Social media platforms have become significant venues for various influence campaigns, blurring the lines between activism and advertising. This study, grounded in contemporary research on vegan activism, investigates the interplay between corporate engagement and activism during the Veganuary 2019 campaign on Twitter. The research focuses on the "Greggs Vegan Sausage Roll incident," a pivotal moment where Greggs' launch of a vegan sausage roll sparked a heated online debate involving prominent figures like Piers Morgan. The study aims to analyze the nature and effectiveness of corporate involvement in veganism and to characterize the sentiment and content of the online "culture wars" surrounding this topic. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for comprehending the complexities of online climate-diet discussions and the influence of commercial actors on social movements. The study uses a network approach to analyze the structure of influence and audience interactions within the Veganuary 2019 discourse on Twitter. This approach builds on existing sociological literature emphasizing the role of social ties in shaping opinions and behaviors, and extends it to the digital realm. The research seeks to identify how key stakeholders (Veganuary activists and commercial entities) influence their audiences and whether commercial campaigns effectively bridge the gap between commercial audiences and activism.

The paper reviews existing literature on the mainstreaming of veganism, highlighting its increasing popularity as a measure to reduce environmental harm. It notes growing public awareness of the environmental impact of dietary choices and the rise of 'Big Veganism,' characterized by corporate involvement in producing and marketing plant-based alternatives. The literature also covers criticisms of 'Big Veganism' from both traditional vegan activists and representatives from the meat and dairy industries. Traditional vegan activists argue that 'Big Veganism' prioritizes corporate profit over genuine systemic change. Critics from the meat and dairy industries contest the environmental and health benefits of veganism, promoting sustainable intensification or regenerative agriculture models instead. Existing research demonstrates the polarization in online discussions surrounding veganism, particularly when high-profile reports on the environmental impact of meat consumption are published. The EAT-Lancet report and the IPCC report on land use are cited as examples that amplified online debate and polarization.

The study employs a network approach using data collected from Twitter's search API during January 2019. The keywords "vegan," "veganuary," and "veganuary2019" were used to gather a dataset of over 460,000 tweets. The researchers acknowledge ethical considerations concerning the use of Twitter data without explicit user consent, emphasizing their adherence to standard practices for protecting user anonymity. A retweet network was constructed to identify dominant interactions and communities within the discourse, using retweets as a reliable indicator of influence spread. The Louvain algorithm was used for community detection, allowing for the analysis of network modularity and assortativity to understand polarization. Random samples of 200 tweets from larger communities were manually coded to label communities based on themes and narratives (pro-Veganuary, anti-Veganuary, commercial engagement, GVSR discussion). A network projection analysis was performed to assess audience overlap between different communities, particularly between activist and commercial communities, using a bipartite projection model to reveal communities of users with overlapping sets of retweeting users. This analysis helps determine the extent to which commercial engagement successfully connects with the core activist discourse.

The analysis revealed a highly polarized discourse, with several communities exhibiting distinct themes: Veganuary activism (Core Support), antagonism (Access/Trolls), commercial engagement (VPromo and Promo), and GVSR-related discussion (GVSR+ and GVSR-). The Core Support community predominantly focused on raising awareness, sharing information, and advocating for veganism. Antagonistic communities displayed significant criticism of veganism, often linking it to elitism, political agendas, and conspiracies. Commercial communities promoted vegan products, although many were not explicitly tied to the Veganuary campaign. The GVSR-related communities showed a "defender effect," with users defending the GVSR and veganism, often using sarcastic or aggressive language. The network projection analysis, focusing on audience overlap, demonstrated significant separation between commercial and activist audiences, suggesting commercial engagement failed to significantly extend the reach of the activist movement. The GVSR controversy was an exception, showing audience overlap due to its highly politicized nature. Interestingly, the negative GVSR community remained isolated from other antagonist communities, while the anti-vegan conspiracy community was strongly connected to the Piers Morgan community and exhibited ties to the QAnon movement. The study highlighted the extent to which the discourse was politicized and weaponized, with right-wing individuals and organizations joining in to attack veganism and its association with left-leaning political causes.

The findings suggest that while commercial entities generated considerable content and interactions, their engagement remained largely isolated from the core activist discourse. This implies that many commercial campaigns utilized Veganuary as a marketing tool rather than a genuine collaboration to promote the movement's goals. The strong polarization and politicization of the discourse, particularly amplified by the Greggs incident and Piers Morgan's involvement, diverted attention from the core activist narratives. The study points to potential risks of online radicalization, as seen in the connection between the Piers Morgan community and the QAnon movement. This politicization of seemingly minor topics into flashpoints of cultural conflict raises broader questions about online communication and the need for strategies to de-escalate these kinds of culture wars.

This research demonstrates the limitations of commercial engagement in reaching and supporting vegan activism online. Commercial entities, while present, failed to significantly connect their audiences with core activists. This calls for better strategies to align corporate actions with the movement's values. The study also emphasizes the need for understanding the roots of online antagonism toward veganism, recognizing its connection to broader culture wars. Further research could explore how corporations can better support online activism, how to de-escalate online conflict, and how to mitigate the risk of radicalization stemming from these politicized debates.

The study's limitations include its focus on the 2019 Veganuary campaign and the use of Twitter data, which may not fully represent the global discourse. The methodology relies on retweets as the primary indicator of influence, excluding other interaction signals. Additionally, the projection analysis cannot definitively establish the causal sequence of interactions, only their existence.