Corporate Social Activism | Peer-Reviewed Research

Corporate Activism Tends to Follow, Not Lead, Social Change

Companies often avoid using a “collective action frame” in their messaging until after a controversial issue is legally and politically settled.

Based on research by Alessandro Piazza, Sung Hun Chung (Texas A&M) and Kate Odziemkowska (Toronto)

Key findings:

Corporate messaging strategies are significantly influenced by stakeholder ideology, industry conservatism, and public opinion.
After same-sex marriage became law, firms were 6% more likely to use a “collective action frame” around LGBTQ issues.
Firms based in highly liberal states used collective action framing 18% more than those in highly conservative states.

For years, corporate activism has been positioned as a leading force in shaping social and political conversations — with executives taking public stands on issues like same-sex marriage, gun control and climate change.

But new research in the Academy of Management Journal suggests that corporate activism isn’t as bold as it may seem. Companies typically speak out only after public opinion has shifted or legal decisions have been made.

Using a large dataset of external communications from Fortune 500 companies from 1999 to 2019, researchers Alessandro Piazza (Rice Business), Sung Hun Chung (Texas A&M) and Kate Odziemkowska (University of Toronto) show that companies often adjust their messaging only after once-divisive issues have been resolved through law or broad public agreement.

“It’s not that companies don’t care,” says Piazza, associate professor of strategic management. “But they rarely lead the charge. Instead, they wait for the dust to settle — then pick up the banner. In many cases, corporate activism is a misnomer.”

When the Dust Settles, the Framing Shifts

For their research context, Piazza and his colleagues analyzed a wide-scale dataset of executive tweets and press releases spanning 1999 to 2019. They tracked how major companies addressed LGBTQ rights— with a focus on when and how they responded as same-sex marriage was gradually legalized across the U.S.

What they found is that companies were more likely to use something called a “collective action” frame — messaging that encourages society to unite, take a stand, or drive change — only after a clear legal or social resolution emerged. Before that point, corporate messaging typically used an “individual action” frame to communicate firm values, such as workplace diversity or the business case for inclusion.

Collective action language tends to be future-oriented and invoke institutional change, using words like “bill,” “law,” “civil rights,” “march,” “social,” “allies,” “care” and “protect.” By contrast, the individual action frame characterizes LGBTQ issues in terms of workplace or business experience that do not signify injustice: for example, “corporate equality,” “achieve,” “workplace” and “rating.”

“It’s not that companies don’t care,” says Piazza, associate professor of strategic management. “But they rarely lead the charge. Instead, they wait for the dust to settle — then pick up the banner. In many cases, corporate activism is a misnomer.”

Notably, after the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision legalizing same-sex marriage, collective action messaging around LGBTQ+ issues rose by 6% — a meaningful jump.

But not every company made the same shift; it largely depended on who was in charge and where they were based. Very liberal executives were 18% more likely than very conservative executives to use collective action language. Likewise, companies headquartered in liberal states were 18% more likely to use a collective action frame than those in conservative ones.

What This Means for Corporate Activism

The findings cast doubt on the idea that big companies are leading the way on social change. The data suggest they are not out in front — rather, they are waiting, then stepping in once it is safer to speak.

“Corporations are risk-averse entities,” Piazza says. “They tend to move once institutional uncertainty has subsided and the risk of backlash is minimized.”

The study offers a more nuanced — and in some ways sobering — view of corporate activism. While companies may use activist language, their timing reveals a strategy rooted less in risk-taking and more in risk-avoidance. Rather than leading the charge on polarizing issues, most large firms wait until new legal or cultural norms are firmly in place before adopting bold, change-oriented language.

That doesn’t mean smaller firms or niche brands behave the same way. The study focuses exclusively on Fortune 500 companies, which may be uniquely constrained by broad stakeholder demands and reputational risk. Future research could explore how smaller firms or those targeting specific audiences approach contentious issues differently — and whether their framing strategies yield different outcomes.

Is It Still Activism If You Wait Until It's Safe?

A few questions arise from the research. For one, is it possible to “thread the needle” between opposing audiences? Piazza and his colleagues suggest that both individual action and collective action frames can serve to align the company with specific social groups. But blending these frames may end up diluting the message altogether.

And what happens when the arc of change bends the other way? Because the study focuses on a progressive social shift (i.e., marriage equality), it raises questions about how companies behave when the political tide moves in a more conservative direction. Do companies still wait for public consensus before speaking out? Or do some settlements, particularly those that go against majority opinion, invite deeper corporate silence?

The study shows just how closely corporate decisions follow the legal and political environment around them. It also raises a core question: Can it really be called “corporate activism” if companies only call for change and urge action after the toughest parts of the social debate are over?

Written by Seb Murray

Chung, Odziemkowska and Piazza, “Threading the Needle of Corporate Activism: How Firms Frame Their Stances on Polarizing Social Issues.” Forthcoming in Academy of Management Journal.