In the previous lesson, we learned about public politics, strategies that apply to nonmarket action that takes place in government arenas. In this lesson, we consider strategies for nonmarket action that takes place outside of public arenas, called private politics.
By the end of this lesson, you should be able to...
The table below provides an overview of the requirements for Lesson 3. For details, please see individual assignments.
Please refer to the Calendar for specific time frames and due dates.
REQUIREMENT | SUBMITTING YOUR WORK |
---|---|
Read Lesson 3 content and any additional assigned material | Not submitted. |
Weekly Activity 3 | Yes—Complete Activity located in the Modules Tab. |
In the previous lesson, we dealt with nonmarket strategy in the arena of public politics, where firms and interest groups compete in the context of the institution of government for advantage on an issue. In this lesson, we will focus on private politics, when the competition between firms and other stakeholders takes place outside of the context of the institution of government
In this lesson, we will also carry forward with the RPS Case study. In parts 1 and 2 we established the issue and background, identified stakeholders, and assessed the demand for and supply of nonmarket action for each. In part 3 of the RPS Case Study, we will consider nonmarket strategy options based on the results of our issue analysis.
Many nonmarket issues are addressed in public institutions, …, which deal with lawmaking, regulation, and the legal system. The competition between firms and other interests [stakeholders] over the resolution of these issues in the context of the institutions of government is called public politics. Other nonmarket issues are addressed largely outside, but often in the shadow of, public institutions. These issues are advanced by the strategies of individuals, firms, interest groups, activists, and NGOs [non-government organizations] and range from direct pressure, as in the case of consumer boycotts, to attempts to influence public sentiment. The competition between a firm and these other groups over the resolution of issues outside of government institutions is called private politics.
Private politics can be motivated by self-interest as well as by broader concerns. In some cases, it arises because an individual becomes concerned about an issue, as in the instance [...] of the person who telephoned Larry King and said that his wife had died from brain cancer caused by radiation from heavy use of a cellular telephone. More often, private politics originates from interest groups, as when the U.S. labor unions act to demand higher wages and improved working conditions in the overseas factories supplying the apparel and footwear industries. [ …] Private politics is also initiated by activists, advocacy groups and NGOs that serve the interests of others in addition to the interests of their members. The causes these individuals, interest groups, and NGOs pursue are important components of the nonmarket environments, and the issues on their agendas are frequently thrust onto the agendas of firms. Understanding their concerns, organization, and strategies is essential for formulating effective strategies to address the issues they advance and the pressures they generate.
Private politics affects the issues, interests, institutions, and information that comprise the nonmarket environment. First, those initiating private politics can identify issues about which management either is unaware or has not understood as important to others, as in the case of the possible health risks from cellular telephone radiation. Similarly, the actions of Greenpeace calling attention to Shell UK’s plan to sink the oil storage platform, Brent Spar, in the North Atlantic generated intense private politics in Europe even though the plan had been approved by the UK government. Individuals and interest and activist groups thus play an important role in setting the nonmarket agendas of firms and in advancing issues through their life cycles. Oil companies now involve stakeholders as well as governments in developing disposal plans for oil platforms. Moreover, the issues these groups raise and the concerns they express may point in the direction of more effective and responsible management.
Second, these groups can affect the organization of interests by forming watchdog and advocacy groups and by mobilizing people to work for causes. These groups have been instrumental in advancing the causes of environmental protection, health, and safety protection for consumers, and civil and human rights. These organizations are an increasingly important component of the nonmarket environment.
Third, the pressure these groups exert can affect the institutional configuration of the nonmarket environment. In public politics their actions have led to new laws, expanded regulatory authority, court orders, legislative oversight activities, and executive branch initiatives. These groups were the prime movers behind the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Consumer Products Safety Commission, and organized labor worked for the creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA]. In private politics, activists have spurred the formation of private governance organization such as the Fair Labor Association and the Forest Stewardship Council, which govern the private regulation of labor practices in overseas apparel and footwear factories and in timber harvesting and forest management, respectively. This private regulation has been growing as an alternative to government regulation.
Fourth, individuals, interest groups, and activists provide information that influences public and private politics. Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring [a book, published in 1962 and credited by many as starting the environmental movement] spurred the environmental movement by calling attention to the harmful effects of DDT. Activists at the Earth Island Institute spurred a public outcry and boycotts of tuna products when they produced a film showing dolphins drowning in nets used to catch tuna.1The news media plays a major role in disseminating this information, and an important component of private politics strategies is to attract media coverage. […]
Regardless of whether these groups are right in their causes, their actions can damage a firm, its reputation, and its constituents. Some products, rightly or wrongly, have been doomed by the actions of activists. Ralph Nader’s attacks on the safety of the General Motors Corvair, for instance, contributed to the car’s elimination. Activists have been vocal opponents of agricultural biotechnology, causing delays in new products and increased costs. The strength of activists groups varies across countries. The opposition to agricultural biotechnology has remained moderate in the United States, as more products have been brought to market without the harmful effects claimed by their critics. Opposition to agricultural biotechnology, however, remains strong in much of Europe. Because of private politics, a major Swiss pharmaceutical company located biotechnology units just over the French border and connected those units by pipeline to its plant just inside Switzerland. In effect, the plant lies on both sides of the border with the biotechnology components located in France.
1Putnam, Todd. (1993). “Boycotts are Busting Out All Over.” Business and Society Review, 47-51.
At this point, please complete Reading Assignment 3--Private or Public Politics? (Baron, 2010, 95-96), located in the Lesson 3 module in Canvas.
In private politics, stakeholders work to advance their position on an issue by using a strategy of direct pressure on one another, most often this is interest groups putting pressure on firms.
A boycott is a “concerted refusal to have dealings with (as a person, store, or organization) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions” (Merriam Webster [7]). Boycotts may be made on an individual scale (e.g., there are stores where I don’t shop because of their politics) or by a group (e.g. the mining town in Colorado that boycotted [8] a nearby brewery for supporting a local environmental group that wanted to shut down a local coal mine). Boycotts may be organized from the bottom up or top down, with the cost of organizing greatly reduced by today’s technology.
However, do boycotts really have an effect on either the performance of firms or on their policies? Baron (2010, p. 22) reports that “nearly all targets [of boycotts] state that a boycott had no significant effect on their performance,” and that results overall vary by issue. However, as you will see below, boycotts can be impactful in some ways. In addition, even if the boycott does not achieve the desired goal, significant benefit may come to the organizer in terms of media coverage and publicity.
This tactic identifies a specific firm that has an objectionable activity, product, or service and provides information about the perceived harm to the public. The objective is “to harm the target firm by damaging its brand, its reputation or the morale of its employees.” In dealing with interactions of this nature, a “trust gap” often comes into play where one party has greater credibility with the public than another. In their 2021 global survey [11], Edelman (a well-known "global communications marketing firm") found that more of the public trusts businesses (61%) than non-governmental organizations (NGOs) (57%), the government (53%), and the media (41%). (Feel free to explore the data in this survey, including the full report [12] - there is some fascinating info in there. For example, only 18% of folks who voted for Donald Trump in 2020 trust the media, as opposed to 57% of Biden voters. Also, trust in the media by Trump voters dropped from 33% to 18% between November and December 2020, i.e. the election and it's "aftermath" caused a 15 percentage point drop in trust in the media [as well as a 16% drop in trust in the government and even 6% drop in trust in business]. A 2007 survey highlighted the trust gap between consumers and corporations, reporting that “Sixty-eight percent of executives say that large corporations make a generally or somewhat positive contribution to the public good. Yet only 48% of consumers agree” (Bonini, Sheila M. J., McKillop, Kerrin and Mendonca, Lenny T., The McKinsey Quarterly, 2007, Number 2, pp 7 – 10).
Methods for applying pressure to a named “target” seek to get word out to the public by attracting media to an issue. This may include print, cable, and broadcast media, as well as social media and other Internet-based channels (e.g., YouTube, e-mail, blogging). To attract attention, groups may hold events such as demonstrations or press conferences to release data, studies, or allegations.
Naming and shaming can be done alone, for example when Donald Trump threatened the motorcycle company Harley Davidson [13] on Twitter with a "big tax" when it announced it was shifting some production overseas to avoid tariffs levied by the European Union. While former President Trump had limited ability to actually follow through with the threat (a tax would obviously be in the realm of public politics), his naming and shaming impacted Harley Davidson's image, and likely contributing to a proposed boycott [14] of the company (thus impacted private politics).
Note that any publicized boycott effectively constitute naming and shaming as well. Any number of examples could be cited, but this is a campaign from Marcellus Drilling News (MDN) [15] urging readers/members to boycott the clothing company Patagonia because it advocated against (among other things) a proposed natural gas pipeline in the Eastern United States. MDN names and shames Patagonia while explaining its rationale for a boycott. In short, it's difficult to run an effective boycott campaign without naming and shaming, but naming and shaming can be done without boycotting. (In related nonmarket news, Patagonia boycotted Utah's outdoor trade show [16] over a disagreement about Bears Ears National Monument.)
The party that initiates such an action will have a first-mover advantage, giving it the opportunity to frame an issue and make allegations that often take the target off guard, unprepared to make a quick and effective public response. In the Harley Davidson example above, it was difficult for the firm to counteract Trump's argument because he had successfully framed the issue as one of Harley Davidson needlessly killing American jobs, even though the EU tariffs were projected to cost the company upwards of $100 million in 2018 and that the tariffs were levied as a response to steel and aluminum tariffs levied by the Trump Administration. Often, by the time the "named and shamed" responds, the issue is already framed.
In an effort to apply pressure related to an issue, a group may target an individual for activities related to the individual’s professional or personal roles. For example, a CEO who personally donates to or otherwise supports a group on the other side of an issue. Note that the difference between this and naming and shaming is that it targets individuals instead of firms.
In a particularly public targeting, Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, was targeted for his professional role by the privacy advocacy group Consumer Watchdog [19]. The group launched an attack on Schmidt in response to what the group perceived as Google's intrusions on privacy. Consumer Watchdog ran a 15-sec clip on a large screen in Time Square that promoted a longer video, featuring a “ghoulish” character of the CEO in a creepy interaction with children (which many found offensive). Text stating "He is collecting your personal information" flashes across the screen. Viewers are then given a number to text to send a message to Google, telling them to stop collecting private information. You can see the (:15) video below:
Interest groups may use a firm’s annual shareholders meeting as an opportunity to question the company in a venue where the exchange will be reported to the public. Shareholder resolutions that make it onto the proxy ballot may influence a firm's practices, regardless of whether or not the resolution passes. (These resolutions are non-binding, and thus do not have to be followed.) This may also result in a formal filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (a move to public politics), as discussed in the previous lesson. We'll address this more in this week's Lesson 3 questions.
Nonmarket action by Exxon shareholders in the spring of 2021 resulted in what many in the energy industry have referred to as an "earth shattering" moment for the energy industry. Read the article below for details on this seminal event.
In some cases, interest groups and firms will choose to work together to improve practices. What a novel idea! Baron (2010, p 98) cites the example of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative [21] (SFI) which was developed by the timber industry in cooperation with Conservation International and the Nature Conservancy. Admirable to some, but to others, SFI is a case of the “fox watching the hen house.” The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) was also formed by a mix of "businesses, environmentalists, and community leaders [22]" from all over the world [23] and continues to be governed by a mix of firms and interest groups. They tout their "market-based approach" (a sure sign of private politics) to improving forestry practices. The Marine Stewardship Council, formed in the United Kingdom in 1996, has a similar history [24]. This organization is still very active, and was formed by a mix of private- and non-profit stakeholders that came together to address the sustainability of the world's fisheries.
Note that this is equivalent to coalition building in the realm of public politics.
An effective way to call attention to an issue is to “release” scientific data that supports a group’s position on an issue. To do this, a group may design and conduct a study or an investigation, then compile and announce the findings, or the group may seize on the release of studies done by others. Information in this form can add credibility to the claims being made, draw considerable public attention, and encourage sympathetic legislation.
This is a common strategy for many organizations of all political stripes. For example, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released a report [25] in 2015 that analyzes the risk to U.S. states based on over-reliance of natural gas. UCS is known as a progressive organization. The World Resources Institute [26] is a "global research organization" that publishes a variety of sustainability-based research reports, with a global focus. The CATO Institute [27] is a well-known libertarian think tank, and publishes reports supporting "free market" principles, while the Heritage Foundation [28] is a think tank that "promote(s) conservative public policies," and is often the go-to organization for conservative politicians in the U.S. Note that most of these organizations engage in other nonmarket activity, both public and private.
The image above is from a protest in the Philippines in 2015. This was part of a campaign [31] by the anti-climate change environmental organization 350.org. The goal of this campaign is to have the Vatican Bank "divest" from fossil fuels, i.e., pull investments from fossil fuel-based industries. The divestment movement has been happening worldwide, mostly on college campuses, with mixed success.
Can you name the private nonmarket strategies being employed?
ANSWER:There are at least two strategies evident here. The Vatican is being "named and shamed," and thought it's being done in a relatively benign way, the protesters "targeted" Pope Francis (note the sign calling him out by name). If a firm (e.g., a solar company or other business) were involved in the protest, then "cooperation" was likely taking place between the firm and 350.org, which is an interest group.
One nonmarket movement that has picked up steam in the past few years is "divestment." The main targets have been university endowments [32], which are investment funds run by universities that can run into the billions of dollars. The top 10 endowments in U.S. colleges alone have nearly $200 billion [33]. However, as you'll see in the articles below, many other institutions - pension funds, cities, non-profits, and some banks - have joined this movement. The main goal of this movement has been to convince endowment holders to divest from industries and firms that interest groups see as socially- and/or environmentally-irresponsible, the primary focus being the fossil fuel industry.
The information analysis framework described in previous lessons is used to guide the formulation of nonmarket strategy. Initially, multiple possible nonmarket strategies are generated for consideration--which nonmarket action(s) best serve our interests? Baron (2010, p 50) recommends that these alternative strategies be evaluated in three stages: Screening, Analysis, and Choice.
The screening stage identifies and eliminates nonmarket strategy alternatives that are a) against the law, b) contrary to company/organization policy or c) violate widely accepted ethics principles.
The analysis stage relies on economics, political science, and other social sciences to predict the actions and reactions of other stakeholders. The analysis stage also takes into account moral motivations of nonmarket behavior and how others may react to the actions taken.
In the third stage, a choice is made. The objective for making the selection is typically value creation, measured in terms of the impact on stakeholder(s). However, if the issue involves moral concerns, then principles of well-being, rights, and justice must be considered.
One reason a strategy may be screened out is because it violates accepted ethics. But what does this mean? Ethics is a systematic (or codified) approach to moral judgments. Ethics deals with matters of human well-being, liberty, and freedom and is based on moral standards that are impartial, universal, and independent of governments and authoritative bodies. But making an "ethical" decision is often easier said than done. For example, drug testing in the workplace is ethical in one sense, if it keeps society safe. But unethical in another sense if it violates a worker's right to privacy. These questions can be particularly challenging for energy industries where corporations compete in a marketplace under a long shadow of powerful nonmarket forces loaded with uncertainty--involving the environment, regulation, and customers who themselves are struggling to balance their energy needs, pocketbooks, and moral compasses. Are any of us driving the car we think is most "right"? More likely, we are driving a car we can afford and that is "right enough."
Business ethics is the application of ethics principles to issues that arise in business. ...business ethics pertains to situations in which individuals are in an organizational position and act as agents of the company and its owners. [...] In an organization role, a manager must reason about situations in which virtue is not always present, conceptions of what is good or right differ among individuals, and interests are in conflict. [...] Good ethics is not necessarily beneficial to an individual or profitable for a firm; however, good ethics is good for society and is a requirement of good management. Although good ethics may not always be profitable, unethical behavior can result in substantial losses (Baron, 2010, p. 655).
The following are four reasons (Baron, 2010, p. 711) why it is important that decision makers maintain a sensitivity to moral dimensions of an issue:
But making ethical choices, even by even the most well intended, can be difficult. Many of us have personally been in situations where we wanted to do the "right" thing, but really didn't know what the right thing was. Tell, don't tell? In business, decisions need to be made in situations where there are competing moral claims that require judgments about the effects of decisions on individuals, their rights, and their well-being. How does one do this?
Davis (1999) recommends seven "tests" for evaluating alternatives and ethical decision making:
A particularly egregious (and illegal) breach of corporate ethics was revealed in 2015 when it was found that Volkswagen had installed so-called "defeat devices" in millions of their vehicles. These devices were pieces of software that would alter the operational characteristics of the engine when they determined that an emissions test was being run. When this happened, the emissions (e.g., carbon dioxide and nitrogen) would be lower than they would be under standard operating conditions. Note that this precipitated both nonmarket (e.g., fines by the U.S. EPA) and market (car sales slumping) activity. Skim through the following summary, which is the best I've found of this major international scandal. Can you identify any of Davis' ethical tests that were not violated? Seriously - go through them one-by-one and think about it! (Note that the firm is still dealing with consequences of this action, and that more details [38] of unethical and illegal behavior have been surfacing.)
Many companies now have well-publicized "Corporate Statements of Social Responsibility," "Codes of Ethics," and even positions with a title such as Ethics Officer. Baron (2010, p. 724) cites two factors contributing to the spread of statements of social responsibility:
What does this mean, exactly, a "corporate statement of responsibility?" The International Standards Organization (ISO) has set forth a voluntary standard for social responsibility in an international setting. The figure below illustrates the content addressed in the standard, including seven core subjects of social responsibility: organizational governance, human rights, labour practices, the environment, fair operating practices, consumer issues, and community involvement and development.
Visit the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) [42]
Read the landing page, then click on the "Standards" tab, then reread the page and watch the short video, "What ISO standards do for you." (transcript of video [43])
Read the page ISO 26000 - Social Responsibility [44] (transcript of Social Responsibility video [45]) (not required, but watch video if you have 47 seconds!)
On this same page, click the link to "ISO 26000:2010 Guidance on Social Responsibility." Click on the Abstract Preview and read the first few paragraphs of "Introduction" closely (you can stop at Box 1), and scan the remainder.
The following Case Study is written by the course designer. The framework of this Case Study reflects actual Pennsylvania policy and data. All information about stakeholders, especially assessments related to the likelihood of participation in nonmarket action and the strategy that may or may not be evoked is the author's opinion and presented in a manner to best demonstrate the lesson content of this course. This Case Study does not necessarily represent the actual position or strategy held or planned by any named stakeholder.
In the first part of this Case Study, we identified the issue and provided background, including a full description of the principles of Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) policy. In the second part, we considered the issue from the viewpoint of a wide range of stakeholders. Using an orderly format and presentation, we formulated a description of each stakeholder, initial position, and an assessment of all factors related to the demand for and supply of nonmarket action. In this part 3, we will now present an analysis of our findings and suggest strategy options.
The following nonmarket strategy is prepared from the point of view of the Mid-Atlantic Renewable Energy Association (MAREA), which supports the passing of SB 300.
Recall that the issue is: "Do you support or oppose PA SB 300?." Since this bill is being debated in the PA Senate, that is the arena.
First we will consider the three general strategies (of public politics):
Representation strategy (mobilizing voters). MAREA has low cost of organizing and extensive coverage and they have a history of mobilizing voters. This may be a good option.
Majority building strategy (direct recruiting of public office holders). MAREA has some experience in this area, but doesn’t have established access to or relationships with many Legislators (especially those opposed). As a nonprofit, MAREA is also limited in its political activities. These limitations will be considered carefully later in this case study as we evaluate individual strategies.
Informational Strategies (data and understanding about an issue). Within its membership and board, MAREA has deep experience and knowledge with the issue at hand. The bill itself is not very complicated, but the implications have some nuance to them, e.g. how an RPS works and how they impact SRECs. In addition, most people have no experience with or understanding of SRECs and how they impact the solar market. It may be worthwhile to educate constituents in order to foster support.
Lobbying: In a lobbying strategy, MAREA would seek to influence the votes of Legislators by accessing the lawmakers directly and providing strategic information. Because MAREA is an IRS Section 501(c)(3) Organization (a type of non-profit), it is limited in how much lobbying action it is allowed to take. This strategy will be screened out because it is “contrary to the law.”
Electoral Support: In an electoral support strategy, MAREA would focus on providing resources that help candidates during elections. Again, because of its Section 501(3)(c) status, MAREA is prohibited from taking these actions.
Grassroots: A grassroots strategy would build on the connection between voters and their elected officials, and may be used as part of an informational or representation strategy. With its considerable number (8,000), extensive coverage and low cost of organizing, this is a good strategy. Again, however, restrictions apply because of their 501(c)(3) tax status, and the nature of the communication would need to be primarily educational and non-partisan.
Coalition Building:
In a coalition building strategy, MAREA would work with other stakeholders who support the bill. To this end, MAREA had recently established a reciprocating relationship with PA-SEIA, where the two organizations provide one another with “honorary” memberships. PA-SEIA is a section 501(c)(6) nonprofit with far fewer restrictions on its legislative and political activities.
PennFuture, another nonprofit supporting passage of this bill, is much larger than MAREA and PA-SEIA and has a broader focus. MAREA works with PennFuture analysts on relevant policy issues as they arise and directs MAREA members to PennFuture resources and events. The opportunity for a more formalized coalition is limited by the different size and focus of the organizations.
System owners in PA (large and small) are assessed to be highly motivated (a “large” to “substantial” demand for market action) but the predicted level of actual market action is low due to the high cost of organizing. Opportunities for coalition with these promising stakeholders appear limited.
Solar installers are also a promising group but without structure or organization. The possibility of forming an effective coalition seems limited.
Ratepayers supporting the passage of HB1580 have a low demand for action and very high cost of organizing, making them, all in all, a poor option for coalition building.
Testimony: Opportunities for testimony on this issue are not available and will not be part of the planned strategy. No one has been invited to testify about the bill, there is no legal action being taken (i.e. no opportunities for testifying in court), and the bill is not open for public comment. If opportunities arise, they will be considered on a case by case basis.
Public Advocacy: In a public advocacy strategy, MAREA would communicate directly to the public conveying a particular position on an issue. Again, activities of this nature are limited by MAREA’s IRS standing; however, non-partisan educational communications can be done without restraint. Educating the general public about how an increased RPS would positively impact the solar industry without stating specific support for SB 300 is something that could be done, for example.
Judicial Actions: Judicial strategies are not applicable to this issue at this point. The current RPS is legal, so there is no valid basis for a lawsuit.
Proposed Strategy: Regarding its ability to participate in public politics, MAREA is constrained by its IRS categorization as a Section 501(3)(c) nonprofit. It may carry out some activities that attempt to influence legislation, but these may not be a “substantial” part of the organization’s activities. Other activities, however, such as educational meetings, the preparation and distribution of educational materials, or other efforts related to public policy issues in an educational manner may be performed without violating the rules for a 501(3)(c) organization.
Recognizing this, and the untapped potential demand for action on the part of system owners in PA, MAREA proposes the following strategy:
Through events, white papers, and speaking invitations, work to educate MAREA members and interested public on topics related to solar technology, policy, markets, rules, and issues.
If contact info for system owners in PA is successfully acquired through the RTKL, the cost of organizing will drop considerably. This will change the nonmarket analysis for this stakeholder. With the easier mobilization of this large group that has complete regional coverage, the predicted amount of nonmarket action will go from limited to high.
May 2023: No action has been taken on updating PA AEPS.
Please review Canvas calendar for all due dates related to your Nonmarket Analysis Case Study.
Complete "Lesson 3 Quiz," located in the Lesson 3 Module. The activity may include a variety of question types, such as multiple choice, multiple select, ordering, matching, true/false, and "essay" (in some cases these require independent research and may be quantitative). Be sure to read each question carefully.
Unless specifically instructed otherwise, the answers to all questions come from the material presented in the course lesson. Do NOT go "googling around" to find an answer. To complete the Activity successfully, you will need to read the lesson, and all assigned readings, fully and carefully.
Each week, a few questions may involve research beyond the material presented in the course lesson. This "research" requirement will be made clear in the question instructions. Be sure to allow yourself time for this!
This Activity is to be done individually and is to represent YOUR OWN WORK. (See Academic Integrity and Research Ethics [47] for a full description of the College's policy related to Academic Integrity and penalties for violation.)
The Activity is not timed, but does close at midnight EST on the due date as shown on the Calendar.
If you have questions about the assignment, please post them to the "Questions about EME 444?" Discussion Forum. I am happy to provide clarification and guidance to help you understand the material and questions (really!). Of course, it is best to ask early.
In this lesson, you learned about general types of nonmarket strategy and specific strategies for activities in non-government arenas (private politics). The case study continued from the previous lessons, and concluded here developed a nonmarket strategy based on the outcomes of the nonmarket analysis. The case study introduced new concepts related to non-profit organizations and their role in the nonmarket arena.
You learned:
You have reached the end of Lesson 3! Double-check the list of requirements on the first page of this lesson to make sure you have completed all the activities listed there.
Links
[1] http://www.flickr.com/photos/hugo90/4139063193/
[2] http://www.flickr.com/photos/hugo90/
[3] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
[4] http://www.flickr.com/photos/mjb/238786746/
[5] http://www.flickr.com/photos/mjb/
[6] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/
[7] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/boycott
[8] http://www.mensjournal.com/food-drink/drinks/why-a-colorado-town-is-boycotting-new-belgium-brewing-20150806
[9] http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127110643
[10] http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/09/the-trump-era-corporate-boycott
[11] https://www.edelman.com/trust/2021-trust-barometer
[12] https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2021-03/2021%20Edelman%20Trust%20Barometer.pdf
[13] http://time.com/5322066/donald-trump-threatens-harley-davidson-twitter/
[14] https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/12/politics/trump-harley-davidson-overseas-manufacturing/index.html
[15] http://marcellusdrilling.com/2016/10/time-to-boycott-patagonia-for-anti-pipeline-radicalism/
[16] http://www.stargazette.com/story/news/2017/05/04/new-national-monuments-targets-revocation/101302658/
[17] https://www.flickr.com/photos/itzafineday/3085307050/in/photostream/
[18] https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
[19] http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/
[20] https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/shareholder-activism-reaches-milestone-exxon-board-vote-nears-end-2021-05-26/
[21] http://www.sfiprogram.org/
[22] https://us.fsc.org/en-us/who-we-are/our-history
[23] http://memberportal.fsc.org/
[24] http://20-years.msc.org/
[25] http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/12/natural-gas-overreliance-analysis-document.pdf
[26] http://www.wri.org/
[27] http://www.cato.org/
[28] http://www.heritage.org/
[29] http://www.flickr.com/photos/labor2008/4619158876/
[30] https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/
[31] http://act.350.org/sign/divest_vatican/
[32] http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/universityendowment.asp
[33] http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/the-short-list-college/articles/2016-10-04/10-universities-with-the-biggest-endowments
[34] https://www.renewableenergyhub.co.uk/blog/what-is-fossil-fuel-divestment/
[35] https://truthout.org/articles/are-fossil-fuel-divestment-campaigns-working-a-conversation-with-economist-robert-pollin/
[36] https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidcarlin/2021/02/20/the-case-for-fossil-fuel-divestment/?sh=66c6d4e376d2
[37] https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-movement-to-divest-from-fossil-fuels-gains-momentum
[38] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/business/inquiry-in-emissions-scandal-widens-to-volkswagens-top-levels.html
[39] http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34324772
[40] https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:26000:en
[41] https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:26000:ed-1:v1:en
[42] http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about.htm
[43] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eme444/440
[44] http://www.iso.org/iso/iso26000
[45] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eme444/441
[46] http://www.asrc.cestm.albany.edu/perez/2011/solval.pdf
[47] https://www.ems.psu.edu/undergraduate/academic-integrity/academic-integrity-undergraduates