As brands increasingly take stances on divisive political issues, it is essential to understand how consumers' political ideology influences reactions to such brands. This research examines the effect of US consumers' political ideology on their likelihood of retaliating against politically activist brands. I find that liberals (vs. conservatives) exhibit larger retaliation effects against brands that take an opposing (vs. supporting or neutral) stance on a divisive political issue. The principles of fair market ideology can explain this disparity. Conservatives (vs. liberals) are more likely to view the market as self-regulating and inherently just, reducing their tendency to retaliate against brands they oppose. Instead, conservatives, view large corporations as pivotal to the economy and are thus less likely to engage in personal or institutional intervention.

This thesis analyzes the process through which sustainability communication occurs between organizations and stakeholders. The lack of frameworks connecting research in the sustainability and communication fields highlights the need for a cohesive modelization of the sustainability communication process. This process forms the basis of the Action, Perception, Risk (APR) model, a framework that I have created. The APR model builds on existing sustainability and communication research to provide a practical illustration of the sustainability communication process, connecting the theoretical realm with the practitioner realm through implementable recommendations. This is achieved through a literature review and a case study of the American footwear company, Allbirds. Managerial implications are discussed and recommendations for effective sustainability communication are put forward.