Numbing the pain or diffusing the pressure? The co-optation of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals's "naming and shaming" campaign against mulesing

This article examines a high-profile "naming and shaming" campaign launched by the activist group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals targeting the controversial sheep husbandry practice of mulesing. This campaign led to important changes to the "rules of the game" governing global merino wool production. This article suggests that contests between activists and other stakeholders over the framing of the policy problem and activists' choice of strategy can result in co-optation of activist ideas by corporate actors. The possibility of co-optation of ostensibly successful social movement campaigns highlights the importance of considering such campaigns in light of movements' values and longer-term goals.