Addressing societal problems requires the reorientation of firms-in-industries, including changes in technology, belief systems, and mission. The paper aims to make two contributions to the Dialectic Issue LifeCycle (DILC) model, which captures the dynamics of socio-political mobilization around societal problems and industry responses. First, the five phases in the DILC-model are elaborated with insights from social movement theory, political science, public attention, issue management, corporate political strategy, and innovation management. Second, a 'cyclical' lifecycle pattern is explored, in which a social problem does not linearly progress through successive phases, but can also move 'backwards' if public attention or political will decrease. We explore these contributions with a longitudinal study of the car-safety problem and responses from American automakers (1900-1995). We use a combined quantitative-qualitative method that employs coupled time-series analyses as support for an in-depth case study. The case study showed that the industry long denied the influence of car design on fatalities, and reluctantly changed its position in the mid-1960s (under pressure from public opinion and policymakers). In the late-1980s, when markets emerged because safety became part of consumer preferences, the industry implemented comprehensive changes in technology, beliefs and mission.@en

This paper uses the Dialectic Issue LifeCycle-model (DILC-model) to analyze the co-evolution of the climate change problem and strategic responses from the American car industry. The longitudinal and multi-dimensional analysis investigates the dynamics of the climate change problem in terms of socio-political mobilization by social movements, scientists, wider publics and policymakers. It also analyses how U.S. automakers responded to mounting pressures with socio-political, economic and innovation strategies oriented towards low-carbon propulsion technologies. We use a mixed methodology with a quantitative analysis of various time-series and an in-depth qualitative case study, which traces interactions between problem-related pressures and industry responses. We conclude that U.S. automakers are slowly reorienting towards low-carbon technologies, but due to weakening pressures have not yet fully committed to comprehensive development and marketing. The paper not only applies the DILC-model, but also proposes three elaborations: (a) the continued diversity of technical solutions, and 'ups and downs' in future expectations, creates uncertainty which delays strategic reorientation; (b) firms may develop radical innovations for political and social purposes in early phases of the model; (c) issue lifecycles are also shaped by external influences from other problems and contexts.@en

This paper aims to make two conceptual contributions to the greening of industry literature. Firstly, we propose that the greening process can be conceptualized as an issue lifecycle dynamics with multi-dimensional struggles between 'greening' pressures and industry response strategies. To capture the endogenous dynamics, we develop a Dialectic Issue LifeCycle model with five phases, which conceptualize how these struggles play out over time. Secondly, we propose that issue lifecycle dynamics are also influenced by (external) alignments with contextual field-level developments. This proposition accommodates the notion that industries not only face 'green' issues but also other relevant pressures. We apply the model to a historical case study: air pollution problems and responses from American automakers (1943-1985). The case study presents a good match with the first three phases of the model, but shows deviations in the fourth and fifth phase, which are due to: a) decreasing pressure from public opinion; b) limited spillovers from air pollution to consumer demand; c) rise of competing issues; and d) strong resistance from the car industry. The findings underline that the greening of industry cannot be fully understood by looking only at the focal issue (e.g. air pollution). Broader developments in industry and external contexts also need to be taken into account.@en