{"id":{"repo_id":"uiuc","oai_identifier":"oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/98146"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/uiuc/oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/98146","repository":{"repo_id":"uiuc","name":"University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign","base_url":"https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/oai-pmh"},"display":{"title":"Three essays on corporate responses to social movement activism","abstract":"This three-essay dissertation addresses two central research questions: (1) ‘how do firms defend themselves when targeted by social movement activists?’ and (2) ‘why do firms respond differently to activists’ demands?’ Essay 1 is a single-case study of Royal Dutch/Shell’s rhetorical responses to anti-apartheid activists’ demands for the firm to divest from, or sever its ties to, South Africa in the late 1980s. Building on the findings from the first essay, Essay 2 is an examination of Coca-Cola, Inc.’s covert, or secret, funding of a front group that intended to defame the audiences (e.g., social activists, legislators) putting anti-soda pressures on the firm in the early 2000s. I address the second research question in Essay 3. Specifically, I develop and test theory regarding the factors that influenced American firms’ differential responses to anti-apartheid activists’ pressures for divestment from South Africa in the late 1980s. This dissertation contributes to the academic literature in the following ways. Essays 1 and 2 are the first examinations of defamation as a plausible strategy in firms “defensive repertoire” when they are targeted by external audiences such as social activists and legislators. Essay 3 is the first study to show that differences in firms’ substantive commitments to marginalized or repressed stakeholders in a host country influence the divestment decision. Overall, this dissertation offers new insight into the ways firms defend themselves as well as the factors that influence firms’ differential responses to social movement activism.","abstract_html":"This three-essay dissertation addresses two central research questions: (1) ‘how do firms defend themselves when targeted by social movement activists?’ and (2) ‘why do firms respond differently to activists’ demands?’ Essay 1 is a single-case study of Royal Dutch/Shell’s rhetorical responses to anti-apartheid activists’ demands for the firm to divest from, or sever its ties to, South Africa in the late 1980s. Building on the findings from the first essay, Essay 2 is an examination of Coca-Cola, Inc.’s covert, or secret, funding of a front group that intended to defame the audiences (e.g., social activists, legislators) putting anti-soda pressures on the firm in the early 2000s. I address the second research question in Essay 3. Specifically, I develop and test theory regarding the factors that influenced American firms’ differential responses to anti-apartheid activists’ pressures for divestment from South Africa in the late 1980s. This dissertation contributes to the academic literature in the following ways. Essays 1 and 2 are the first examinations of defamation as a plausible strategy in firms “defensive repertoire” when they are targeted by external audiences such as social activists and legislators. Essay 3 is the first study to show that differences in firms’ substantive commitments to marginalized or repressed stakeholders in a host country influence the divestment decision. Overall, this dissertation offers new insight into the ways firms defend themselves as well as the factors that influence firms’ differential responses to social movement activism.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Minefee, Ishva"],"institution":"University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign","degree_name":"Ph.D.","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":"Business Administration","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Bucheli, Marcelo","Clougherty, Joseph","Leblebici, Huseyin","Mahoney, Joseph","Shah, Sonali"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2017,"date_issued":"2017-09-29T16:38:09Z","date_published":"2017-09-29T16:38:09Z","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:24:35Z","subjects":["Organizational impression management","Social movement activism"],"languages":["en"],"rights":["Copyright 2017 Ishva Minefee"],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/2142/98146","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Bucheli, Marcelo","Clougherty, Joseph","Leblebici, Huseyin","Mahoney, Joseph","Shah, Sonali"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Minefee, Ishva"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2017-09-29T16:38:09Z","2017-07-13","2017-08"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Business Administration"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Ph.D."]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Organizational impression management","Social movement activism"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["en"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["Copyright 2017 Ishva Minefee"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/98146"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["This three-essay dissertation addresses two central research questions: (1) ‘how do firms defend themselves when targeted by social movement activists?’ and (2) ‘why do firms respond differently to activists’ demands?’ Essay 1 is a single-case study of Royal Dutch/Shell’s rhetorical responses to anti-apartheid activists’ demands for the firm to divest from, or sever its ties to, South Africa in the late 1980s. Building on the findings from the first essay, Essay 2 is an examination of Coca-Cola, Inc.’s covert, or secret, funding of a front group that intended to defame the audiences (e.g., social activists, legislators) putting anti-soda pressures on the firm in the early 2000s. I address the second research question in Essay 3. Specifically, I develop and test theory regarding the factors that influenced American firms’ differential responses to anti-apartheid activists’ pressures for divestment from South Africa in the late 1980s. This dissertation contributes to the academic literature in the following ways. Essays 1 and 2 are the first examinations of defamation as a plausible strategy in firms “defensive repertoire” when they are targeted by external audiences such as social activists and legislators. Essay 3 is the first study to show that differences in firms’ substantive commitments to marginalized or repressed stakeholders in a host country influence the divestment decision. Overall, this dissertation offers new insight into the ways firms defend themselves as well as the factors that influence firms’ differential responses to social movement activism.","Submission original under an indefinite embargo labeled 'Open Access'. The submission was exported from vireo on 2017-09-29 without embargo terms","The student, Ishva Minefee, accepted the attached license on 2017-07-12 at 10:25.","The student, Ishva Minefee, submitted this Dissertation for approval on 2017-07-12 at 15:21.","This Dissertation was approved for publication on 2017-07-13 at 17:33.","DSpace SAF Submission Ingestion Package generated from Vireo submission #11295 on 2017-09-29 at 11:27:38","Made available in DSpace on 2017-09-29T16:38:09Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 3 MINEFEE-DISSERTATION-2017.pdf: 1455965 bytes, checksum: c5b9c744e27994b2eec5223d5e8fbb6a (MD5) LICENSE.txt: 4210 bytes, checksum: 98e543938fad7595660eeb424ba8f7f4 (MD5) PROQUEST_LICENSE.txt: 4556 bytes, checksum: 02c8c4696aae10c4311995848e899b3c (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-07-13"]},{"key":"dc:format","label":"Dc Format","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Three essays on corporate responses to social movement activism"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Bucheli, Marcelo","Clougherty, Joseph","Leblebici, Huseyin","Mahoney, Joseph","Shah, Sonali"],"dc:creator":["Minefee, Ishva"],"dc:date":["2017-09-29T16:38:09Z","2017-07-13","2017-08"],"dc:description":["This three-essay dissertation addresses two central research questions: (1) ‘how do firms defend themselves when targeted by social movement activists?’ and (2) ‘why do firms respond differently to activists’ demands?’ Essay 1 is a single-case study of Royal Dutch/Shell’s rhetorical responses to anti-apartheid activists’ demands for the firm to divest from, or sever its ties to, South Africa in the late 1980s. Building on the findings from the first essay, Essay 2 is an examination of Coca-Cola, Inc.’s covert, or secret, funding of a front group that intended to defame the audiences (e.g., social activists, legislators) putting anti-soda pressures on the firm in the early 2000s. I address the second research question in Essay 3. Specifically, I develop and test theory regarding the factors that influenced American firms’ differential responses to anti-apartheid activists’ pressures for divestment from South Africa in the late 1980s. This dissertation contributes to the academic literature in the following ways. Essays 1 and 2 are the first examinations of defamation as a plausible strategy in firms “defensive repertoire” when they are targeted by external audiences such as social activists and legislators. Essay 3 is the first study to show that differences in firms’ substantive commitments to marginalized or repressed stakeholders in a host country influence the divestment decision. Overall, this dissertation offers new insight into the ways firms defend themselves as well as the factors that influence firms’ differential responses to social movement activism.","Submission original under an indefinite embargo labeled 'Open Access'. The submission was exported from vireo on 2017-09-29 without embargo terms","The student, Ishva Minefee, accepted the attached license on 2017-07-12 at 10:25.","The student, Ishva Minefee, submitted this Dissertation for approval on 2017-07-12 at 15:21.","This Dissertation was approved for publication on 2017-07-13 at 17:33.","DSpace SAF Submission Ingestion Package generated from Vireo submission #11295 on 2017-09-29 at 11:27:38","Made available in DSpace on 2017-09-29T16:38:09Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 3 MINEFEE-DISSERTATION-2017.pdf: 1455965 bytes, checksum: c5b9c744e27994b2eec5223d5e8fbb6a (MD5) LICENSE.txt: 4210 bytes, checksum: 98e543938fad7595660eeb424ba8f7f4 (MD5) PROQUEST_LICENSE.txt: 4556 bytes, checksum: 02c8c4696aae10c4311995848e899b3c (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-07-13"],"dc:format":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/98146"],"dc:language":["en"],"dc:rights":["Copyright 2017 Ishva Minefee"],"dc:subject":["Organizational impression management","Social movement activism"],"dc:title":["Three essays on corporate responses to social movement activism"],"dc:type":["text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Business Administration"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Ph.D."],"thesis:institution_name":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:24:35Z"}