Keep Your Eyes on the Prize: A goals-based approach to studying social movements in markets

Alteration movements

While most of the research on movements and markets examines alteration movements, few studies focus on their early development. Most research in this space either does not discuss the movement’s origins (Eesley & Lenox, 2006) or does so only in a cursory manner (e.g. Zietsma & Lawrence, 2010). One critical factor, however, that frequently appears to facilitate the emergence of alteration movements is the manifestation of tensions, contradictions and oddities in the established market order (Gehman et al., 2013; Seo & Creed, 2002; Steele, 2021). For instance, the widespread use of exploitative labour practices in the supply chains of Western multinationals laid bare the contradiction between human rights principles espoused by citizens in wealthy Western countries and the economic benefits they derived from the violation of these very same principles abroad. This tension constituted the basis for the emergence of alteration movements that pressured firms to adopt responsible sourcing practices (Bartley, 2018). While such structural market inconsistencies are often critical for alteration movements to emerge, it is generally also the case that the experience of specific events that leave a profound impression can provide the immediate impetus for the formation of alteration movements. Examples include disasters, such as the collapse of the Rana Plaza building in Bangladesh in 2013 (Linstead et al., 2014), or the discovery of specific forms of corporate misconduct (Roulet & Pichler, 2020).

In recent years, researchers have additionally become increasingly interested in studying activism within firms in the form of employees engaging in movement-related activities (for a review, see Briscoe & Gupta, 2016). As organizational members, employees typically form alteration movements, rather than elimination or creation movements, and mobilize with the goal of bringing about change in their employer’s policies and practices. Like the emergence of external alteration movements, tensions, contradictions and inconsistencies are also often at the origin of insider alteration movements. For example, when a firm’s publicly stated values do not match its activities (Gehman et al., 2013) or when universal principles are only narrowly applied within the firm (Buchter, 2020), it can create a dissonance that spurs employee activism.

Yet, despite these similarities, there are also important differences between alteration movements that emerge externally versus those that form inside firms. For instance, although emotions play an important role in the emergence of alteration movements both inside and outside of firms, their impact appears to vary between the two settings. While negative emotions, such as anger, have a mobilizing effect on alteration movements formed external to the firm, they might stymie mobilization efforts within firms (DeCelles et al., 2021). On the other hand, positive emotions, and especially positive emotions towards one’s own employer, appear to enhance insiders’ participation in alteration movements (Wang et al., 2021). These incipient findings are intriguing and should incite more research on the circumstances under which the impact of emotions on mobilization patterns varies between insider and outsider alteration movements.

Interestingly, research investigating outsider and insider movements also shows that there is often a temporal ordering where alteration movements first appear on the outside and then gain allies inside firms (e.g. Wang et al., 2021). Here, insider activists are often depicted as agents that bring about change by collaborating with others outside firms (Schifeling & Soderstrom, 2022), emerging only once outsider activists have managed to pressure firms into accepting that such collaborations with the alteration movement are warranted (see the dynamics elaborated in phase 3). An open question that future research might address in this respect is whether these dynamics always unfold in this way or whether there are circumstances under which the process is reversed, with an alteration movement first emerging within a firm and only then spilling over into society at large.

Creation movements

Like alteration and elimination movements, few studies theorize or empirically examine the initial emergence of creation movements – although many narratively depict their history (e.g. Greve et al., 2006; Sine & Lee, 2009). But, by examining the event histories of previously studied creation movements, we can identify some trends which warrant further examination. Creation movements often emerge after exogenous factors have changed the political, social, or market environment in ways that provide opportunities to develop and promote alternative technologies as a basis for production and consumption. For example, the energy crisis of the 1970s offered an opportunity for environmental groups to advocate for renewable energy technologies as an alternative to fossil-fuel based ones (Sine & Lee, 2009). Similarly, the first Earth Day in 1970 was a motivating factor for the nearly 3,000 non-profit recycling centres that were established in the following six months, marking the emergence of the recycling movement (Lounsbury et al., 2003). Such exogenous events offer a direct lead into exploring more generally when and why creation movements form in markets. Future research is however needed to better understand which types of event spur movement emergence, what additional environmental characteristics facilitate movement emergence around key events, and how these precipitating events shape the developmental evolution of these movements and the markets they champion.

Other research on creation movements suggests that discontent or even conflict within an established social movement can be a key source of creation movement emergence (Rao et al., 2003; Weber et al., 2008). As discussed later in phase 3, creation movements are particularly susceptible to cooptation by both new entrants and by movement members attempting to scale the new ‘moral’ markets they support. This can lead movement members who hold purist views to create spinoff movements. Furthermore, these spinoffs may be designed to address the areas of conflict that drove them away from their source movements. This was evident in the emergence of the grass-fed beef and dairy movement that was started by entrepreneurs who had left the organic food movement after its cooptation by large corporations (Weber et al., 2008). The entrance of large agrifood businesses led to the shedding of many elements of the organic food movement that pertained to the scale and speed of production, resulting in a much narrower definition of organic and one that became inclusive of commercial farming operations. While there is anecdotal evidence of new movements emerging from conflict within a source movement, further research is needed to fully understand the process by which internal conflict leads to creation movement emergence. For example, it is not clear when and why movement members who leave their original movements start new movements – as opposed to joining other established ones – or simply demobilize and abandon activist work altogether. Furthermore, we have little theorizing or research on how these movements relate to or interact with their source movements or the implications that the mentioned dynamics have for the long-term development of their respective championed markets.

Elimination movements

Elimination movements tend to emerge when large groups in society start questioning the benefits of existing or planned products and services or when their harmful effects become increasingly apparent. The anti-smoking movement, for instance, emerged in the middle of the 20th century as an increasing number of experts started to suspect that smoking causes respiratory diseases such as lung cancer (Gardner & Brandt, 2006). Similarly, elimination movements targeting plastic (Barberá-Tomás et al., 2019), fur (Boghossian & Marques, 2019) and big-box stores (Ingram et al., 2010) first saw the light of day when evidence of their harmful effects on animals, the natural environment and local communities started to accumulate – thereby sparking debates over whether the benefits of these products outweighed their societal and environmental costs.

Beyond these general considerations, researchers recognize that they are poorly equipped to make specific predictions about the circumstances under which elimination movements emerge (Ingram et al., 2010). Perhaps the most compelling evidence on the antecedents of elimination movement mobilization comes from research that has examined community movements aiming to abolish new industrial projects. For example, Wright and Boudet (2012) examined communities with controversial proposals for large energy infrastructure projects, finding that motivation and measures of capability best explained whether community members mobilized in opposition. Similarly, Dokshin (2016) concluded that both the size and nature of the debates surrounding the industry of interest and community members’ perceptions of the risks and rewards of the project contributed to whether mobilization against the project occurred.

The fact that most of these community-level elimination movements have been studied in mainstream middle-class contexts in the US and Western Europe suggests a clear research opportunity to investigate whether similar factors drive the emergence of elimination movements in other national and socio-economic contexts. For example, as firms have continued to expand their extraction of natural resources in the 21st century, their efforts have increasingly put them at odds with marginalized communities – especially indigenous and native peoples around the world. And yet, the emergence of elimination movements in marginalized communities is typically not studied in research on social movements and markets, leaving several potential opportunities to extend research in this space (for an exception, see Kraemer et al., 2013). For instance, because of their historical ties to the land and waters which they protect, as well as their collectively shared heritage and strong cultural unity, indigenous movements offer organizational scholars a unique opportunity to study the role that culture plays in the emergence of elimination movements. Studying the conflicts between marginalized communities and extractive industries also has humanitarian implications, as numerous activist leaders and other movement members have lost their lives fighting for their causes. Because of the violent turn that these conflicts often take, research in this context also provides an opportunity to examine the use of force by market actors – physical and otherwise – which is rarely considered in organizational research.

Alteration movements

Alteration movements endeavour to change current firm and industry practices and policies, taking action in market arenas as a means of bringing about such changes (Baron, 2001; Odziemkowska, 2022; Soule, 2012). Which concrete target an alteration movement and its main social movement organizations (SMOs) focuses on is influenced by the overall orientation of the movement (Soule & King, 2008). For instance, generalist environmental SMOs like Greenpeace or the Sierra Club set broad goals regarding environmental protection and are thus freer in their choice of how to achieve these goals, including which companies to target. By contrast, specialist environmental SMOs, such as greenbelt protection groups to prevent urban sprawl, have narrower goals and often a more local scope, and their choice of targets is thus more focused and constrained as well. This difference in overall orientation also impacts SMOs’ strategic posture. Their ability to pick and choose targets allows generalist SMOs to elaborate proactive strategies and to set up campaigns where they expect the biggest impact. Alternatively, specialist SMOs are by definition more subject to what is happening in their narrower issue domain, and they might therefore find themselves having to be more reactive to the immediate developments around them.

As important as the question against whom movements take action is what form the social movement action takes. Most alteration movements are split into radical and reformative wings (Den Hond & De Bakker, 2007; Mena & Waeger, 2014; Yaziji & Doh, 2013), with radicals preferring more contentious forms of action that typically take place in the public eye – such as boycotts, protests, naming-and-shaming, strikes, or shareholder proposals (Benton, 2017; Bertels et al., 2014; Godart et al., 2023; Gupta & Briscoe, 2019; Luo et al., 2016). In contrast, reformative factions favour more moderate tactics that are often less public – such as educational trainings, consultations, collaborations, or private forms of shareholder engagement (Briscoe et al., 2015; Ferraro & Beunza, 2018; Odziemkowska, 2022; Schifeling & Soderstrom, 2022). Alteration movements often start off with little power or prestige and therefore may suffer from a lack of access to decision makers in firms. As a result, they must attract attention from firms, and they typically do so by relying on symbolic forms of action that generate negative publicity, thereby threatening a firm’s reputation (King, 2008). This might explain the skew towards more radical tactics of many alteration movements when they start out, whereas they can switch to moderate tactics once target companies feel compelled to take remedial action, as detailed below in phase 3.

While we know that alteration movements increasingly use online outlets to generate such publicity and to engage in activism (Dorobantu et al., 2017; Luo et al., 2016; Massa & O’Mahony, 2021), there is also evidence that traditional news media continue to play an important gatekeeper role for movements and that movements continue to engage in offline forms of activism, such as physical protests (Gupta & Briscoe, 2019). Yet we still do not know much about how these different means and forms of activism fare when compared against each other. More research is needed to understand when it is most expedient for alteration movements to post on social media, when they will be particularly effective by generating attention in traditional news outlets, and when a combination of both might be most advisable. Similarly, under what conditions is it more productive to engage in physical protests in the streets versus online versions of such protests and vice versa (Davis et al., 2022)?

Creation movements

In contrast to the substitution work of alteration movements, much of the action that creation movements engage in is a form of institutional work. Market formation often requires specific and sequential instances of collective action (B. H. Lee, Struben, & Bingham, 2018). Research has shown that creation movements engage in these types of collective action that shape and reshape institutions in ways that facilitate market emergence. For example, creation movements can push for more favourable regulatory environments (Schneiberg & Bartley, 2001); provide mobilizing structures (Weber et al., 2008); develop, disperse and transform cultural frames which serve to mobilize constituents and educate key stakeholders (M. Lee, Ramus, & Vaccaro, 2018); train communities on new practices (Lounsbury et al., 2003); and seek overall legitimacy for the emergent market (Pacheco et al., 2014).

Some creation movement members go beyond merely supporting market emergence at the institutional level and take part in market activities themselves. This is especially evident in counterculture creation movements where members are often small-scale producers, such as in the craft beer (Carroll & Swaminathan, 2000) and nouvelle cuisine movements (Rao et al., 2003). But counterculture movements are not the only form of creation movement where members more directly take part in market activities. For example, M. Lee, Ramus and Vaccaro (2018), in their study of anti-corruption movements in Italy, documented the existence of commercial SMOs, which directly take part in selling products or services (p. 2133). While it is clear that some movement types view market entry as key to furthering their goals, additional research is needed to understand when and why some creation movements choose to join markets instead of simply facilitating their emergence and institutionalization.

Much of creation movements’ efforts lie in the institutional work needed to provide resources to fledgling markets, but for some types of creation movement, engaging in contentious action aimed at incumbent industries is also critical for their success. For market replacement movements pushing for the establishment of alternative technologies, the effective framing and stigmatization of entrenched technologies is essential for creating incentives for new technology adoption among incumbent firms (Vasi & King, 2019). Efforts to stigmatize incumbent technologies – and by extension, the firms that use them – may coincide with the use of more contentious tactics aimed at disrupting operations, garnering media attention and swaying public opinion. For example, environmental activists seeking to replace coal burning technologies with renewable energy alternatives often engage in protests, sit-ins, rallies and other forms of contentious action aimed at stigmatizing incumbent electricity generators (Leitzinger, 2014). Such disruptive acts are essential for problematizing incumbent technologies and calling into question the status quo, potentially opening the door to the legitimization of less environmentally detrimental technologies and the development of related markets.

In contrast to market replacement movements, countercultural movements make use of such contentious tactics much less frequently, instead engaging in moderate, professionalized forms of activism. We see this in the microradio movement’s use of petitions to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in their attempts to create space for microradio stations to exist and their participation in FCC hearings (Greve et al., 2006). While research suggests that most creation movements engage in some degree of problematization of incumbent markets, less is known about the strategic tactical choices made across creation movements. Given the distinctions that we have made, future research may further elaborate theory around how and why creation movements engage with the incumbent firms they aim to, if not replace, at least unseat.

Elimination movements

Most of the action of elimination movements is focused on deinstitutionalization work (Maguire & Hardy, 2009). To carry out this deinstitutionalization work, elimination movements are – in contrast to alteration movements – unlikely to successfully make direct demands of targeted firms as the change they seek is typically the abolition of the target or its products. This often results in an increased focus of elimination movements on targeting stakeholders instead, such as the general public, the media, consumers and the state.

Despite this focus on their targets’ stakeholders, elimination movements often still engage in contentious tactics at the targeted firm’s facilities. For instance, the Occupy Wall Street movement frequently employed contentious tactics on the grounds of financial industry firms (e.g. Reinecke & Ansari, 2021). Although many of these contentious tactics resemble the tactics employed by the radical factions of alteration movements – revolving around protests, boycotts, blockades, etc. – the two movements do not necessarily employ them in the same way. For alteration movements, as mentioned, the goal is to put their target’s reputation on the line, thereby hoping to capture the attention of the decision makers in the firms with the aim of pressuring them to take remedial action. Once such remedial action is under way, alteration movements might decide to let companies off the hook (Den Hond & De Bakker, 2007; Odziemkowska, 2022; Swartz, 2010). Alteration movements thus often give their targets an off-ramp to repair their damaged reputations.

By contrast, elimination movements use such tactics with the goal of imposing core stigma on targeted companies. Stigma describes a ‘perception that an organization possesses a fundamental, deep-seated flaw that deindividuates and discredits the organization’ (Devers et al., 2009, p. 157), which the movement tries to link to a company’s ‘core’ (as opposed to peripheral) practices, products, or services (Helms et al., 2019). A company suffering from such core stigma may never really be able to shed the taint of that stigma (Hudson, 2008). If elimination movements are able to impose such core stigma on targeted companies, it thus helps them to compel key stakeholders, such as elected officials (Maguire & Hardy, 2009), customers (Godart et al., 2023) or investors (Maina et al., 2020), to disassociate themselves from these companies and to ‘actively impose harmful social and economic sanctions on them’ (Devers et al., 2009, p. 157).

Stigmatization efforts typically rely on the use of evocative negative – and often moralizing – labels, such as ‘greed’ (Helms et al., 2019), ‘wretchedness’ (Lander et al., 2022), or ‘murder’ (Augustine & Piazza, 2022). Such negative moral rhetoric is effective at generating indignation and moral outrage (Barberá-Tomás et al., 2019), which in turn has been shown to motivate pro-social action (Hafenbrädl & Waeger, 2017). Negative moral rhetoric, providing it resonates and sticks, can thereby push company stakeholders to take measures aligned with a movement’s pro-social goals. However, the same kind of rhetoric can also have undesired side effects in that it might convey a sense of hopelessness and despair, which can result in a passive stance from targeted stakeholders, rather than motivating them to take action (O’Neill & Nicholson-Cole, 2009). Consequently, the ability to transform moral outrage and negative emotions into concrete action is likely a key challenge for many elimination movements in this phase. While we know that concrete encouragement from an elimination movement’s leadership can help overcome such inertia (Barberá-Tomás et al., 2019), many questions in this area remain unanswered. For instance, is it feasible for elimination movements to balance negative and positive language to avoid passivity among adherents or does this negate the movement’s stigmatization efforts? If feasible in principle, which types of negative and positive framing are particularly suitable to strike such a balance? And are there certain types of negative emotions that, when elicited, are particularly likely to stymie further mobilization? Or conversely, are there other types that are suitable to compel movement adherents to act?

Alteration movements

When targeted by alteration movements, firms’ immediate concerns generally revolve around salvaging their reputations. Thus, they typically focus on ways of getting rid of the negative publicity that has come from social movement action, rather than on directly addressing the underlying issue that the movement has raised. Firms’ initial responses are therefore typically defensive and symbolic (Benton, 2017; Guérard et al., 2013; McDonnell & King, 2013). Yet, such responses frequently do not succeed in silencing activism from alteration movements and, as such, often do not constitute a durable solution to firms’ reputational problems (Zadek, 2004). At least some firms are likely to respond by engaging more substantively with the issues raised by alteration movements. This may be especially true in comparison with elimination movements, as alteration movements do not fundamentally question the right of the targeted firm to exist. But substantively responding to movement issues poses another challenge. Firms that pursue financial performance as their main objective (Kim & Schifeling, 2022) suffer from an acute credibility problem when they attempt to engage on the social or environmental issues that alteration movements raise (Odziemkowska, 2022). The dissonance between these firms’ profit orientation and their forays into corporate sustainability or responsibility can expose them to accusations of hypocrisy and greenwashing (Carlos & Lewis, 2018; Hafenbrädl & Waeger, 2021). To inject credibility into their responses, firms frequently try to set themselves up as engaging in collaborative endeavours (such as with roundtables or accords) with members of the alteration movement that targeted them (Swartz, 2010; Zadek, 2004). For such collaborations to occur, the reformative faction of the alteration movement needs to be willing to cooperate with firms (Den Hond & De Bakker, 2007), which it will only do if the radical faction will not denounce it for engaging with market actors (Odziemkowska, 2022).

When collaborations do happen, however, they constitute an important shift in an alteration movement’s overall emphasis from generating attention to a problem towards crafting and implementing solutions (Van Wijk et al., 2013). Although reformative activists typically only collaborate with companies when they discern a willingness for substantive change (Mena & Waeger, 2014; Odziemkowska, 2022), such collaborations nevertheless often result in at least partial cooptation of the movement, where activists dial back their initial goals to generate buy-in from firms (Davis et al., 2008). For instance, when the Dutch sustainable tourism movement started collaborating with the local tourism industry, they abandoned their original demand of a ‘quota on the number of flight vacations allowed per person [. . .] in favor of simply informing consumers about carbon offsetting’ (Van Wijk et al., 2013) – a less stringent ask. Yet, collaborations between firms and alteration movements are also credited with generating real and progressive – though typically limited and localized – solutions to issues ranging from deforestation (Zietsma & Lawrence, 2010) to labour protection (Donaghey & Reinecke, 2018) to carbon emissions (Schifeling & Soderstrom, 2022). In these collaborations, movements shift from the role of external critic, to that of implementer and expert, using their specialized, on-the-ground knowledge to successfully plan and execute joint projects (Austin & Seitanidi, 2012).

Increasingly, movement activists also play the role of collaborator from inside their firm targets. For instance, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) has set up the Climate Corps program, which sends a graduate student fellow to work on energy projects within participating firms. Via these ‘embedded activists’, the EDF provides ‘extensive support, including technical guidance, tactical insights, and motivation’ to firms’ organizational change efforts (Schifeling & Soderstrom, 2022: pp. 5–6). Having dedicated internal groups to change firms from within can be crucial in determining an alteration movement’s success, not only because internal groups typically have better access to decision makers (Briscoe & Gupta, 2016), but also because they have insights into navigating the internal political environment, which can be critical for successful change efforts (Alt & Craig, 2016; Buchter, 2021; Kellogg, 2011; Skoglund & Böhm, 2020; Weber & Waeger, 2017). While existing research has mainly depicted internal activists as being part of the moderate faction of alteration movements, questions remain as to if, when and how employees implement radical forms of activism. Although it is likely that employees fear reprisals from their employers when criticizing them too openly (DeCelles et al., 2020), there is anecdotal evidence of more radical forms of internal activism. Be it employee walkouts in protest of their companies’ strategies or professional athletes refusing to stand during the playing of the national anthem (Rheinhardt et al., 2023), more research is needed to understand under what circumstances these and other radical forms of internal activism emerge.

Creation movements

Creation movements may also be subject to the threat of cooptation, although it takes a form that is different from that of many alteration movements. Whereas in alteration movements, cooptation typically results from the pressure of firms targeted by the movement, in creation movements it often occurs from within as new entrants join the movement and the emerging market over time. That is, early movement members are generally driven by values and the ideology of their cause, whereas later entrants are often more attracted to the perceived economic viability of the market. This can lead to a shift within the movement and its market as values-based logics become less influential and economic logics emerge instead as the dominant guiding force. Such examples can be seen in studies on organic food (B. H. Lee et al., 2017), wind energy (Carlos et al., 2018) and recycling (Lounsbury et al., 2003). While this process may differ slightly between the three subtypes of creation movement (market certification, market replacement and counterculture creation movements), cooptation most frequently occurs when new entrants join the market. For example, the process of creation movement cooptation is especially clear in Lawrence and Mudge’s (2019) paper on the bitcoin movement – a market replacement movement – and the entrance of Silicon Valley venture capitalists. As one investor in their study noted, ‘[M]y interest in the Bitcoin ecosystem is not ideological but mercenary’ (Liew, 2013 as cited in Lawrence & Mudge, 2019, p. 126).

Market certification movements similarly face significant threats from cooptation when large corporations adopt their standards and begin exerting influence over certifying bodies. This process can result in dilution of the standards promoted by these movements and can weaken the related certifications. For example, large corporations that have adopted fair trade practices and sell certified products, such as Starbucks (Jaffee, 2010), have clashed with the earliest members of the fair trade movement over the stringency of standards and governance mechanisms (Jaffee, 2014). Likewise, the entrance of major agrifood corporations into the fair trade market has resulted in a loss of the original movement’s more transformative goals, the partial regulatory capture of fair trade certifying bodies, and ultimately the weakening of fair trade standards (Jaffee, 2010, p. 268). Similarly, cooptation processes have been found in counterculture movements when the market segments they create gain the attention – and eventual entrance – of large corporations. In McInerny’s (2014) study of the ‘Circuit Rider’ movement, the emergent market segment providing information technology services to social justice-oriented civil society organizations attracted the entrance of major technology firms. The entry of established market actors led to the displacement of many Circuit Rider initiatives with a more market-oriented social movement organization that had corporate support.

While there are several studies that explicitly explore the cooptation of creation movements (Kim & Schifeling, 2022; B. H. Lee et al., 2017), a more systematic examination of these processes is very much needed. Prior work suggests there is an inherent tension between movement efforts aimed at seeking legitimacy and maintaining the original values underlying the moral markets they facilitate (B. H. Lee et al., 2017). In some cases, it is the activists themselves who may strategically suppress movement values while engaging in the institutional work necessary for market expansion (Hedberg & Lounsbury, 2021). This observation raises questions as to the inevitability of cooptation in creation movement-led markets, which stages of market development are most vulnerable to cooptation, and the ways in which cooptation influences the market’s and the movement’s subsequent evolution. Furthermore, future research is necessary to determine whether cooptation occurs similarly across all movement subtypes, or whether additional differences will emerge when this phenomenon is examined in more detail. Finally, this line of research has implications for the members of creation movements, raising questions as to when and why activists abandon movements that have been coopted and the actions they take upon leaving – such as starting new spinoff movements (e.g. Weber et al., 2008).

Elimination movements

Interaction between elimination movements, companies and stakeholders takes place both in publicly visible arenas as well as behind closed doors. Members of elimination movements lobby regulators and legislators in private to ban certain industries or products. At the same time, both the movement and the targeted companies and industries engage in a public contest which impacts how effectively the two sides can make their case with authorities and other relevant stakeholders, such as investors or consumers. It might therefore not be surprising that some of the most stigmatized companies are also the ones that are particularly vocal about their pro-social credentials. For instance, tobacco companies were among the first to publish CSR -reports and have won several awards for the quality of this reporting (Palazzo & Richter, 2005).

Some elimination movements have been very successful in pressuring states to ban widely used products or industry practices (Maguire & Hardy, 2009) to the point where governments at times become allies to the movement and pressure other governments to follow suit (Boghossian & Marques, 2019). At the same time, getting public authorities to act is typically an arduous, lengthy and highly uncertain process (Soule & King, 2006), especially when movements make such consequential demands as the banning of a product or a service. And many companies and industries threatened by elimination movements have learned that not reacting to their actions at all prevents elimination movements from developing a platform and is therefore often effective at stymying their efforts (Reinecke & Ansari, 2021). Elimination movements, perhaps more than alteration and creation movements, can therefore face the prospect of prolonged periods during which their actions yield little or no tangible results. This can undermine a movement’s sense of efficacy – the sentiment that change can be achieved – which itself is linked to decreased movement action and might thus impair the viability of the movement over time (Fantasia & Hirsch, 1995; Kellogg, 2009). A related danger can come in the form of mission drift, where elimination movements engage in action that fulfils movement members’ needs for experiencing that sense of efficacy, but that effectively does not further the goals for which the movement has originally mobilized. Elimination movements pursuing higher levels of societal change that are unlikely to yield short-term results (e.g. anti-capitalism movements) may be particularly susceptible to such drift. For instance, Occupy Wall Street quickly became fragmented as many of its chapters shifted their focus to more specific challenges (e.g. Occupy Madison became an organization fighting for shelter for the unhoused). While there may have been strategic intent in these direction changes for some Occupy chapters, others experienced unintended drift through reframing processes and the identification of new targets – as was the case with Occupy London’s redirection away from focusing on the financial institutions in the City of London towards targeting the Church of England (Reinecke & Ansari, 2021).

More than addressing the vexed cooptation problems that alteration movements and creation movements experience, it appears that the central challenge for elimination movements in this interaction phase thus consists of maintaining movement members’ continued engagement while avoiding mission drift. Organization theory suggests that mission drift is most likely to occur in decentralized structures (Waeger & Weber, 2019). Accordingly, one way for elimination movements to avoid mission drift might be to organize around a central coordination function that keeps members motivated and aligned with their original goals (Barberá-Tomás et al., 2019). Yet, it might not be feasible for every movement to rely on a centralized movement function (Massa & O’Mahony, 2021) and an open question for future research thus revolves around what other instruments can allow elimination movements to maintain member engagement while avoiding mission drift. Similarly, although drift is mostly negatively connoted, future research could explore whether there are productive forms of that phenomenon and under what circumstances productive and non-productive forms of drift are more likely to emerge.

Alteration movements

The impact of an alteration movement depends both on whether the change prompted by the movement is broadly considered to be meaningful (versus superficial) and if it has become widely recognized in the organizational field that was targeted. Regarding the former, the extent of cooptation and compromise during the interaction phase is often critical to how meaningful the change is in the end. Regarding the latter, the spread of new practices in an organizational field happens because later adopters imitate earlier adopters of these practices. We know that such imitation accelerates when firms that were formerly known for resisting the alteration movement switch their stance and adopt the promoted practice (Briscoe & Safford, 2008; Waeger & Mena, 2019) or when firms have made changes on the basis of accumulating evidence, rather than confrontational interactions with movements (Briscoe et al., 2015). There are also less voluntary forms of spread, for instance when these new practices become part of supply chain governance at lead firms (Levy, 2008) or when trade associations (Van Wijk et al., 2013) and private regulatory initiatives (Bartley, 2018; Haack & Rasche, 2021) require member firms to adopt them.

In the absence of meaningful firm changes, contention between alteration movements and their targets may continue, especially when evidence emerges that firms’ measures are ineffective and insufficient (e.g. Zadek, 2004). It is interesting to note that one outcome from insufficient change is that it might lead firms to become more receptive to movement demands further down the road. For instance, McDonnell et al. (2015) found that firms initially react to movement pressure not so much by fulfilling movement demands, but by establishing ‘defensive devices’, such as internal committees, to manage that pressure. Yet, once established, these committees can become boundary-spanning units that translate external movement demands into internally acceptable measures and, over time, increase firms’ receptivity to calls for change (Weber & Waeger, 2017).

While outcomes at the level of the firm and the organizational field are frequently studied, more research is needed on what the relevant outcomes for alteration movements themselves are. It is clear that alteration movements often do not fully attain their original goals and that cooptation is a frequent problem. What does this mean for alteration movements? Generally speaking, we know that social movements may split (Van Wijk et al., 2013), change targets (Mena & Waeger, 2014; Reinecke & Ansari, 2021; Soule, 2012), go dormant (V. Taylor, 1989), or even demobilize (Piazza & Perretti, 2020), but it is unclear under what circumstances we can expect these outcomes for alteration movements. Conversely, alteration movements may continue to mobilize even after attaining success. For instance, the movement that mobilized in the 1970s to change Nestlé’s baby formula marketing practices continues to take action against Nestlé, even though the company has substantially altered how it markets this product. When can we expect alteration movements to continue mobilization efforts even after attaining success? Is it the result of the type of interactions that movements and firms establish during the interaction phase (e.g. friendly versus hostile)? Does it have to do with a movement organization’s tendency to self-perpetuate even when their goals have been achieved (Zald & Ash, 1966), or are there other reasons?

Creation movements

Most of the prior work on creation movement outcomes focuses on how movements facilitate the creation of new market categories. Some of this work examines the effect of creation movements on firms within the markets they champion at different points in their emergence and evolution. These studies largely find that intent to enter a market category (e.g. Sine & Lee, 2009), opportunity recognition and market entrance (Hiatt & Carlos, 2019), and expansion of firm operations within a market category (Durand & Georgallis, 2018) are all positively associated with the social movement’s presence and activity. Most of this work has focused on the earlier stages of market emergence and evolution, such as the prior institution-building work on applications to enter heavily regulated markets like low power FM radio (Greve et al., 2006) and wind energy (Sine & Lee, 2009). While the literature has started moving its focus further down the market life cycle timeline (Durand & Georgallis, 2018), there is still little known about the impacts of creation movements on the latter stages of market category evolution.

Recently, however, scholars have ‘flipped the arrow’ on the social movements and markets relationship, investigating how creation movements are impacted by the markets they support. As movement-backed markets grow and evolve, the diversity of social movement organizations supporting them increases (Pacheco et al., 2014) even as the importance of the movement for entrepreneurial entry may decrease (Carlos et al, 2018). For example, in their study of the wind energy industry in Colorado, Pacheco et al. (2014) found that market growth coincided with the emergence of technology-focused SMOs that specifically took part in developing and promoting the adoption of wind energy technologies. In contrast, Carlos et al. (2018) found that the impact of the environmental movement on wind farm founding rates diminished as the market developed. Taking a goals-based approach to studying social movements and market emergence can help connect these disparate findings. When we use goals as a basis for categorizing social movements, we find that new markets benefiting from social movement action may have more than one movement supporting the market emergence process. The first movement type, exemplified by studies using Sierra Club membership as a proxy for social movement activity in support of wind energy (e.g. Carlos et al., 2018; Vasi, 2009), are alteration or elimination movements that do the work of deinstitutionalizing and stigmatizing incumbent practices or products (see also Schneiberg, 2013). From here, a second movement may develop – or even work in tandem or collaboratively with the first – that engages much more specifically with the championed alternative market. These creation movements perform institutional work aimed at legitimating the market, such as pushing for supportive regulations and developing market infrastructure (see phase 2).

Returning to studies on social movements and wind energy, it is feasible that research examining the role of environmental activists captures a different type of movement at an earlier stage of market emergence than studies that investigate more market-specific SMOs. While there is evidence that different types of SMO play a role in market emergence over time (Pacheco et al., 2014), as well as across geographies (Leitzinger, 2014), and that their importance depends on the market’s level of development (e.g. Carlos et al., 2018), how these SMOs interact with each other and the differing roles they play in supporting emergent markets needs further elaboration. Separating these findings by movement type raises, we suggest, interesting questions about the role and importance of social movements as markets mature. For instance, do all social movements diminish in importance to the markets they facilitate over time, or does the type of social movement change in line with our typology as the market evolves? Furthermore, what is the relationship between the actors in an initial, issue-based movement and a more market-specific creation movement later on; is this relationship sequential, concurrent, collaborative; or does the latter evolve from the former? Additionally, how do these processes and relationships differ across types of creation movement? For example, is the work of elimination movements more essential for the later efforts of market replacement creation movements than it is for counterculture creation movements that are more producer-led? Taking the goals-based approach to studying social movements that we have proposed and using more fine-grained methods to capture types of movement activity over time can help in answering these questions and further develop theory at the intersection of social movements and markets.

Elimination movements

Elimination movements strive for certain products and services currently provided by markets to be either phased out or to be provided as public services. To be fully successful, elimination movements almost always need support from governmental bodies – such as in the form of legislators passing new laws that ban certain products (Maguire & Hardy, 2009). While this provides, in theory, for a straightforward role for governments in the world of elimination movements, the reality on the ground is more complex. For one, the wheels of government turn slowly (Soule & King, 2006). In addition, the role of governments can be ambiguous or outright hostile towards the goals of the movement. For instance, when the European Union considered a ban on trapped fur imports, the Canadian government took action that ‘not only averted a ban, but effectively shut down international debate over restrictions concerning the sale of products using trapped fur’ (Boghossian & Marques, 2019, p. 1241).

But even when governments side with the elimination movement, it is not always clear whether such a ban effectively addresses the issue that the elimination movement has campaigned for. For instance, many political issues are blocked at the federal level in the United States. Consequently, elimination movements are increasingly forced to shift their activities to the state, county, or even municipal levels (Soule, 2012). While these lower levels of government may decide to implement bans, such changes are eminently porous if there is not a substantial number of local governments making the same decision. Without widespread government adoption, local successes by elimination movements may not lead to the eradication of the product or service in any systemic or meaningful way but may instead lead to companies shifting their production and services to places where such bans do not exist (Surroca et al., 2013).

Geographic boundaries affect outcomes less when elimination movements focus their campaigns on pressuring the intermediaries of their firm or industry targets. For instance, the fossil fuel divestment movement pressures investors everywhere to divest from fossil fuel industries (Maina et al., 2020). And the anti-fur movement has not only lobbied governments, but also companies further down the value chain, such as high-end fashion companies, to stop using fur in their products (Godart et al., 2023). But even in instances where elimination movements target intermediaries, a patchwork of movement successes and failures is a likely outcome, resulting in decreased use and popularity of the targeted products or services, rather than outright elimination. For instance, while getting high-end fashion companies to stop using fur constitutes a success for the anti-fur movement, it is also clear that this is only one of many industries using fur.

Some elimination movements focus on preventing the launch of new products, as opposed to eliminating long-established ones – an area that is understudied. For example, Weber et al. (2009) found that the anti-biotechnology movement in Germany prevented the domestic commercialization of biotechnology among pharmaceutical firms during the 1980s. And Google employees were successful in pressuring their company to abandon secret plans to launch a search engine in the Chinese market that would have abided by the Communist party’s censorship rules. We do not know much about how such ‘prevention-focused’ elimination movements fare compared to elimination movements that mobilize for the eradication of already existing products. Could it be that prevention-based approaches are more promising than the post-hoc path that elimination movements are typically on – because a product that is still under development is less entrenched and has fewer defenders than a longstanding and well-established product?