In the years following World War II social activists learned to refine rhetorical techniques for gaining the attention of the new global mass media and developed anti-corporate campaigns to convince some of the world’s largest companies to concede to their demands. Despite these developments, rhetorical critics have tended to overlook anti-corporate campaigns as objects of study in their own right. One can account for the remarkable success of anti-corporate campaigns by understanding how activists have practiced prospective narrative disclosure, a calculated rhetorical wager that, through the public circulation of stories and texts disclosing problematic practices and answerable decision makers, activists can influence the policies and practices of prominent corporations. In support of this thesis, I provide case studies of two anti-corporate campaigns: the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union vs. J. P. Stevens (1976 – 1980) and the Coalition of Immokalee Workers vs. Taco Bell (2001—2005). Each campaign represents a typology of practice within prospective narrative disclosure: martial (instrumental emphasis) and confrontation/alliance (popular, constitutive emphasis) respectively. The former is more likely to spark defensive responses and public backlash, and the latter is more likely to sway entire market sectors and produce lasting changes in the de facto corporate social responsibility standards of global markets.

Increasingly, corporations receive pressure from activist organizations to alter activities that these individuals find problematic and irresponsible. Despite this escalation, research on activism from a public relations perspective progressed slowly; much of this literature privileges the perspective of corporations and rarely examines the process from the activist perspective. To address this gap, this dissertation examined how activist organizations use issues management and communication strategies to incite corporations to change their practices and policies while simultaneously building relationships with pertinent audiences. This study incorporated data collected from qualitative interviews with activist practitioners representing a variety of activist organizations, along with organizational texts and news articles. These data provided an understanding of how activist organizations campaign against corporations using a variety of strategies and tactics in an effort to pressure corporations into changing their behavior. Because this dissertation focused on how activist organizations generate and promote issues to gain the attention of their targets, issues management served as the theoretical framework. Guided by this theory and existing issues management models, this dissertation demonstrates how activist groups identify and establish legitimacy for their issue(s). As issues management is traditionally studied from a corporate perspective, the findings show that the process differs slightly for activist organizations and introduces the Issue Advancement Model to demonstrate how activists employ issues management. Additionally, this dissertation explored how activist groups develop relationships with their targets, supporters, communities, and other relevant publics, noting the nuances involved in each of these dynamics. Specifically, this dissertation supports claims that the dialogue approach is more appropriate for understanding and analyzing the corporation-activist relationship than other public relations models, but also notes that some activist organizations may not seek resolution. In addition to these theoretical findings, this dissertation also offers practical implications, introducing the Corporate Campaign Model, which depicts how activist organizations challenge firms while also offering suggestions for corporations targeted by these groups.