## 2 Trends and Gaps in Digital Activism Research
### Features of Industry That Condition the Response to Digital Activism  
This paper departs from the extant literature in terms of its unit of analysis. Whereas most of the existing literature considers how digital activism impacts individual firms, scant research has examined responses to digital activism from industries as a whole [30]. Yet, there are a number of good reasons to believe that industries might respond differently to digital activism than individual firms. These reasons centre around the nature of the demands imposed by digital activism, the materiality of the threat posed by industry-wide campaigns, and the capacity of industries to respond to activist demands. First, we can reasonably assume that digital activists may seek different types of change from industries than they would from individual firms. As [PERSON] and [PERSON] [31] note, activists may alternately seek field-level change or organization-specific change, both of which have unique tactical repertoires. Digital activism directed at industries often focuses on broader, industry-wide practices that can be more difficult to address. For example, Extinction Rebellion's #DefundClimateChaos campaign asks the financial industry to stop lending money to fossil fuel projects. Fulfilling this demand would necessitate major changes to lending practices at financial institutions around the world. By contrast, digital activism directed at specific firms can make more targeted demands (i.e., remove a problematic CEO or stop sourcing raw material from a bad supplier). Thus, explanations for how industries and firms respond to digital activism must allow for the possibility that the nature of the demands varies in accordance with the target. Second, there is the question of the material and reputational risk posed by digital activism. The risk of digital activism to the reputation of individual firms can be acute [27]. However, it is not clear that industry-focused activism consistently poses the same material or reputational threat. When industries are targeted with digital activism, the risk is diffused risk across all firms within that industry. Thus, industries arguably have more leverage to ignore activists, allow their members to point the finger at their competitors, or await unilateral firm-level responses. For example, the global outrage over the killing of [PERSON] by trophy hunters did nothing to slow the trophy hunting industry as a whole [19]. Thus, industry responses to digital activism may differ from firm responses because industries may face different pressures to respond. Third, industries have a different capacity to respond to digital activism when compared to individual firms. Past research has established that smaller firms are more responsive to stakeholder pressure than larger ones [32]. Part of the reason for this lies in the complexity of decision-making structures. Smaller firms have more simplified decision-making structures than larger ones [33]. Following this logic, industry associations and other representative bodies have more complicated decision-making structures since they have to represent the interests of a heterogeneous group of members. Even if a majority of members support a particular response, there remains an implementation problem. An industry association or individual firm can endorse a particular course of action but ultimately has little leverage to compel its members to follow that course of action. Thus, we might expect industries and industry associations to respond differently than firms to digital activism because they lack the coherent and unilateral decision-making authority of individual firms. While industries share certain common features, it is worth noting that not all industries will respond similarly to digital activism. There may be significant variation between industries depending on their degree of unity, level of fluency with social media, and capacity to engage with activists.