Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 118, Issue 4, pp 807–823 | Cite as

Capturing Online Presence: Hyperlinks and Semantic Networks in Activist Group Websites on Corporate Social Responsibility



The rise of Internet-mediated communication poses possibilities and challenges for organisation studies, also in the area of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and business and society interactions. Although social media are attracting more and more attention in this domain, websites also remain an important channel for CSR debate. In this paper, we present an explorative study of activist groups’ online presence via their websites and propose a combination of methods to study both the structural positioning of websites (hyperlink network analysis) and the meanings in these websites (semantic co-word maps). We focus on the websites of SOMO, the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations, and of one of its campaigns, makeITfair, concerned with labour conditions in the IT industry worldwide. This allows us to show how this combination of methods can further our understanding of the way activist networks’ online presence can provide insights into the tactics these networks apply to achieve institutional change on CSR issues. Meanwhile, we identify some notable differences between styles and word use in the two organisations’ websites. We conclude with a set of suggestions for future research.


Activism Corporate social responsibility Co-word analysis Hyperlink network analysis Institutional change Online presence Websites 



Corporate social responsibility


European Coalition for Corporate Justice


Non-governmental organisation


Social movement organisation



An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Social Media for Social Purposes Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark in 2011. Thanks to participants in this event for valuable feedback and to the reviewers and special issue editors for their guidance. Thanks also to Lora Aroyo, Thomas Ploeger, Bibiana Armenta, Maxine Kruijt and Chun Fei Lung for useful discussions on mapping online activism.


  1. Ackland, R. (2009). Social network services as data sources and platforms for e-researching social networks. Social Science Computer Review, 27(4), 481–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackland, R., & O’Neil, M. (2011). Online collective identity: The case of environmental movement. Social Networks, 31, 177–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barberá-Tomas, D., Jiménez-Sáez, F., & Castelló-Molina, I. (2011). Mapping the importance of the real world: The validity of connectivity analysis of patent citations networks. Research Policy, 40(3), 473–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruns, A. (2007). Methodologies for mapping the political blogosphere: An exploration using the IssueCrawler research tool. First Monday, 12(5). Accessed 29 Apr 2008.
  5. Byrd, S. (2012). Hi fans! Tell us your story! Incorporating a stewardship-based social media strategy to maintain brand reputation during a crisis. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 17(3), 241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Capriotti, P. (2011). Communicating corporate social responsibility through the Internet and social media. In Ø. Ihlen, J. L. Bartlett, & S. May (Eds.), The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility (pp. 358–378). Oxford: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Capriotti, P., & Moreno, A. (2007). Corporate citizenship and public relations: The importance and interactivity of social responsibility issues on corporate websites. Public Relations Review, 33(1), 84–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caren, N., & Gaby, S. (2011). Occupy online: Facebook and the spread of Occupy Wall Street, Social Science Research Network Paper. Retrieved from
  9. Castelló, I., & Lozano, J. M. (2011). Searching for new forms of legitimacy through corporate responsibility rhetoric. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(1), 11–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Castells, M. (2012). Networks of outrage and hope. Social movements in the Internet age. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
  11. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, J. S. (2012). The paracrisis: The challenges created by publicly managing crisis prevention. Public Relations Review, 38(3), 408–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cormode, G., & Krishnamurthy, B. (2008). Key differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. First Monday, 13(6), 2 June 2008.Google Scholar
  13. de Bakker, F. G. A. (2012). Exploring networks of activism on corporate social responsibility: Suggestions for a research agenda. Creativity & Innovation Management, 21(2), 212–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Maeyer, J. (2013). Towards a hyperlinked society: A critical review of link studies. New Media & Society, 15(5), 737–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dekay, S. H. (2012). How large companies react to negative Facebook comments. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 17(3), 289–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. den Hond, F., & de Bakker, F. G. A. (2007). Ideologically motivated activism. How activist groups influence corporate social change. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 901–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Diani, M. (2004). Networks and participation. In D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule, & H. Kriesi (Eds.), Blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 339–359). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  18. Earl, J. (2013). Spreading the word or shaping the conversation: “Prosumption” in protest websites. In P. G. Coy (Ed.), Research in social movements, conflicts and change (pp. 3–38). Bingham: Emerald.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Earl, J., Kimport, K., Preito, G., Rush, C., & Reynoso, K. (2010). Changing the world one webpage at a time: Conceptualizing and explaining Internet activism. Mobilization, 15(4), 425–446.Google Scholar
  20. Egghe, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2009). The relation between Pearson’s correlation coefficient r and Salton’s cosine measure. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(5), 1027–1036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Esrock, S., & Leichty, G. (2000). Organization of corporate web pages: Publics and functions. Public Relations Review, 26(3), 327–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fieseler, C., Fleck, M., & Meckel, M. (2010). Corporate social responsibility in the blogosphere. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 599–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Garrett, R. K. (2006). Protest in an information society: A literature review on social movements and new ICTs. Information, Communication & Society, 9(2), 202–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gurak, L. J., & Logie, J. (2003). Internet protests: From text to Web. In M. McCaughey & M. D. Ayers (Eds.), Cyberactivism: Online activism in theory and practice (pp. 25–47). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Hara, N. (2008). Internet use for political mobilization: Voices of the participants. First Monday, 13(7), 7 July 2008.Google Scholar
  27. Hellsten, I., Dawson, J., & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Implicit media frames: Automated analysis of public debate on artificial sweeteners. Public Understanding of Science, 19(5), 590–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hsu, C.-I., & Park, H. W. (2011). Sociology of hyperlink networks of Web 1.0, Web 2.0, and Twitter: A case study of South Korea. Social Science Computer Review, 29(3), 354–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Karpf, D. (2012). Social science research methods in Internet time. Information, Communication and Society, 15(5), 639–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kim, J. H. (2012). A hyperlink and semantic network analysis of the Triple Helix (University–Government–Industry): The interorganizational communication structure of nanotechnology. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 152–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kim, J. H., Barnett, G. A., & Park, H. W. (2010). A hyperlink and issue network analysis of the United States Senate: A rediscovery of the web as a relational and topical medium. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(8), 1598–1611.Google Scholar
  32. Lee, S., Kim, J. H., & Rosen, D. (2009). A semantic network and categorical content analysis of Internet and online media research. The Open Communication Journal, 3, 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leydesdorff, L. (1989). Words and co-words as indicators of intellectual organization. Research Policy, 18(4), 209–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leydesdorff, L., & Hellsten, I. (2005). Metaphors and diaphors in science communication. Science Communication, 27(1), 64–99.Google Scholar
  35. Leydesdorff, L., & Hellsten, I. (2006). Measuring the meaning of words in contexts: An automated analysis of controversies about ‘Monarch butterflies’, ‘Frankenfoods’, and ‘stem cells’. Scientometrics, 67(2), 231–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lounsbury, M., Ventresca, M., & Hirsch, P. M. (2003). Social movements, field frames and industry emergence: A cultural–political perspective on US recycling. Socio-Economic Review, 1(1), 71–104.Google Scholar
  37. Lucio-Arias, D., & Leydesdorff, L. (2009). The dynamics of exchanges and references among scientific texts, and the autopoiesis of discursive knowledge. Journal of Informetrics, 3(3), 261–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lusher, D. & Ackland, R. (2011). A relational hyperlink analysis of an online social movement. Journal of Social Structure, 12(5). Retrieved March 16, 2013, from
  39. Marres, N. (2012). The redistribution of methods: On intervention in digital social research, broadly conceived. Sociological Review, 60(S1), 139–165.Google Scholar
  40. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. S. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.Google Scholar
  41. Meikle, G. (2010). Interactivity: Mapping online activism. In J. Hunsinger, L. Klastrup, & M. Allen (Eds.), International handbook of internet research (pp. 363–377). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Nehrlich, B., & Koteyko, N. (2009). Carbon reduction activism in the UK: Lexical creativity and lexical framing in the context of climate change. Environmental Communication, 3(2), 206–223.Google Scholar
  43. Park, H. W. (2003). Hyperlink network analysis: A new method for the study of social structure on the web. Connections, 25(1), 49–61.Google Scholar
  44. Pilny, A., & Shumate, M. (2012). Hyperlinks as extensions of offline instrumental collective action. Information, Communication & Society, 15(2), 260–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ploeger, T., Armenta, B., Aroyo, L., de Bakker, F., & Hellsten, I. (2012). Making sense of the Arab revolution and occupy: Visual analytics to understand events. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 902, 61–70.Google Scholar
  46. Reber, B. H., & Kim, J. K. (2006). How activist groups use websites in media relations: Evaluating online press rooms. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(4), 313–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rogers, R. (2010). Mapping public web space with the IssueCrawler. In C. Brossard & B. Reber (Eds.), Digital cognitive technologies: Epistemology and knowledge society (pp. 115–126). London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  48. Rogers, R., & Marres, N. (2000). Landscaping climate change: A mapping technique for understanding science and technology debates on the World Wide Web. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 141–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Saunders, C. (2007). Using social network analysis to explore social movements: A relational approach. Social Movement Studies, 6(3), 227–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2011). The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 899–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schultz, F., & Wehmeier, S. (2010). Online relations. In W. Schweiger & K. Beck (Eds.), Handbuch Online-Kommunikation (pp. 409–433). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schultz, F., Castelló, I., & Morsing, M. (2013). The construction of corporate social responsibility in network societies: A communication view. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(4), 681–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schussman, A., & Earl, J. (2004). From barricades to firewalls? Strategic voting and social movement leadership in the Internet Age. Sociological Inquiry, 74(4), 439–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Segerberg, A., & Bennett, W. L. (2011). Social media and the organization of collective action: Using Twitter to explore the ecologies of two climate change protests. The Communication Review, 14, 197–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Seo, H., Kim, J. Y., & Yang, S.-U. (2009). Global activism and new media: A study of transnational NGOs’ online public relations. Public Relations Review, 35(2), 123–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shumate, M., & Dewitt, L. (2008). The North/South divide in NGO hyperlink networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 405–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shumate, M., & Lipp, J. (2008). Connective collective action online: An examination of the hyperlink network structure of an NGO issue. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(1), 178–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Snow, D. A. (2004). Framing processes, ideology, and discursive fields. In D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule, & H. Kriesi (Eds.), Blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 380–412). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Spar, D. L., & La Mure, L. T. (2003). The power of activism: Assessing the impact of NGOs on global business. California Management Review, 45(3), 78–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Stein, L. (2009). Social movement web use in theory and practice: A content analysis of US movement websites. New Media & Society, 11(5), 749–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sullivan, J. (1999). What are the functions of corporate home pages? Journal of World Business, 34(2), 193–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Thelwall, M. (2004). Link analysis: An information science approach. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  63. Thelwall, M. (2006). Interpreting social science link analysis research: A theoretical framework. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(1), 60–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure and process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. van Huijstee, M., & Glasbergen, P. (2010). NGOs moving business: An analysis of contrasting strategies. Business & Society, 49(4), 591–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Van Laer, J., & Van Aelst, P. (2010). Internet and social movement action repertoires. Opportunities and limitations. Information, Communication & Society, 13(8), 1146–1171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Yaziji, M., & Doh, J. (2009). NGOs and corporations: Conflict and cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zhou, Y., & Moy, P. (2007). Parsing framing processes: The interplay between online public opinion and media coverage. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 79–98.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Organisation Sciences, Faculty of Social SciencesVU University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations