Search

This paper seeks to examine how Australian environmental non-governmental organisations (ENGOs) communicate about and mobilise their supporters for climate justice. ENGOs play an important role in raising awareness and changing values, attitudes and behaviours related to climate justice. However, while many Australian ENGOs have begun incorporating language around climate justice in their communications, it remains unclear how this concept is framed and enacted in practice. Using data collected from 619 ENGO websites and 149 grant applications, we examine how ENGOs describe climate justice and the collective action frames they use to mobilise action. We found that while few ENGOs provided detailed explanations of climate justice on their websites, they primarily framed climate injustice as a procedural and distributive problem. The fossil fuel sector was most commonly identified as the cause of climate injustice, and First Nations communities most commonly affected. ENGOs linked different climate justice dimensions to diverse causes, issues and actions, indicating a nuanced understanding of how climate justice can be enacted in different contexts. However, they primarily proposed incremental tactics involving education, solidarity and allyship behaviours rather than radical actions through which to drive a transformative agenda of social, political or economic change. We conclude the paper with a discussion of applied implications for ENGOs and suggestions for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Both bystanders and journalists can play important roles in mobilizing and supporting social movements. However, there are few empirical studies examining and contrasting their violent and nonviolent collective-action motivations or perspectives on social movement goals. This study presents a comparative analysis of motivations to engage or stand aside from social unrest comparing bystanders (n=9) and journalists (n=7) motivations against those of protesters (n=35). Thematic qualitative analysis of interview data using a Social Identity Model of Collective Action framework examined differences in motivations and goals across each group, as well as the influence of violent protest repertoires on participation behaviors. Identified barriers to participation include bystanders' lack of issue consensus, low efficacy perceptions, and negative views of violent action. Our results also lend support to the predictive validity of collective identification, anger, and injustice in motivating participation in collective action. Journalists' collective identity precluded overt protest participation. However, their emotional responses to injustice or violent actions generated tensions between their role obligations and desire to intervene. Implications for future research on collective-action responses to injustice are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Collective action plays a critical role in progressing efforts to protect the global environment. In this study we examined existing research that specified causal claims about the outcomes of sustained environmental collective action and analysed the collective action characteristics associated with the stated outcomes. Of the 640 studies identified in our literature search, 113 papers examined environmental collective action outcomes over a time period of one or more years. In total, 59 different environmental collective action outcomes were identified, including changing corporate/business practices (n = 16), achieving political outcomes (n = 12), fostering movement building (n = 8), development project-specific outcomes (n = 8), physical changes such as increased forest cover (n = 7), or changes in public opinion, values, or behaviours (n = 4). In terms of general outcomes (i.e., success of failure of environmental collective action) the most common outcome claimed was both success and failure (n = 44), followed by complete success (n = 37) and mostly failure (n = 18). All papers identified the use of normative collective action, while 36 papers mentioned non-violent non-normative action such as blockades and sit-ins. Across the dataset there was a lack of consistency in descriptive terminology, methodological approach and inclusion of empirical evidence in justifying causal claims. We close with recommendations for scholars' best practices for advancing research into environmental collective action outcomes, namely: consistent terminology, mapping outcomes against goals, increased studies of failure, and diversifying studies in non-WEIRD contexts. • A systematic review of 113 studies on environmental collective action outcomes. • 59 distinct outcomes are identified, including 16 corporate & 12 political. • Most studies claimed outcomes of both success & failure (n = 44) or success (n = 37). • Only 3 studies examined failed collective action & 76 focused on WEIRD contexts. • Four recommendations to guide collective action outcomes research are presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]