## 1 Introduction  
As societal expectations for responsible business conduct continue to grow, a growing amount of activism has moved online [1, 2]. Alternately termed digitally native activism [2], cyber activism [3], clicktivism [4], hacktivism [5], or 'e-mobilization' [1], activism on social media platforms like Twitter or Instagram has increased exponentially in recent years as users attempt to pressure individuals, businesses, or political organizations into taking action on social, environmental, or ethical issues [6, 7, 8]. Hereforth, I use the term 'digital activism'--defined as social activism mediated through digital technologies [5, 9]--to conceptualize the full spectrum of activism targeting industries that occurs on social media. Digital activism spans industrial sectors and issue areas. It can be directed at a single company (e.g., #BoycottNestle) or targeted at an entire industry (e.g., #DairyIsScary). The potential inherent in digital activism lies in its ability to ripple up supply chains and across national borders. For example, activism targeted at large palm oil buyers in Europe and North America (e.g., Unilever) can affect how palm oil is grown and harvested in countries like Indonesia and Malaysia. While the prevalence and potential of digital activism are widely accepted, its effectiveness is hotly debated [10, 11]. Proponents of digital activism see it as a continuation of activism by other means but with the advantage of reducing the costs of participating in collective action [12, 13, 14]. Proponents would further argue that social media can influence behaviour more quickly due to its greater velocity, reach, and emotionality when compared with traditional activism [15, 16]. By contrast, skeptics deride digital activism as a superficial and ineffective substitute for conventional activism (i.e., \"slacktivism\") [17, 18]. Theycontend that digital activism lacks the unity of purpose and strong inter-activist linkages required to create cohesive and durable social movements [19; 20]. This paper intervenes in this debate by asking under what conditions will digital activism elicit a response from industry? What is the nature of that response and how does it impact sustainable supply chain practices? It does so through an in-depth examination of an illustrative case within the broader landscape of digital activism. The case in question examines the use of a contentious bioproduct (palm oil derivatives) as a feed supplement by the Canadian dairy industry. The incident is colloquially referred to as #buttergate. #Buttergate emerged in early 2021 when social media users observed that their butter was harder than usual at room temperature. Subsequently, these same social media users hypothesized that palm oil derivatives were causing the change in butter and took aim at the Canadian dairy industry for fueling deforestation and biodiversity loss in Southeast Asia. I analyze the timing, provenance, and content of an original dataset of 2461 tweets and conduct 14 key informant interviews to understand how #buttergate started, what conditions were present, and what response and changes to sustainable supply chain practices it prompted from the Canadian dairy industry. This topic is timely because little is known about how industries respond to digital activism. Below, I argue that industry-focused digital activism has different characteristics than activism targeting firms or individuals and, consequently, may be more disordered and ephemeral. Thus, responses to industry-focused activism can be more selective and superficial. Given that the existing state of knowledge about how digital activism affects industries is sparse, this paper abductively develops a series of three hypotheses about the characteristics and effects of industry-focused digital activism that can serve as a starting point for research in other industrial sectors. H1 predicts that digital activists must be well-connected within and outside of social media to elicit a response from industry.