Researchers found that following a judicial or legislative settlement, firms rely more on collective action frames than on individual action frames.
Curated by Business Science Daily — peer-reviewed sources, human-verified.
Learn more
About Our Curation Process
Business Science Daily curates academic research in business and management. Each featured study is selected from reputable, peer-reviewed journals, institutional repositories, or working papers (e.g., Elsevier, Sage, NBER, SSRN).
Articles are carefully summarized to ensure clarity and accuracy, with direct citations or links to original sources. Our process emphasizes transparency, academic integrity, and accessibility for a broader audience.
Learn more in our Editorial Standards & AI Policy.
Chung, Odziemkowska, and Piazza, published in the Academy of Management Journal, analyzed 6,461 press releases and 6,450 tweets from Fortune 500 companies between 1999 and 2019. Researchers focused on tracking how firms discussed LGBTQ issues before and after the marriage equality decisions in their home states.
It was found that before marriage equality was legalized in a firm’s home state, companies defaulted to individual action frames. After the settlement, however, they shifted toward collective action frames. The shift was a 6% increase in collective action framing, equivalent to one-quarter of the sample’s standard deviation.
The distinction between individual and collective action frames matters for strategic reasons.
Individual action frames minimize risk during periods of active contestation. They subordinate contentious sociopolitical values to economic ones. They reveal no new information about the firm’s ideological commitments. Collective action frames, by contrast, are counter-normative for business organizations. They risk alienating stakeholders whose values conflict with the firm’s position.
On the other hand, collective action frames diagnose social problems as injustices requiring systemic remedies. They call for action by others—legislatures, courts, other firms, society at large. They employ moral arguments about responsibility and obligation. They use words like “civil,” “victim,” “bill,” “march,” and “protect.”
The shift among companies was not uniform.
Firms with liberal executives used 18% more collective-action language after settlement than firms with conservative executives did. In contrast, firms in conservative industries used 19% fewer collective action frames after settlement than firms in liberal industries.
Furthermore, for firms in highly conservative industries, issue settlements had no significant effect on framing at all. They simply did not shift.
Overall, the pattern is consistent: legal settlements create permission structures, but firms only use them to the extent that their stakeholders are ideologically aligned with the settled position.
This is not about CEOs imposing their values on organizations. It is about organizations reading their environments and calibrating their language accordingly.
Read more below.
Corporate press releases are exercises in calculated ambiguity. Every word is weighed. Every claim is vetted. The goal is not just to communicate but to avoid offense. This is why the proliferation of corporate statements on polarizing social issues—LGBTQ rights, racial justice, abortion access—has drawn so much attention. Companies that once limited their public voice to earnings and product launches now weigh in on the culture wars.
The puzzle is not why they speak. The puzzle is why they wait.
The researchers identified two distinct framing strategies in corporate communications on LGBTQ issues.
Diagnostic: Workplace or business issue; misfortune framing; no blame attribution.
Prognostic: Existing actions, internal policies, performance metrics.
Motivational: Economic or business merits—competitiveness, profitability.
Keywords: “employee,” “workplace,” “corporate equality,” “achieve,” “rating,” “profit.”
Diagnostic: Societal issue; injustice framing; attribution of blame.
Prognostic: Future actions to change systems—litigation, protest, legal reform.
Motivational: Moral arguments, responsibility, obligation.
Keywords: “civil,” “social,” “victim,” “bill,” “law,” “march,” “protect.”
Social arrangements move through cycles. During contestation, groups compete to define issues. Institutional arrangements remain fluid. The outcome is uncertain. During settlement, new rules become institutionalized through law or broad acceptance.
For firms, the transition transforms the risk calculus. Before settlement, speaking out can alienate stakeholders. After settlement, opposition softens. Public opinion shifts. The issue becomes less salient as a fault line.
- Massachusetts (2004): First U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage via judicial decision.
- Obergefell v. Hodges (2015): Nationwide legalization. Firms shifted rhetoric only after the Supreme Court ruling.
- Staggered settlements: 38 distinct decisions across states between 2004 and 2015 provided a quasi-experimental setting.
The shift to collective action frames was not uniform. The researchers examined four moderating factors: executive ideology, industry ideology, state ideology, and the presence of advocacy organizations.
- Advocacy organizations: The presence of issue-aligned NGOs in a firm’s home state strengthened the shift to collective action frames.
- Board ideology: Measured via political donations to Democratic vs. Republican candidates. Lagged five years to capture personal values rather than strategic considerations.
- Industry ideology: Measured via PAC giving at the two-digit SIC level. Ten-year lag applied.
- State ideology: Measured via campaign finance scores of political candidates in the state.
The study advances understanding of corporate activism in several ways. It extends institutional theory by showing how organizational rhetoric reflects adaptation to evolving institutional contexts. It advances stakeholder theory by revealing how alignment shapes rhetorical choices. And it contributes to research on organizational communication by showing how stance-taking emerges as a distinct strategic practice.
- For managers: Framing choices are not merely rhetorical. They signal where the firm stands and how it understands its role in social change.
- For stakeholders: The timing and language of corporate statements provide information about genuine commitment versus strategic calculation.
- For scholars: The study opens new terrain for understanding how organizations interpret and respond to institutional change through their communications.
The study’s findings must be viewed in light of several limitations. The analysis focuses on Fortune 500 firms, which are subject to intense stakeholder scrutiny. Smaller firms or those with niche audiences might behave differently. The legalization of same-sex marriage was a progressive shift; the pattern might not hold for issues where settlements move in a conservative direction.
- Symbolic vs. substantive: The study does not distinguish between symbolic and substantive actions. Collective action frames may not always translate into meaningful change.
- Stakeholder responses: The researchers do not measure how stakeholders actually react to different framing strategies. Do consumers and employees respond differently to individual versus collective action frames?
- Geographic dispersion: The identification strategy relies on headquarters location. Firms with stakeholders in other states may face different pressures, which would attenuate the results.
The irony is that the term “corporate activism” may be a misnomer.
Activism implies risk-taking, challenging established arrangements, and advocating for change in the face of opposition.
Corporate activism, as the researchers describe it, is largely the opposite. It seems to be risk-averse and follows institutional change rather than leading it. Firms in such a population adopt the language of social movements only when that language is no longer dangerous.