Many firms have demonstrated a willingness to take public stances on sociopolitical issues that do not directly impact them. Scholars refer to this form of nonmarket action as corporate sociopolitical activism (CSA). The extant literature has shown that stakeholders respond both positively and negatively to CSA; however, a general assumption has been that ideologically aligned stakeholders react positively to CSA. We challenge this assumption by theorizing that there are instances when ideologically aligned stakeholders will respond positively (i.e., mobilize in support of) and negatively to (i.e., contest) CSA. We explain these reactions across four dimensions— authenticity, relatedness, regularity, and timing. Current research has also assumed homogeneity regarding the types of firms engaging in CSA. We challenge this notion as well. Drawing from the social evaluations literature, we argue that firms have differing CSA reputations (i.e., high or low), which engender varying reactions from ideologically aligned stakeholders. In sum, we advance theorizing on CSA by providing a comprehensive theoretical framework that describes the instances in which ideologically aligned stakeholders will mobilize in support of and contest the activism of high and low CSA reputation firms. In so doing, we advance research investigating how firms behave like social movements.
