Reframing Stakeholder Influence: A Review of Heterogeneous Stakeholder Mobilization and Corporate Responsiveness in the Era of Digital Activism
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70142/ijbmel.v3i2.434Keywords:
Digital Activism, Stakeholder Mobilization, Corporate Responsiveness, Heterogeneous Convergence, Social Media InfluenceAbstract
This qualitative literature review explores how digital activism is transforming stakeholder influence and corporate responsiveness. Contrary to traditional models emphasizing unified collective action, recent evidence reveals that heterogeneous stakeholders now mobilize through fragmented yet emotionally resonant digital narratives. This form of "heterogeneous convergence" enables diverse publics to exert pressure on firms despite lacking organizational coherence. Drawing from contemporary cases such as #MeToo and #DeleteUber, the review highlights how digital platforms facilitate dynamic stakeholder engagement, enabling rapid reputational impacts. The findings suggest that organizations must adapt to increasingly polyphonic and contested stakeholder environments, where legitimacy is shaped not by static engagement models but by real-time digital responsiveness. This review contributes to stakeholder theory by integrating digital mobilization dynamics and calls for expanded theoretical and empirical research into digitally mediated stakeholder influence
References
References must follow the IEEE style. We recommend preparing references with a bibliography software package like Mendeley,
Aaker, J., & Smith, A. (2010). The dragonfly effect: Quick, effective, and powerful ways to use social media to drive social change. Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons.
Anduiza, E., Cristancho, C., & Sabucedo, J. M. (2014). Mobilization through online social networks: The political protest of the indignados in Spain. Information, Communication & Society, 17(6), 750–764.
Barbera-Tomas, D., Castello, I., de Bakker, F. G. A., & Zietsma, C. (2019). Energizing through visuals: How social entrepreneurs use emotion-symbolic work for social change. Academy of Management Journal, 62(6), 1789–1817.
Barnett, M. L., Henriques, I., & Husted, B. W. (2020). The rise and stall of stakeholder influence: How the digital age limits social control. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(1), 48–64. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2017.0170
Bastos, M. T., Raimundo, R. L. G., & Travitzki, R. (2013). Gatekeeping Twitter: Message diffusion in political hashtags. Media, Culture & Society, 35(2), 260–270.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology, 1(3), 311–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.1.3.311
Bednar, M. K., Westphal, J. D., & McDonald, M. L. (2022). Birds of a feather flock (even more) together: An intergroup relations perspective on how #MeToo-related media coverage affects the evaluation of prospective corporate directors. Strategic Management Journal, 43(12), 2313–2350.
Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2013). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Boell, S. K., & Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2015). On being ‘systematic’ in literature reviews. Formulating Research Methods for Information Systems, 9(2), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2015.11.001
Bruns, A., & Burgess, J. E. (2011). The use of Twitter hashtags in the formation of ad hoc publics. In A. Bruns & P. De Wilde (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) General Conference (pp. 1–9). Colchester, U.K.: ECPR.
Castello, I., & Lopez-Berzosa, D. (2023). Affects in online stakeholder engagement: A dissensus perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, 33(2), 180–215.
https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2022.3
Castello, I., Etter, M., & Nielsen, F. A. (2016). Strategies of legitimacy through social media: The networked strategy. Journal of Management Studies, 53(3), 402–432.
Cho, C. H., Martens, M. L., Kim, H., & Rodrigue, M. (2011). Astroturfing global warming: It isn’t always greener on the other side of the fence. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(4), 571–587.
Clark, C. E. (2021). Giving voice to values in the boardroom. New York, NY: Routledge.
Colleoni, E., Illia, L., & Zyglidopoulos, S. (2021). Exploring how publics discursively organize as digital collectives: The use of empty and floating signifiers as organizing devices in social media. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 6(4), 491–502. https://doi.org/10.1086/715903
Colleoni, E., Zyglidopoulos, S., & Illia, L. (2024). Beyond collective action: Heterogeneous stakeholders’ influence on firms in the digital age. Academy of Management Perspectives, 38(1). https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2021.0124
Coombs, W. T., Holladay, S. J., & White, R. (2021). Sticky crises and corporations. In Y. Jin, B. H. Reber, & G. J. Nowak (Eds.), Advancing crisis communication effectiveness (pp. 35–51). Routledge.
Davies, H., Goodley, S., Lawrence, F., Lewis, P., & O’Carroll, L. (2022, July). Uber broke laws, duped police and secretly lobbied governments, leak reveals. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/uber-files-leak-reveals-global-lobbying-campaign
Davis, G. F., King, B. G., & Soule, S. A. (2022). Do social movements improve corporate behavior? A discussion and research agenda. Rutgers Business Review, 7(2), 139–152.
Earl, J., & Kimport, K. (2011). Digitally enabled social change: Activism in the internet age. MIT Press.
Eka Wahyu Kasih, Ngadi Permana, & Mohammad Chaidir. (2024). The Synergy of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation Hubs in Driving Digital Innovation For MSMES. Indonesian Economic Review, 4(1), 14-
https://doi.org/10.53787/iconev.v4i1.37
Elzas, S. (2022, March). Decathlon becomes latest French company to pull out of Russia. RFI. https://www.rfi.fr/en/international/20220330-decathlon-becomes-latest-french-company-to-pull-out-of-russia
Etter, M., & Vestergaard, A. (2016). Third level of agenda building and agenda setting during a corporate crisis. In L. Guo & M. McCombs (Eds.), The power of information networks: New directions for agenda setting (pp. 175–189). New York, NY: Routledge.
Etter, M., Ravasi, D., & Colleoni, E. (2019). Social media and the formation of organizational reputation. Academy of Management Review, 44(1), 28–52. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0185
Ferns, G., Lambert, A., & Gunther, M. (2021). The analogical construction of stigma as a moral dualism: The case of the fossil fuel divestment movement. Academy of Management Journal, 65(5), 1383–1415.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
Fremeth, A. R., Holburn, G. L., & Piazza, A. (2021). Activist protest spillovers into the regulatory domain: Theory and evidence from the US nuclear power generation industry. Organization Science, 33(5), 1163–1187.
Gerbaudo, P. (2012). Tweets and the streets: Social media and contemporary activism. London, U.K.: Pluto Press.
Gerbaudo, P. (2015). Protest avatars as memetic signifiers: Political profile pictures and the construction of collective identity on social media in the 2011 protest wave. Information, Communication & Society, 18(8), 916–929.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1043316
Glozer, S., Caruana, R., & Hibbert, S. A. (2019). The never-ending story: Discursive legitimation in social media dialogue. Organization Studies, 40(5), 625–650.
Illia, L., Colleoni, E., Etter, M., & Meggiorin, K. (2023). Finding the tipping point: When heterogeneous evaluations in social media converge and influence organizational legitimacy. Business & Society, 62(1), 117–150.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503211049404
Illia, L., Colleoni, E., Ranvidran, K., & Ludovico, N. (2022). Mens rea, wrongdoing and digital advocacy in social media: Exploring quasi‐legal narratives during #DeleteUber. Journal of Public Affairs, 22(3), e2805.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2805
King, B. G. (2008). A social movement perspective of stakeholder collective action and influence. Business & Society, 47(1), 21–49.
Lyon, T., & Maxwell, J. (2011). Greenwash: Corporate environmental disclosure under threat of audit. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 20(1), 3–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9134.2010.00282.x
McDonnell, M. H., & Cobb, J. A. (2020). Take a stand or keep your seat: Board turnover after social movement boycotts. Academy of Management Journal, 63(4), 1028–1053. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.0030
Mohamad Chaidir, Grace Yulianti, & Seger Santoso. (2024). Dampak Digitalisasi terhadap Inovasi Teknologi pada Usaha Mikro, Kecil, dan Menengah. Jurnal Visi Manajemen, 10(2), 74–87. https://doi.org/10.56910/jvm.v10i2.523
Paterson, B. L., Thorne, S. E., Canam, C., & Jillings, C. (2001). Meta-study of qualitative health research: A practical guide to meta-analysis and meta-synthesis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Reinecke, J., & Ansari, S. (2021). Microfoundations of framing: The interactional production of collective action frames in the Occupy movement. Academy of Management Journal, 64(2), 378–408.
Roulet, T. J., & Clemente, M. (2018). Let’s open the media’s black box: The media as a set of heterogeneous actors and not only as a homogenous ensemble. Academy of Management Review, 43(2), 327–329.
Rowley, T. I., & Moldoveanu, M. (2003). When will stakeholder groups act? An interest-and identity-based model of stakeholder group mobilization. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 204–219. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2003.9416096
Ruslaini Ruslaini, & Eri Kusnanto. (2020). Sustainability Dalam Rantai Pasok Global: Tinjauan Literatur Dari Perspektif Bisnis Internasional dan Manajemen Rantai Pasok. Journal of Business, Finance, and Economics (JBFE), 1(2).
https://doi.org/10.32585/jbfe.v1i2.5691
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
Suk, J., et al. (2019). #MeToo, networked acknowledgment, and connective action: How “empowerment through empathy” launched a social movement. Social Science Computer Review, 39(2), 276–294.
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(45), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283
Toubiana, M., & Zietsma, C. (2017). The message is on the wall? Emotions, social media and the dynamics of institutional complexity. Academy of Management Journal, 60(3), 922–953.
vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Niehaves, B., Reimer, K., Plattfaut, R., & Cleven, A. (2009). Reconstructing the giant: On the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. In Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS).
Wang, X., Reger, R. K., & Pfarrer, M. (2021). Faster, hotter, and more linked in: Managing social disapproval in the social media era. Academy of Management Review, 46(2), 275–298.
Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(1), 93–112.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17723971
Young, A., Selander, L., & Vaast, E. (2019). Digital organizing for social impact: Current insights and future research avenues on collective action, social movements, and digital technologies. Information and Organization, 29(3), 100257.
