Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 118, Issue 4, pp 709–729 | Cite as

A Web of Watchdogs: Stakeholder Media Networks and Agenda-Setting in Response to Corporate Initiatives

  • Maria BesiouEmail author
  • Mark Lee Hunter
  • Luk N. Van Wassenhove


This article seeks to model the agenda-setting strategies of stakeholders equipped with online and other media in three cases involving protests against multinational corporations (MNCs). Our theoretical objective is to widen agenda-setting theory to a dynamic and nonlinear networked stakeholder context, in which stakeholder-controlled media assume part of the role previously ascribed to mainstream media (MSM). We suggest system dynamics (SD) methodology as a tool to analyse complex stakeholder interactions and the effects of their agendas on other stakeholders. We find that largely similar dynamics of interactions occur among stakeholders in these cases, and that the costs for managements of maintaining their agendas steadily rises. We conclude that the “web of watchdogs” comprises a powerful reason for managers to engage in responsibility negotiations with their stakeholders.


Agenda-setting Media Stakeholder Stakeholder media System dynamics 


  1. Amenta, E., Caren, N., Olasky, S. J., & Stobaugh, J. E. (2009). All the movements fit to print: Who, what, when, where, and why SMO families appeared in the New York Times in the twentieth century. American Sociological Review, 74(4), 636–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Associated Press. (2000, June 22). State high court to decide if Nike violated false-advertising laws. Mark Kasky sued Nike.Google Scholar
  3. Bakir, V. (2006). Policy agenda setting and risk communication: greenpeace, shell, and issues of trust. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 11(3), 67–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Basin, R. (1996, October 17). Boycott Nike. CBS News 48 Hours.Google Scholar
  5. Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Full Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 611–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berger, B. K. (2001). Private issues and public policy: Locating the corporate agenda in agenda-setting theory. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(2), 91–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berkowitz, D., & Adams, D. B. (1990). Information subsidy and agenda-building in local television news. Journalism Quarterly, 67(4), 723–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bogert, C. (2010). Similar paths, different missions: International journalists and human rights observers.
  9. Brunk, K. H., & Blümelhuber, C. (2011). One strike and you’re out: Qualitative insights into the formation of consumers’ ethical company or brand perceptions. Journal of Business Research, 64, 134–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carroll, C. E. (2010). Should firms circumvent or work through the news media? Public Relations Review, 36(3), 278–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carroll, C. E., & McCombs, M. E. (2003). Agenda-setting effects of business news on the public’s images and opinions about major corporations. Corporate Reputation Review, 6(1), 36–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cherin, J. (1999, May 11). China protesters urge U.S. goods boycott through internet. Dow Jones International News.Google Scholar
  13. Colleoni, E. (2013). CSR communication strategies for organizational legitimacy in social media. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18(2), 228–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Collins, E. L., Zoch, L. M., & McDonald, C. S. (2004). When [professional] worlds collide: Implications of Kasky v. Nike for corporate reputation management. Public Relations Review, 30(4), 411–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coombs, W. T. (2007). Attribution theory as a guide for post-crisis communication research. Public Relations Review, 33(2), 135–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (1996). Communication and attributions in a crisis: An experimental study in crisis communication. Journal of Public Relations Research, 8(4), 279–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Coyle, R. G. (1979). Management system dynamics. New York: Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  18. Coyle, R. G. (1996). System dynamics modelling: A practical approach. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  19. Cropanzano, R., Chrobot-Mason, D., Rupp, D. E., & Prehar, C. A. (2004). Accountability for corporate injustice. Human Resource Management Review, 14, 107–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Curtin, P. A. (1999). Reevaluating public relations information subsidies: Market-driven journalism and agenda-building theory and practice. Journal of Public Relations Research, 7(1), 53–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Danone. (2004). Rapport d’Activité 2004. Accessed 2 July 2013.
  22. D’Aveni, R. A., & MacMillan, I. C. (1990). Crisis and the content of managerial communications: A study of the focus of attention of top managers in surviving and failing firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 634–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. de Castro, G. M., Navas López, J. E., & López Sáez, P. (2006). Business and social reputation: exploring the concept and main dimensions of corporate reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 63(4), 361–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dean, D. H. (2004). Consumer reaction to negative publicity effects of corporate reputation, response, and responsibility for a crisis event. Journal of Business Communication, 41(2), 192–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dearing, J. W., & Rogers, E. (1996). Agenda-setting. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Incorporated.Google Scholar
  26. Deephouse, D. L., & Heugens, P. P. M. A. R. (2009). Linking Social Issues to Organizational Impact: The Role of Infomediaries and the Infomediary Process. Journal of Business Ethics, 86, 541–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Duncan, C. (1997, October 31). Activists share information about Nike with Dean Smith. Associated Press Newswires.Google Scholar
  28. Fassin, Y. (2009). The stakeholder model refined. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 113–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Firoz, N. M., & Ammaturo, C. R. (2002). Sweatshop labour practices: The bottom line to bring change to the new millennium case of the apparel industry. Humanomics, 18(1/2), 29–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Formbrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Forrester, J. W. (1961). Industrial dynamics. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Freeman, R. E., Wicks, A. C., & Parmar, B. (2004). Stakeholder theory and the corporate objective revisited. Organization Science, 15(3), 364–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine.Google Scholar
  34. Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 191–205.Google Scholar
  35. Gamson, W. A., Croteau, D., Hoynes, W., & Sasson, T. (1992). Media images and the social construction of reality. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 373–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gandy, O. H. (1982). Beyond agenda setting: Information subsidies and public policy. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  37. Gevirtz, L. (1996, September 26). Reebok invites Nike to stamp out child labor. Reuters News.Google Scholar
  38. Ghanem, S. (1997). Filling in the tapestry: The second level of agenda-setting. In M. E. McCombs, D. L. Shaw, & D. H. Weaver (Eds.), Communication and democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting (pp. 3–14). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. Global Exchange. (2001, January 14). Nike refuses to take responsibility. Accessed 24 August 2011.
  40. Graham, D., & Woods, N. G. (2006). Making corporate self-regulation effective in developing countries. World Development, 34(5), 868–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hendry, J. R. (2005). Stakeholder influence strategies: An empirical exploration. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(1), 79–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Henisz, W. J., Dorobantu, S., Nartey, L. (2011). Spinning gold: The financial returns to external stakeholder engagement. In 11th annual strategy and the business environment (SBE) conference, Wharton, PA.Google Scholar
  43. Hoffman, A. J., & Ocasio, W. (2001). Not all events are attended equally: Toward a middle-range theory of industry attention to external events. Organization Science, 12, 414–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Holmström, S. (2005). Reframing public relations: The evolution of a reflective paradigm for organizational legitimization. Public Relations Review, 31(4), 497–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Holmström, S. (2007). Niklas Luhmann: Contingency, risk, trust and reflection. Public Relations Review, 33(3), 255–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Holt, D. B. (2002). Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture and branding. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1), 70–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hunter, M. L., Le Menestrel, M., & De Bettignies, H.-C. (2008). Beyond control: Crisis strategies and stakeholder media in the Danone boycott of 2001. Corporate Reputation Review, 11(4), 335–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hunter, M. L., & Soberman, D. A. (2010). ‘The equalizer’: Measuring and explaining the impact of online communities on consumer markets. Corporate Reputation Review, 13(4), 225–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hunter, M. L., Van Wassenhove, L. N., Besiou, M., Van Halderen, M. (2011). The agenda-setting power of stakeholder media. INSEAD working paper. (A different version of this article is forthcoming in California Management Review at this writing; we have used page references from the INSEAD Working Paper version).Google Scholar
  50. Ikram, T. (1996, November 25). Nike plant in Pakistan takes aim at child labor. Reuters News.Google Scholar
  51. King, B. G. (2008). A political mediation model of corporate response to social movement activism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(3), 395–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. King, B. G. (2011). The tactical disruptiveness of social movements: Sources of market and mediated disruption in corporate boycotts. Social Problems, 58(4), 491–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. King, B. G., & Pearce, N. (2010). The contentiousness of markets: Politics, social movements and institutional change in markets. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 249–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. King, B. G., & Soule, S. (2007). Social movements as extra-institutional entrepreneurs: The effect of protests on stock price returns. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 413–442.Google Scholar
  55. Kiousis, S., Popescu, C., & Mitrook, M. (2007). Understanding influence on corporate reputation: An examination of public relations efforts, media coverage, public opinion, and financial performance from an agenda-building and agenda-setting perspective. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(2), 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Klein, N. (1997, February 24). Just doing it lands Nike in ethical hot water. The Toronto Star.Google Scholar
  57. Klein, J. G., Smith, N. C., & John, A. (2004). Why we boycott: Consumer motivations for boycott participation. Journal of Marketing, 68, 92–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Koopmans, R. (2004). Movements and media: Selection processes and evolutionary dynamics in the public sphere. Theory and Society, 33(3–4), 367–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lewis, J., Williams, A., Franklin, B., Thomas, J., & Mosdell, N. (2005). The quality and independence of British journalism: Tracking the changes over 20 years. Cardiff: Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies.Google Scholar
  60. Lim, S.-J., & Phillips, J. (2008). Embedding CSR values: The global footwear industry’s evolving governance structure. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 143–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lipsky, M. (1968). Protest as a political resource. The American Political Science Review, 62(4), 1144–1158.Google Scholar
  62. Livesey, S. M. (2001). Eco-identity as discursive struggle: Royal Dutch Shell, Brent Spar, and Nigeria. Journal of Business Communication, 38(1), 58–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Locke, R. M., Qin, F., & Brause, A. (2007). Does monitoring improve labor standards? Lessons from Nike. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 61(1), 3–31.Google Scholar
  64. Luders, J. (2006). The economics of movement success: Business responses to civil rights mobilization. American Journal of Sociology, 111, 963–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Luh, S. S. (2002, February 22). Report claims abuses by Nike contractors; sporting-goods firm funded study in Indonesia, intends to verify it. Wall Street Journal.Google Scholar
  66. Manning, J. (1996, November 26). Nike hails factory that bans child labor. The Oregonian.Google Scholar
  67. Marshall, K., White, R., & Fischer, A. (2007). Conflicts between humans over wildlife management: On the diversity of stakeholder attitudes and implications for conflict management. Biodiversity and Conservation, 16(11), 3129–3146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. McCombs, M. E. (2004). Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  69. McCombs, M. E. (2005). A look at agenda-setting: Past, present and future. Journalism Studies, 6(4), 543–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. McCombs, M. E., & Funk, M. (2011). Shaping the agenda of local daily newspapers: A methodology merging the agenda setting and community structure perspectives. Mass Communication and Society, 14, 905–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. McHale, J. P., Zompetti, J. P., & Moffitt, M. A. (2007). A hegemonic model of crisis communication: Truthfulness and repercussions for free speech in Kasky v. Nike. Journal of Business Communication, 44(4), 374–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. McNulty, S. (2002, October 2). BP wells may be regulated. Financial Times.Google Scholar
  74. McNulty, S. (2003, January 3). Judge tightens controls over BP’s Alaska unit. Financial Times.Google Scholar
  75. Melville, G. (1997, May 26). Critics can’t stop swatting the swoosh. Footwear News.Google Scholar
  76. Meraz, S. (2009). Is there an elite hold? Traditional media to social media agenda setting influence in blog networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 682–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Meraz, S. (2011). The fight for how to think: Traditional media, social networks, and issue interpretation. Journalism, 12(1), 107–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Mika, M. (2006). Framing the issue: Religion, secular ethics and the case of animal rights mobilization. Social Forces, 85(2), 915–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.Google Scholar
  80. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter. (1997, June 26). U.S. investment research: A report on conditions in international manufacturing facilities for NIKE. Nike is doing a ‘good job’.Google Scholar
  81. Moser, S. C. (2007). In the long shadows of inaction: The quiet building of a climate protection movement in the United States. Global Environmental Politics, 7(2), 124–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Neville, B. A., Bell, S. J., & Whitwell, G. J. (2011). Stakeholder salience revisited: Refining, redefining, and refueling an underdeveloped conceptual tool. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(3), 357–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Newenham-Kahindi, A. M. (2011). A global mining corporation and local communities in the lake Victoria zone: The case of Barrick Gold multinational in Tanzania. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(2), 253–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. O’Rourke, D. (2006). Multi-stakeholder regulation: Privatizing or socializing global labor standards? World Development, 34(5), 899–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Palazzo, G., & Basu, K. (2007). The ethical backlash of corporate branding. Journal of Business Ethics, 73(4), 333–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Protess, D. L., Cook, F. L., Doppelt, J. C., Ettema, J. S., Gordon, M. T., Leff, D. R., et al. (1992). The journalism of outrage: Investigative reporting and agenda building in America. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  87. Pruyt, E., & Kwakkel, J. (2007). Combining system dynamics and ethics: Towards more science? Paper presented at the 25th international conference of the system dynamics society, July 29–August 2, Boston, USA.Google Scholar
  88. Ragas, M. W. (2010). Agenda-building and agenda-setting in corporate proxy contests: Exploring influence among public relations efforts, financial media coverage and investor opinion. Doctoral dissertation, Graduate School of the University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.Google Scholar
  89. Ragas, M. W. (2012). Issue and stakeholder intercandidate agenda setting among corporate information subsidies. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89, 91–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Ragas, M. W., & Roberts, M. S. (2009). Agenda setting and agenda melding in an age of horizontal and vertical media: A new theoretical lens for virtual brand communities. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86, 45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Read, R. (1997, September 21). New report puts Nike in labor spotlight. The Oregonian.Google Scholar
  92. Reese, S. D. (2007). The framing project: A bridging model for media research revisited. Journal of Communication, 57, 148–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Reynolds, S. J., Schultz, F. C., & Hekman, D. R. (2006). Stakeholder theory and managerial decision-making: Constraints and implications of balancing stakeholder interests. Journal of Business Ethics, 64(3), 285–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Saporito, B. (1998). Can Nike get unstuck? Time, 151(12), 48.Google Scholar
  95. Saunders, B. (1997, November 6). Conscience still twinges on campus. Raleigh News & Observer.Google Scholar
  96. Schurman, R., & Munro, W. (2006). Ideas, thinkers and social networks: The process of grievance construction in the anti-genetic engineering movement. Theory and Society, 35(1), 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Shaw, D. L., McCombs, M. E., Weaver, D. H., & Hamm, B. J. (1999). Individuals, groups, and agenda melding: A theory of social dissonance. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 11(1), 2–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Shoemaker, P., & Vos, T. (2009). Gatekeeping theory. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  99. Sine, W. D., & Lee, B. H. (2009). Tilting at windmills? The environmental movement and the emergence of the U.S. wind energy sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 123–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Sohn, Y. J., Lariscy, R. W., & Tinkham, S. F. (2009). The impact of CEO reputation: Negative news and economic decisions. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 3(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Stancill, J. (1997, October 30). UNC activists organizing big-game play against Nike. Raleigh News & Observer.Google Scholar
  102. Sterman, J. D. (1991). A skeptic’s guide to computer models. In G. O. Barney, W. B. Kreutzer, & M. J. Garrett (Eds.), Managing a nation: The microcomputer software catalog (pp. 209–229). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  103. Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modelling for a complex world. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  104. Sterman, J. D. (2001). System dynamics modeling: Tools for learning in a complex world. California Management Review, 43(4), 8–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Strömbäck, J., & Kiousis, S. (2010). A new look at agenda-setting effects—Comparing the predictive power of overall political news consumption and specific news media consumption across different media channels and media types. Journal of Communication, 60, 271–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Tedesco, J. C. (2001). Issue and strategy agenda-setting in the 2000 presidential primaries. American Behavioral Scientist, 44(12), 2048–2067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Tedesco, J. C. (2005a). Intercandidate agenda setting in the 2004 democratic presidential primary. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(1), 92–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Tedesco, J. C. (2005b). Issue and strategy agenda setting in the 2004 presidential election: Exploring the candidate–journalist relationship. Journalism Studies, 6(2), 187–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Tsuchiya, T. (2003). Corporate business ethics—Analysis and leverage. Paper presented at the 21st international conference of the system dynamics society, July 20–24, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  110. Turk, J. V. (1985). Information subsidies and influence. Public Relations Review, 11(3), 10–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Uscinski, J. E. (2009). When does the public’s issue agenda affect the media’s issue agenda (and vice-versa)? Developing a framework for media-public influence. Social Science Quarterly, 90(4), 796–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Werhane, P. H. (2002). Moral imagination and systems thinking. Journal of Business Ethics, 38, 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Wilson, E. (1997, October 7). Labor rallies on seventh ave. Women’s Wear Daily.Google Scholar
  114. Woodly, D. (2008). New competencies in democratic communication? Blogs, agenda setting and political participation. Public Choice, 134, 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Zhou, Y., & Moy, P. (2007). Parsing framing processes: The interplay between online public opinion and media coverage. Journal of Communication, 57, 79–98.Google Scholar
  116. Ziek, P. E. (2012). Inter-organizational infrastructure for communication: A study of the generative aspects of the communication context on CSR strategy and instrumentation. Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Besiou
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mark Lee Hunter
    • 2
  • Luk N. Van Wassenhove
    • 2
  1. 1.Kuehne Logistics UniversityHamburgGermany
  2. 2.INSEADEurope Campus, Boulevard de ConstanceFontainebleauFrance

Personalised recommendations