Companies may try to prevent employees, communities and other groups from organising before a dispute becomes a public campaign, according to a new theoretical paper that maps five ways firms could constrain collective action.
The paper, published online in the Academy of Management Review on 17 August, brings together research on social movements and government repression to examine corporate behaviour. It does not measure how frequently companies use the proposed tactics or establish how effective they are.
Natalie Holzaepfel and Olga Hawn of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill wrote the paper with Timothy Werner of the University of Texas at Austin. McCombs School of Business described the research on 8 September.
Pressure can be constrained before a campaign forms
The authors use “organisational repression” to describe efforts to prevent, control or constrain people acting together to change a company’s practices. Their focus includes non-shareholder stakeholders, meaning groups with an interest in a business, such as employees, customers and local communities.
Much existing research examines how firms respond once those groups make demands. A company might cooperate, resist, ignore a campaign or concede. The new framework also considers actions that could keep a movement from reaching that point.
It follows three stages. First, people recognise a grievance. They then begin to organise around it. A movement may subsequently develop a more formal structure, recruit members and form alliances.
The authors argue that the opportunities for corporate intervention change as a group develops. Challenging people’s understanding of a problem could affect an emerging movement, while disrupting alliances would matter more once a coalition exists.
Five proposed tactics target different needs
The first tactic concerns how people perceive a threat or grievance, including whether they believe a problem warrants collective action. The second concerns opportunities to organise: whether people think action is possible and have openings to pursue it.
A third focuses on restricting resources that enable a group to function. A fourth targets potential recruits, making participation less attractive or more costly for selected people.
The fifth concerns fragmentation, weakening connections between members and allies so that a movement struggles to sustain a united effort. Together, the categories describe possible pressure on a campaign’s motivation, opportunities, resources and relationships.
They are analytical categories, not findings that every company uses a common sequence. The paper also does not establish that an ordinary disagreement, an unpopular management decision or a lack of visible protest demonstrates repression.
Effectiveness remains an open question
Werner cautioned in the university’s account that aggressive action could provoke a backlash and strengthen the movement a company is trying to contain. That is a possibility raised by the framework, rather than an effect measured across a sample of firms.
For businesses assessing their relationships with employees or communities, the framework raises a concern about treating quiet as evidence of agreement. A small campaign could reflect limited support, but it could also reflect obstacles to organising. Identifying the explanation requires evidence about the particular dispute.
The researchers plan to test the theory using material such as whistleblower reports, lawsuits and leaked corporate documents. That work would help establish which tactics companies actually deploy, under what conditions, and whether they constrain collective action or intensify it.
Cover image: Editorial composite of an empty meeting room and a separate hand holding a megaphone. The photographs are representative and do not depict a company or dispute examined in the paper. Photos: myHQ-Workspaces and Miguel González / Pexels.
