Firm behavior and the evolution of activism: Strategic decisions and the emergence of protest in US communities

• Date: 01 April 2020
• Author: Alessandro Piazza,Fabrizio Perretti
• Published date: 01 April 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3116

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Firm behavior and the evolution of activism:

Strategic decisions and the emergence of

protest in US communities

Alessandro Piazza

1

| Fabrizio Perretti

2

1

Strategy and Environment Area, Jesse H. Jones School of Business, Houston, TX

2

Department of Management and Technology, Bocconi University, Milan, Italy

Correspondence

Alessandro Piazza, Strategy and

Environment Area, Jesse H. Jones School

of Business, 6100 Main Street, Houston,

TX 77005.

Email: alessandro.piazza@rice.edu

Abstract

Research summary: How do firms' strategic decisions

affect the emergence and evolution of activism? We

examine this question through a study of protests

against nuclear power plants in the United States. We

find that the decision to cancel construction of a

nuclear unit—a substantial victory for activists—is

associated with an upsurge in antinuclear protest activ-

ity, as emboldened activists stay mobilized even once

the level of threat abates. We also find that when a firm

decides to complete a nuclear power plant, thereby

marking a defeat for activists, antinuclear protests wind

down and we witness an increase in mobilization

towards other causes. We discuss the implications of

our findings for the study of the interaction between

social movements and firms.

Managerial summary: The interaction between firms

and activists is markedly strategic, and episodes of con-

frontation are often rooted in decisions made by firms.

In this article, we examine how decisions taken by firms

might impact activism in local communities through a

comprehensive study of mobilization targeting nuclear

power plants in the United States between 1960 and

1995. We find that when a firm cancels a proposed

nuclear unit, antinuclear protest activity increases, as

emboldened activist press the advantage. When a firm

Received: 13 December 2018 Revised: 15 October 2019 Accepted: 21 October 2019 Published on: 12 December 2019

DOI: 10.1002/smj.3116

Strat Mgmt J. 2020;41:681–707. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/smj © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 681

decides to complete a nuclear power plant, however,

thereby defeated activists will demobilize and focus

their attention on other causes. Companies should thus

carefully consider how their decisions might affect activ-

ist mobilization, especially in contexts where opposition

from local communities is a significant factor.

KEYWORDS

activism, critical events, social movement, spillovers, stakeholder

theory

1|INTRODUCTION

In 1958, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E)—the largest electric utility company in Northern Cali-

fornia at the time—made public its plans to build the first commercially viable nuclear power

plant in the United States at Bodega Bay, a fishing village north of San Francisco. While the

area had no prior history of activism, and despite nuclear power's then-ascendant trajectory, a

colorful coalition of local grassroots activists soon came together, comprising “students,

ranchers, dairymen, former communists, far-right libertarians, musicians, young parents, a

local waitress and veterinarian, a marine biologist, and even an ornery woman who occasion-

ally carried a shotgun”(Daly, 2015). After a 6-year battle with PG&E the coalition ultimately

prevailed, and the company canceled plans for the plant in 1964. Partly due to the success of

these early activists in stopping the construction of nuclear power plants in different

locations—a nationwide movement opposing nuclear power was soon born (Wellock, 1998).

Not all such efforts, however, met with a similar degree of success. In 1976, despite vocal

public opposition throughout New England, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) had

issued a construction permit for a new nuclear power plant in Seabrook, New Hampshire. In

response, a group of antinuclear campaigners that called itself the Clamshell Alliance—which

was inspired by an extraordinary protest in West Germany that had forced the government to

abandon plans to build a nuclear reactor—mobilized in opposition. Despite creative tactics,

extensive mobilization, and substantial media coverage, the activists were not able to stop the

construction of the plant (which was completed in 1986) and ultimately lost the fight—the

Seabrook Nuclear Plant did eventually begin operation, although not until 1990. Despite their

failure in achieving their goal, however, the Seabrook protests connected and inspired people

around the country, establishing a dominant model of large-scale direct-action organizing for

many groups championing different issues (Kauffman, 2017). For instance, the AIDS activist

group ACT UP also used a version of this model when it organized bold takeovers of the head-

quarters of the Food and Drug Administration in 1988 and the National Institutes of Health in

1990, to pressure both institutions to take swifter action towards approving experimental AIDS

medications.

While the wave of antinuclear protests that swept the United States over several decades

exhibits a great degree of variance in terms of geography and social actors involved, Bodega Bay

and Seabrook largely exemplify the potential outcomes of such activism. In fact, approximately

half of all reactors that were licensed by the NRC in the United States were never completed,

682 PIAZZA AND PERRETTI