Kate and I started off by focusing specifically on her new article in Organization Science called “How Social Movements Catalyze Firm Innovation,” hwhich makes the argument that social movements rely on “private politics” to influence firm innovation.   I began by asking Kate to explain what this means.  What are “private politics?”

Kate outlined how “private politics” is different from classical politics in that its political action that targets companies rather than governments.  A social movement can bring its agenda to a company rather than to the state.    Over time, this can lead increasingly to collaboration between an advocacy-oriented NGO and the targeted company.

Kate gave the example of the Environmental Defense Fund’s interventions at McDonald’s, the fast-food giant.   The goal of the EDF was to eliminate waste.  By looking closely at McDonald’s food practices, and by bringing attention to the social impact of waste reduction, the EDF helped McDonald’s reduce costly practices to improve both social and profitability outcomes.

Another example:  Those placards we see in hotel bathrooms asking us to consider putting a towel back on the rack so as to avoid having it laundered.   This benefits both the environment and the hotel’s profitability.

I asked Kate to describe the two different routes to innovation through engagement with a social movement that are described in her paper.  We talked about imagining two situations for, say, a big oil-and-gas company.  In the first situation, there’s a social movement that’s attacking the firm as a climate disaster.   In the second situation, there’s a social movement that’s working directly with the firm through negotiation on particular goals and objectives.    Your argument is that the pressure from the social movement can encourage innovation, but in different ways.   What does that mean?

In the first instance, the social movement can direct management’s attention to the challenge of innovating on renewables.    The issue is materially important to a large group of prospective customers, employees, and investors.    By forcing the management team to understand this, the company directs greater attention and resources to the issue.

In the second instance, the NGO works with the company.  Typically, in this situation, management is already paying attention.  The NGO offers a different kind of benefit from the first situation, which is learning opportunity.   Often the NGO knows a great deal technically about the issue at hand.   The NGO can operate almost as a consultant.

I asked Kate to explain how, in the second instance, the NGO is different from a traditional consultant. 

Her answer:   The NGO has its pulse on issues of emerging importance.  There’s a deeper understanding of trends, preferences, and issues at the frontier of society.  In a world full of social media, what’s breaking matters.   NGOs with an identity of social activism have a great deal of knowledge about what’s on this frontier.

Kate also reflected on her work in Yellowknife prior to academics.   In her prior role, she worked closely with Indigenous communities that were confronted with the prospects of entry by mining companies.   She described how local NGOs held knowledge that had developed over thousands of years that was not codified or even codifiable on terms that traditional consultants would consider.   The opportunity for firms is in working with sophisticated local actors in ways that can cultivate deep learning about what is relevant to the communities that an organization seeks to engage.

I noted that Kate knows a ton about these social movements.  What motivates them?  I asked Kate to describe how social movements and social activism has changed since I was in College. 

Kate described three types of change to illustrate some of the diversity that she has encountered in social movements:

·       Countermovements.    The ESG movement, for example, is now met with a countermovement.  These often seek to return society to a place of prior departure.  Often elites are involved.   

·       Student movements.    May student movements that began as grassroots efforts to bring attention to issues such as child labor in outsourced supply chains have evolved into gigantic organizations with specialized skills.   The Labor movement now has been mainstreamed around a series of ideas and interventions that we consider much less controversial than we did years ago.

·       Professionalized movements.   By drawing on lawsuits and regulatory action, for example, some advocacy organizations have been professionalized.  Think of environmental organizations that sue polluters, for example.

Collaboration that formerly might have been pursued only after a threat emerged is now being elevated to a priority for many companies.   Often, companies seek collaborations before an emergency arises.

I concluded by asking Kate what makes her optimistic.   She gave me a particularly subtle answer.

Kate described how social challenges are complex.  This is increasingly understood and anticipated both by advocates of social change and by the companies they seek to change.   We now know that any action can have unanticipated consequences and/or externalities.    What makes Kate optimistic is the value of bringing the parties together.   While there is a role for pressure tactics, it is collaboration that gives rise to truly breakthrough innovations.