get up, stand up’: Tactical repertoires of social movements. Snow D, Soule S, Kriesi H, eds. The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements (Blackwell, Malden, MA), 262–293.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thompson B (2000) The continuing innovations of citizen enforcement. University Illinois Law Rev. 2000:185–1371.Google Scholar
• Truelove E, Kellogg K (2016) The radical flank effect and cross-occupational collaboration for technology development during a power shift. Admin. Sci. Quart. 61(4):662–701.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Trumbull G (2012) Strength in Numbers: The Political Power of Weak Interests (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• U.S. Energy Information Administration (USEIA) (2019) Electricity in the United States. Retrieved September 13, 2022, https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php.Google Scholar
• Wagner W (2005) Stormy regulation: The problems that result when stormwater (and other) regulatory programs neglect to account for limitations in scientific and technical information. Chapman Law Rev. 9:191–232.Google Scholar
• Waldron T, Navis C, Fisher G (2013) Explaining differences in firms’ responses to activism. Acad. Management Rev. 38(3):397–417.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Walker E, Martin A, McCarthy J (2008) Confronting the state, the corporation, and the academy: The influence of institutional targets on social movement repertoires. Amer. J. Sociol. 114(1):35–76.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wall D (1999) Earth First! And the Anti-Roads Movement: Radical Environmentalism and Comparative Social Movements (Routledge, New York).Google Scholar
• Wang D, Piazza A (2016) The use of disruptive tactics in protest as a trade-off: The role of social movement claims. Soc. Forces 94(4):1675–1710.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wang D, Soule S (2016) Tactical innovation in social movements: The effects of peripheral and multi-issue protest. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 81(3):517–548.Crossref, Google Scholar
• York J, Vedula S, Lenox M (2018) It’s not easy building green: The impact of public policy, private actors, and regional logics on voluntary standards adoption. Acad. Management J. 61(4):1492–1523.Crossref, Google Scholar