## 5 Discussion and Hypotheses  
What can #buttergate tell us about the conditions under which digital activism will garner a response from industry? And what can it tell us about the impact on sustainable supply chain practices in the Canadian dairy industry? In this section, I propose three novel hypotheses about how industries will respond to digital activism. I derive these hypotheses by building or modifying insights from the past literature in conjunction with careful observation of my data. Below, I present the hypothesis first, followed by substantiating evidence from both the literature and the data. **H1. **_A small number of digital activists can elicit a response from industry, but only if they are well-connected to conventional media outlets, have a large social media following, and have credibility with their targets._  
#Buttergate affirms the observation that digital activism can be orchestrated by a smaller group of people using fewer resources with a paucity of formal organizational involvement [2; 5; 35]. As a campaign, it very much illustrates the concept of connective action insofar as costs of participation were very low and a common hashtag united a diverse assortment of Twitter users with vastly different objectives in the absence of any top-down coordination [9]. Thus, there is some truth to the claim that any participant in digital activism has the potential to become a significant voice because of the high degree of equality afforded by social media [29]. However, the data from #buttergate add nuance to this claim by illustrating that _who_ is involved matters significantly for the nature of the response. Specifically, the size of an activist's pulpit, both in terms of traditional media connections and social media following, has a significant impact on the visibility of activism and, consequently, industry's response. So too does the credibility of activists with the industry that they target. As Figure 1 illustrates, roughly 17% of the contributors to #buttergate had sizeable followings on Twitter (>5000); these are the users that we might expect to be best positioned to elicit a response from industry. #Buttergate was catalyzed by just two people: Prof. [PERSON] and the Canadian food writer. Without the involvement of either, it is reasonable to argue that #buttergate would not have received either media attention or a response from industry. As one industry association representative commented on [PERSON] involvement: \"this thing would not have gone where it did without his tremendously large following and the kinds of folks that are listening to him\" ([PERSON], interview). Both were integral to escalating the issue to a level at which industry felt compelled to respond. Prof. [PERSON] by posing the initial query on Twitter on 29 December 2020 and subsequently providing the material for the first print media coverage in _Le Journal de Montreal_ on 15 February 2021 and the Canadian food writer by posting her viral tweet on 5 February 2021 and subsequently publishing the first English-language expose in _The Globe and Mail_ on 20 February 2021. However, neither Prof. [PERSON] nor the Canadian food writer are typical social media users. Both have strong ties to multiple traditional media outlets and large social media followings. These connections allow them to amplify issues to a large audience. While other social media users with smaller followings raised concerns about butter hardness prior to #buttergate, they lacked the connections to bring the issue into the public eye. An implication is that, while a small group of digital activists can compel a response from industry, it helps if those activists are influential and well-connected within and beyond social media. While [PERSON] connections helped provoke a response, his involvement may have also adversely impacted the nature of that response. As one academic observer noted: \"[PERSON] has a history of animosity with the dairy industry.\" (Canadian Economist, interview).