A typology of the climate activist

The paper addresses the need for conceptual clarity about who climate activists are and how they operate, amid escalating climate crisis pressures and growing public demands for radical action. It seeks to unify disparate academic accounts of both “inside” (within organisations and institutions) and “outside” (targeting others beyond one’s setting) activism. The purpose is to articulate a clearer, systematised conception of contemporary climate activists by proposing a typology based on focal orientations (endogenous vs exogenous) and theories of change (collaborative vs confrontational), applied across multiple organisational scales. The study argues that such a framework is important for understanding the roles, strategies, and influence of activists in the politics of climate change.

The literature synthesised spans multiple disciplines, identifying recurring dimensions that structure activist practice: (1) Focus: exogenous activism targets change in others outside the activist’s own setting, often visible in public protest; endogenous activism seeks change within the activist’s own organisational, institutional, or social setting, reflecting efforts to embody or precipitate internal change. (2) Theories of change: activists variously privilege collaboration/dialogue or confrontation as the path to change; these orientations are dynamic, evolving with experiences, successes/failures, group composition, life course, and identity. (3) Scale: activism occurs at individual, group, coalition (group-of-groups), and institutional levels. The literature also notes that activists may hold multiple positionalities simultaneously across settings, and that agency often lies in choosing targets and tactics even when outcomes are beyond direct control. Prior work on boundary spanners, epistemic communities, social movements, judicial activism, and insider/outsider dynamics informs the framework.

Conceptual synthesis and typology building. The authors integrate insights across management, organisational studies, political science, social movement studies, environmental social sciences, legal studies, and related fields to construct a matrix-based typology. The matrix crosses two focal orientations (endogenous vs exogenous) with two theories of change (collaborative vs confrontational) and applies them across four scales of social organisation (individual, group, coalition of groups, institutional), yielding 16 theorised, mutually inclusive activist types. The typology is author-created (Figure 1) and illustrated through examples from the literature; no new empirical data were generated. The paper positions this as an initial step toward an institutional theory of the climate activist, to be validated and refined in future research.

The proposed typology identifies 16 mutually inclusive climate activist types across focus (endogenous/exogenous), theory of change (collaborate/confront), and scale (individual/group/coalition/institutional):

• Individual: Endogenous–Collaborate: The Champion; Endogenous–Confront: The Lone Wolf; Exogenous–Collaborate: The Influencer; Exogenous–Confront: The Critic.
• Group: Endogenous–Collaborate: Solidarity Networks; Endogenous–Confront: Action Groups; Exogenous–Collaborate: Pressure Groups; Exogenous–Confront: Social Movements.
• Coalition (Group-of-groups): Endogenous–Collaborate: Boundary Spanners; Endogenous–Confront: Resistance Groups; Exogenous–Collaborate: Epistemic Communities & Organisers; Exogenous–Confront: Advocacy Coalitions & Organisers.
• Institutional: Endogenous–Collaborate: Share/stake-holder Activists; Endogenous–Confront: Disrupters; Exogenous–Collaborate: Experts; Exogenous–Confront: Judicial Activists. Illustrative cases: Influencer (e.g., early Greta Thunberg activities); Pressure groups (e.g., Fridays for Future networks); Epistemic communities and organisers (e.g., coalitions of climate mayors); Experts (e.g., climate scientists advocating beyond formal channels); Critics (e.g., George Monbiot); Social movements employing civil disobedience/direct action (e.g., Extinction Rebellion, Greenpeace, Earth First!); Advocacy coalitions (e.g., Tipping Point); Judicial activists (e.g., ClientEarth). The authors note at least one theorised cell is weakly represented in existing literature (e.g., ‘Resistance Groups’—endogenous, confrontational, at coalition scale), highlighting targets for empirical validation. The framework emphasises that activists’ theories of change can evolve and that individuals may occupy multiple types across settings simultaneously.

The typology addresses the paper’s core question by systematising the diversity of climate activist identities and strategies across inside/outside contexts, collaborative/confrontational orientations, and organisational scales. It clarifies how different activist roles—from experts and boundary spanners to critics and judicial actors—operate and interact in the broader politics of climate change. The examples demonstrate how tactics and risks vary by position (e.g., experts risking professional legitimacy; social movements engaging in civil disobedience). Recognising that theories of change are dynamic and that individuals can hold multiple positionalities simultaneously enhances understanding of activist behaviour and potential pathways for impact. The framework is relevant to scholars and practitioners seeking to interpret activist strategies, design engagement approaches, and anticipate how insider and outsider activism can jointly influence institutional and societal change.

The paper offers an initial, unified typology of climate activists grounded in focus, theory of change, and scale, aiming to advance an institutional theory of the climate activist. It is more than a catalogue, proposing a systematised framework to guide future research and practice. The authors call for empirical validation and refinement, including: investigating how and why activist theories of change evolve over time; testing applicability across the political spectrum, including potential bad-faith actors; validating under-represented cells (notably endogenous, confrontational coalition ‘resistance’ activists operating inside organisations and institutions); and examining the typology’s relevance in diverse contexts, particularly beyond the Global North. Understanding these questions is presented as key to grasping activists’ roles in confronting inequity and injustice during sustainability transitions.

The authors acknowledge that the typology may be reductionist relative to the complex, fluid realities of activist lives; individuals can identify as multiple types across places and times and can shift theories of change situationally. It may not capture the full nuances and contradictions of activist life courses. The framework likely resonates more with the Global North than the Global South. The approach brackets ‘the activist’ rather than activism per se, which some may find problematic if identities are shaped primarily by activities rather than self-identification. Some cells (e.g., endogenous, confrontational coalition ‘resistance’ groups) are theorised with limited empirical representation and require validation.