Unravelling collective action frames through a temporal lens: A case study of an environmental movement in Germany

Lüpnitz, Sebastian Article Unravelling collective action frames through a temporal lens: A case study of an environmental movement in Germany Junior Management Science (JUMS) Provided in Cooperation with: Junior Management Science e. V. Suggested Citation: Lüpnitz, Sebastian (2025) : Unravelling collective action frames through a temporal lens: A case study of an environmental movement in Germany, Junior Management Science (JUMS), ISSN 2942-1861, Junior Management Science e. V., Planegg, Vol. 10, Iss. 2, pp. 349-368, https://doi.org/10.5282/jums/v10i2pp349-368 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/320451 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Junior Management Science 10(2) (2025) 349-368 Junior Management Science www.jums.academy ISSN: 2942-1861 Editor: DOMINIK VAN AAKEN Advisory Editorial Board: FREDERIK AHLEMANN JAN-PHILIPP AHRENS THOMAS BAHLINGER MARKUS BECKMANN SULEIKA BORT ROLF BRÜHL KATRIN BURMEISTER-LAMP CATHERINE CLEOPHAS NILS CRASSELT BENEDIKT DOWNAR KERSTIN FEHRE MATTHIAS FINK DAVID FLORYSIAK GUNTHER FRIEDL MARTIN FRIESL FRANZ FUERST WOLFGANG GÜTTEL NINA KATRIN HANSEN ANNE KATARINA HEIDER CHRISTIAN HOFMANN SVEN HÖRNER STEPHAN KAISER NADINE KAMMERLANDER ALFRED KIESER ALEKSANDRA KLEIN NATALIA KLIEWER DODO ZU KNYPHAUSEN-AUFSESS SABINE T. KÖSZEGI ARJAN KOZICA CHRISTIAN KOZIOL MARTIN KREEB WERNER KUNZ HANS-ULRICH KÜPPER MICHAEL MEYER JÜRGEN MÜHLBACHER GORDON MÜLLER-SEITZ J. PETER MURMANN ANDREAS OSTERMAIER BURKHARD PEDELL ARTHUR POSCH MARCEL PROKOPCZUK TANJA RABL SASCHA RAITHEL NICOLE RATZINGER-SAKEL ASTRID REICHEL KATJA ROST THOMAS RUSSACK FLORIAN SAHLING MARKO SARSTEDT ANDREAS G. SCHERER STEFAN SCHMID UTE SCHMIEL CHRISTIAN SCHMITZ MARTIN SCHNEIDER MARKUS SCHOLZ LARS SCHWEIZER DAVID SEIDL THORSTEN SELLHORN STEFAN SEURING VIOLETTA SPLITTER ANDREAS SUCHANEK TILL TALAULICAR ANN TANK ANJA TUSCHKE MATTHIAS UHL CHRISTINE VALLASTER PATRICK VELTE CHRISTIAN VÖGTLIN BARBARA E. WEISSENBERGER ISABELL M. WELPE HANNES WINNER THOMAS WRONA THOMAS ZWICK Volume 10, Issue 2, June 2025 JUNIOR MANAGEMENT SCIENCE Yannick Hohenstein,The Impact of Profitability on Scope 1, 2 and 3 GHG Emissions in Europe Günther Gamper, Small but Powerful: The Impact of Shelf Talker Flags on Consumer Shopping Behavior Sebastian Lüpnitz,Unravelling Collective Action Frames Through a Temporal Lens: A Case Study of an Environmental Movement in Germany Mohammad Izzat Raihan Imron, Sustainability in the Corporate Sector: A News Textual Analysis Approach to Measuring ESG Performance Elif Leman Bilgin, Understanding Emergent Leadership Across Cultural Levels: A Theoretical Framework Nicolas Fiedler, Analyzing the Retail Gasoline Market in Germany: Impact of Spatial Competition and Market Concentration on Prices Sebestyén András Huszár, The Role of Hierarchical Differentiation for the Effectiveness of Soccer Teams Hashmatullah Sadid, Waiting Time Estimation for Ride-Hailing Fleets Using Graph Neural Networks Licia Reckersdrees, Gone, Space Gone -Non-Territorial Workplace Models in the Context of Hybrid Working From the Employees' Perspective Timo Andreas Deller, Exploring Discrepancies in Energy Performance Certificates: Analyzing Energy Efficiency Premiums for Buildings Based on Theoretical Energy Requirements Versus Actual Energy Consumption 292 334 349 369 402 424 441 462 491 522 Published by Junior Management Science e.V. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-4.0 (Attribution 4.0 International). Open Access funding provided by ZBW. ISSN: 2942-1861 Unravelling Collective Action Frames Through a Temporal Lens: A Case Study of an Environmental Movement in Germany Sebastian Lüpnitz Dresden University of Technology Abstract Organizing collective action in the face of climate change is one of the grand challenges of our time. Social movements and their approach to framing climate change are pivotal, as they are tasked with the role of challenging and redirecting dominant beliefs and narratives. Recent research suggests that time is at the core of framing and sustainability. However, there is scant research at the intersection of social movements and time. This study responds to this gap by examining how the framing of the environmental movement Letzte Generation in Germany constructs temporality. My findings reveal how the movement frames climate change as a catastrophe, representing itself as a fire alarm to create a shared sense of urgency and advocate for a crisis mode. Temporally, the framing constructs a clear chronology between a dominant past and an undesirable future and aims to redirect the focus to the present. As a result, the movement had to actively orchestrate a balance between disruptive strategies aimed at attention and polarization, and alignment strategies to foster resonance and support. By conceptualizing temporality in framing processes my study illustrates the pivotal role of time in research on social movements and framing. Moreover, it contributes to the discourse on time and sustainability by showing how actors emphasize a present-time perspective. Keywords: climate crisis; polarization; social movements; strategic framing; time and temporality 1. Introduction “Time is no longer on our side. [...]We have a choice: collective action or collective suicide.” (Guterres, 2022) In the face of climate change, crafting convincing frames that foster collective action is crucial for stimulating change (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014; Nyberg et al., 2020). Although the need for sustainable development has been a topic of extensive discourse for over three decades (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987), substantive First, I want to thank Prof. Dr. Blagoy Blagoev for providing me with the freedom to explore my research interests while offering invaluable guidance and support whenever needed. I am also grateful to the whole Chair of Organization for their encouragement and inspiration throughout all phases of my work. Lastly, a special thanks goes to Jonas Angles for sharing the journey of writing our first empirical research paper. His willingness to listen, challenge my ideas, and meticulously proofread has been indispensable. societal transformation is still far from sufficient and the time window of action for securing a sustainable future is rapidly closing according to the latest IPCC report (Pörtner et al., 2022). In response, scholars within the sustainability discourse have recently shifted their attention towards questions of how to craft and enact desirable futures (Gümüsay & Reinecke, 2022). Yet, research in organization studies revealed how organizations translate sustainability into a business case which has led society to remain trapped in a “business-as-usual” paradigm, ultimately impeding rather than facilitating sustainable development (Wright & Nyberg, 2017). Hence, it is of particular relevance to study actors that aim to achieve societal change by challenging dominant framings, such as social movements (Wright et al., 2018). In fact, it might be the “plurality of future-making practices that contributes to extending the debates on climate change” (Wenzel et al., 2020, p. 1448) and the frames of movement actors that create alternative pathways to (re-)organize society (Munshi et al., 2022). DOI: https://doi.org/10.5282/jums/v10i2pp349-368 © The Author(s) 2025. Published by Junior Management Science. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-4.0 (Attribution 4.0 International). Open Access funding provided by ZBW. S. Lüpnitz /Junior Management Science 10(2) (2025) 349-368350 Within the context of collective action, the literature at the intersection of framing and social movements conceptualizes frames as strategic devices that serve as the cornerstone for mobilizing others (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014). As a fundamental task, previous research emphasizes the importance of aligning frames with potential adherents to foster resonance and, consequently, ensure the effectiveness of framing (Benford & Snow, 2000; Snow & Benford, 1988). Studies provided empirical support for the resonance mechanisms among individuals´preference for frames (Giorgi & Weber, 2015) and how resonating frames facilitate change at an institutional level (Zeng et al., 2019). In sum, resonance is understood as a key determinant for the success of framing activities. However, this study examines a social movement that appears to deliberately employ non-resonating, polarizing frames. Letzte Generation (LG) is a recently formed environmental movement in Germany that is most known for its more disruptive forms of protest, such as road blockades. The movement rapidly caused a major public debate and provoked sharply contrasting reactions to the protests, resulting in a noticeable degree of polarization. Despite the prevailing rejection of LG within society and the predominantly severe criticism directed at its disruptive protests (Statista Research Department, 2023), the movement appears resolute in adhering to its strategy while remaining committed to the imperative of peacefulness. Therefore, the apparent absence of the strategic objective of alignment and resonance contradicts prior literature on framing in social movements. To unravel framing activities of social movements, I suggest adopting a temporal lens. Framing inherently carries a temporal dimension, as it is rooted in an interpretation of the past, present, and future, intending to challenge and influence dominant temporal beliefs (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998; Nyberg et al., 2020). Particularly in the context of climate change, time has been argued to be the central element of sustainable development (Bansal & DesJardine, 2014). The pivotal temporal challenge of climate change deviates from the need for broader changes in the future whilst simultaneously requiring immediate action in the present (Slawinski & Bansal, 2015). Surprisingly, there is only little research that explicitly studies framing in social movements in relation to time. Moreover, I argue that a temporal perspective underscores the processual dynamics of framing and, therefore, counteracts the outcome-focused research due to the strong emphasis on the strategic aspects of framing in earlier literature (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014). Following this approach, and puzzled by the polarizing framing strategy of the case, I ask the following research questions: RQ1: How is temporality constructed within the framing of an environmental movement? RQ2: How does the movement employ its framing strategically? To address these questions, I draw on interview, document, and observational data I collected over a period of nine months. Adhering to the phenomenological nature of my research, I employ an inductive approach to data analysis using the thematic analysis method (Braun & Clarke, 2021). My data show that the movement aims to shift the temporal focus to the present by claiming a crisis mode in the face of the climate catastrophe. Therefore, the movement employs two distinct strategic framing processes to achieve its objective: to convey urgency, the movement consistently engages in pushing to disrupt the present while simultaneously endeavouring to convince potential supporters by translating the climate catastrophe framing. Thereupon, I theorize that collective action frames, particularly in times of perceived or actual crisis, must strike a balance between disruptive strategies deliberately designed to trigger nonresonance and polarization, and alignment strategies aimed at fostering resonance and garnering support. The contribution of my analysis is two-fold. First, I enhance the literature on framing and social movements by demonstrating the centrality of time in collective action frames and, thereby, illustrating the complexity of (strategic) framing activities. This study shows how the temporal dimension shapes the strategic processes used to employ a frame. Based on the temporal construction of a frame, my findings illustrate how resonance may not always be the primary objective of framing activities. Instead, polarizing frames can be a strategy to disrupt the present and enforce a temporal shift in the debate. Moreover, I show how alignment processes are influenced by the temporal construction of the frame by introducing the process of translating. Second, this study contributes to the literature on time and sustainability by showing how actors value a presenttime perspective. While previous literature predominantly argues for organizations to adopt a long-term, futureoriented time perspective to be sustainable, this case represents an example of a movement fighting for a sustainable future and simultaneously claiming a present-time perspective. 2. Theoretical Background 2.1. Unfolding Social Movements through a Framing Perspective The extensive literature on framing and social movements offers a rich foundation to build on. In contrast to earlier approaches to studying social movements with a strong emphasis on structural aspects, such as resource mobilization theory (e.g., McCarthy and Zald, 1977), the framing perspective provides a theoretical lens to unravel how collective action is socially constructed (Johnston & Oliver, 2000). The very existence of social movements indicates that there are different interpretations – frames – of the same issue, which in this study´s context is climate change and climate action. 2.1.1. Defining Framing and Collective Action Frames Frames are defined as “schemata of interpretation” (Goffman, 1974, p. 21). Thus, they serve as sensemaking de- S. Lüpnitz /Junior Management Science 10(2) (2025) 349-368 351 vices that provide an interpretation of what is going on by compressing information from the environment. Therefore, frames can be understood as the “principles of organization” (Goffman, 1974, p. 11) or “set of rules” (Gamson, 1975, p. 604) that govern the assignment of meaning and the appropriate type of activity. Framing, in turn, constitutes the active process of defining what is going on, thus identifying what frames apply to a given event or situation (Goffman, 1974, p. 21). Consequently, framing signifies the process of constructing and attributing meaning, “an active, processual phenomenon that implies agency and contention at the level of reality construction” (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 614). Framing processes occur across all levels of analysis. In their review of the framing literature in management and organizational research, Cornelissen and Werner (2014) outline the various concepts at a micro, meso, and macro level. At a micro level, research investigates cognitive frames and how they shape sensemaking processes of individuals within the context of managerial decision-making in organizations. At a macro level, framing has been studied in institutional contexts to elucidate the processes by which meaning structures become institutionalized as “taken-for-granted realities” and, in turn, how these macro-level structures influence individuals´interpretations and actions. At a meso level, the concept of framing has been used to examine how meaning is constructed and negotiated within organizations. To study social movements, the meso level is most appropriate as it focuses on how “strategic actors attempt to frame courses of actions and social identities in order to mobilize others to follow suit” (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014, p. 183). Hence, this study conceptualizes social movements as organized groups that aim to foster change by raising awareness and establishing a collective understanding of a problematic situation through framing activities. With the aim of mobilizing individuals to take action, framing in social movements inherently encompasses a strategic dimension (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014). Snow and Benford (1988) identify three fundamental framing tasks that combined constitute the strategic facet: diagnostic,prognostic, and motivational framing. Diagnostic framing refers to the articulation of a problematic situation and the justification of why it is problematic in order to establish a consensus on the necessity of change. This task includes identifying the source of the problem by attributing blame and responsibility (Benford & Snow, 2000). Building upon the diagnosis of the situation, prognostic framing presents a proposed solution to address the problem. Lastly, motivational framing aims to provide individuals with a compelling reasoning for engaging in collective action. This encompasses providing a rationale through language that stirs motivation (Benford & Snow, 2000). In summary, there are two key facets of framing within the context of collective action: framing as sensemaking, an ongoing interpretative process of meaning construction, and framing as a strategic tool for social movements to mobilize support and foster change. Consequently, frames in social movements have been referred to as collective action frames (Snow & Benford, 1988, p. 198) to emphasize the strong agentic nature of those frames in addition to their interpretative function, as they are “calling for action that problematizes and challenges existing authoritative views and framings of reality”. 2.1.2. Understanding Framing as a Process A large part of research in social movement studies focuses on the strategic processes of framing, thereby investigating how movements deliberately construct and deploy frames to mobilize support and legitimize collective action. Key to this understanding is the theory of frame alignment (Snow et al., 1986) which states that through frame alignment processes social movements “link their interests and interpretive frames with those of prospective constituents and actual or prospective resource providers” (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 624). In their review of the framing literature, Benford and Snow (2000) outline four distinct alignment processes: (1) bridging – forming linkages between at least two ideologically congruent but yet unconnected frames concerning an issue or problem; (2) amplification – idealizing or invigorating specific existing cultural values or beliefs in the frames; (3) extension – enlarging the initial frames to incorporate issues and concerns that are seen as important to potential adherents; and (4) transformation – reframing old understandings and meanings and generating new values and frames. Cornelissen and Werner (2014), however, critique that the strong emphasis on the strategic use of frames in empirical studies has overall led to an outcome-focused and static research neglecting the processual and dynamic nature of framing as meaning construction, originally proposed in the broader concept introduced by Goffman (1974). Consequently, frames are not just strategic messages that need to be deployed, but interpretations that allow actors to make sense of the world and make choices grounded in that understanding (Kaplan, 2008). In response to the “top-down” strategic approach to framing, recent studies propose a “bottom-up” interactional perspective on framing (Gray et al., 2015; Kaplan, 2008; Reinecke & Ansari, 2021). This shift aims to counter the outcome-focused and static research and align with the dynamic nature of framing processes. Focusing on the microprocesses of framing, this stream of research argues that collective action frames may be “subject to spontaneous emergence, reorientation, and shifts in new situations through dynamic meaning-making on the ground” (Reinecke & Ansari, 2021, p. 382). However, I argue that this approach to some extent overlooks the pronounced strategic dimension of framing in social movements. Therefore, for this study, I primarily focus on strategic processes, as it aligns most with my case. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that framing is neither merely “top-down” nor “bottom-up”, but rather encompasses elements of both. Strategic alignment processes are necessary for mobilizing support but rely also on interactional and situated accomplishments (Snow et al., 1986). S. Lüpnitz /Junior Management Science 10(2) (2025) 349-368352 In my research, I follow the call from Cornelissen and Werner (2014) for more empirical research on framing as an “ongoing process of meaning construction” (p. 206). To explore the dynamics of framing and how meaning is constructed, I apply a temporal lens to my frame analysis (Nyberg et al., 2020). This enables me to extend the strategic perspective and acknowledge the complexity of framing processes. 2.1.3. Determine the Effectiveness of Framing: Frame Resonance If collective action frames aim to foster change by alignment processes to mobilize people – whether as an explicit strategic objective or a more implicit interactional emergence – the question arises whether any characteristics determine the effectiveness of a frame. The literature argues that the degree of frame resonance (Snow & Benford, 1988) is at the core of explaining why certain frames are more successful in mobilizing people than others (Williams, 2004). In this context, resonance is understood as “an audience´s experienced personal connection with a frame” (p. 716), and thereby differs from neighbouring concepts like legitimacy or justification (Giorgi, 2017). Audience refers to whoever the framing of the movement targets, including individuals, media, or politics. Empirical evidence validates that whenever frames resonate, especially with key decision-makers and strategic partners like the media, the likelihood of policy change is enhanced (Zeng et al., 2019). Moreover, when exposed to multiple framings over time, audiences tend to prefer framings that resonate with their values, concerns, and needs (Giorgi & Weber, 2015). Research following the “top-down” approach argues that frame alignment processes are directed towards achieving resonance up front (Snow et al., 1986). Resonance is, therefore, understood as a key ingredient of effective framing. Benford and Snow (2000) outline two sets of interacting factors that influence the degree of frame resonance: (1) credibility – the frame´s consistency in terms of coherence between beliefs, claims, and actions; the empirical credibility of the frame; and the perceived credibility of those articulating the frame; and (2) salience – the centrality of the movements´ frame to potential adherents; the experiential commensurability in terms of how the framing resonates with everyday experience; and the narrative fidelity and, therefore, cultural resonance of the framing. Research taking on a “bottom-up” lens argues that resonance is “contingent and situationally produced” (Reinecke & Ansari, 2021, p. 403). Therefore, the appeal of a frame to external audiences emerges iteratively by actors leveraging resonating frames and is validated through interactional processes with key actors in the field (Lee et al., 2018). Overall, resonance is viewed as a key determinant of framing success and non-resonance is considered a problem, as those frames may “fall on deaf ears” with potential adherents (Snow & Corrigall-Brown, 2005) and are unlikely to promote change at an institutional level (Zeng et al., 2019). Regarding the very objective of social movements, which is to create a shared (collective action) frame, this holds particular relevance, especially in the context of environmental movements where the core issue of climate change affects everyone. In a case study on nonviolent resistance campaigns in Thailand, the choice for polarizing frames was found to further antagonize societal segments triggering countermobilization (Sombatpoonsiri, 2023). To my state of knowledge, there is no research examining how and why movements deliberately choose to employ non-resonating or polarizing frames. 2.2. Unravelling Framing through a Temporal Lens To further enhance our understanding of framing in social movements, I propose a temporal lens. Studying the temporal construction of collective action frames enables us to unravel the dynamic processes that constitute and develop the frame. Moreover, I argue that insights into the temporal patterns within interpretative framing processes will aid in elucidating and interpreting the movements´strategic choices to deploy their framing. To my knowledge, with few exceptions (Munshi et al., 2022; Nyberg et al., 2020; Vandevoordt & Fleischmann, 2021), there is very little research that explicitly studies framing and social movements in relation to time. Additionally, as time is argued to be the central element in sustainability (e.g., Bansal and DesJardine, 2014) the temporal lens is especially appropriate for studying framing in environmental movements. 2.2.1. The Centrality of Time in Collective Action Frames Framing is a temporally embedded process. Building on the agentic dimension of social movements, as their capacity to construct and employ a framing based on their interpretation of an issue, framing processes are inherently “informed by the past (in its habitual aspect), but also oriented toward the future (as a capacity to imagine alternative possibilities) and toward the present (as a capacity to contextualize past habits and future projects within the contingencies of the moment)” (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998, p. 963). For example, prognostic framing suggests alternative ways into the future and diagnostic framing assigns responsibility for action (Snow & Benford, 1988), thus constituting the projective, future-oriented dimension of human agency (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998). Consequently, framing is a process of making sense of the past, present, and future. Literature on time in sensemaking processes conceptualizes “time as the very medium through which actors address and translate their realities” with the present as the “locus of defining pasts and futures” (Hernes & Schultz, 2020, p. 4). For this, past, present, and future are not understood as separate and linearly aligned (Reinecke & Ansari, 2015) or as stable temporal categories but constantly negotiated in an ongoing present (Schultz & Hernes, 2013). Hence, actors face multiple temporalities simultaneously at any given moment and shift their temporal orientations dynamically according to the context (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998). For example, Vandevoordt and Fleischmann (2021) investigate how social S. Lüpnitz /Junior Management Science 10(2) (2025) 349-368 353 movements are confronted with somewhat conflicting temporalities while having to switch their temporal orientation between a focus on the present, i.e., in situations of emergency and crisis, and need to expand their temporal horizon towards the future, i.e., to incorporate and actively shape broader changes in the future. Derived from the strategic nature of framing, collective action frames challenge dominant temporal beliefs and aim to change perceptions and interpretations of time. Literature on temporal work examines how actors strategically construct, navigate, and capitalize frames (Granqvist & Gustafsson, 2016) to align (Kaplan & Orlikowski, 2013), but also influence and redirect (Bansal et al., 2022) temporal assumptions or patterns. This stream of research argues that the more actors engage in temporal work, the more likely they enable concrete strategic action and choice that diverges from the prevailing status quo (Kaplan & Orlikowski, 2013). Consequently, framing in social movements can be understood as a form of temporal work with the objective of creating a shared belief of temporality to foster change (Granqvist & Gustafsson, 2016; Nyberg et al., 2020). In a study on framing contests in the UK debate on fracking, Nyberg et al. (2020) investigate how actors construct temporality in their framing to make them convincing. They introduce the theory of temporal portability (p. 189), stating that the construction of time within a framing makes it meaningful to act on. They argue that frames with a certain temporal linearity resulting from a clear chronology of connecting a dominant past with a recognized future are more convincing and, therefore, actionable. Thus, for environmental movements to be successful in challenging dominant frames, the counter-frames need to gain temporal portability through solidification processes of certainty, simplicity, and familiarity. While this study underlines the centrality of time in framing contests, it only provides limited insights into how temporality is actively constructed based on an actor´s interpretation of climate change and strategically employed. 2.2.2. Temporal Perspectives in Framing Climate Change Research at the intersection of time and sustainability has highlighted how actors´temporal perspectives matter in response to climate change (e.g., Lê, 2013; Slawinski and Bansal, 2012,2015). In the literature, temporal perspective is characterized by its “degree of emphasis on the past, present, future” (p. 141) – the temporal focus – and “the distance looked into past and future” (p. 142) – the temporal depth (Bluedorn, 2002). The long-term nature of climate change accounts for actors increasingly shifting their temporal focus to the future. In times of crisis surrounded by uncertainty, Wenzel et al. (2020) argue that “actors have begun to experience the future as a problematic, open-ended temporal category” (p. 1442). Actors struggle over different views on ecological futures and the complexity of the issue makes framing challenging. Climate change as a framing is abstract and lacks immediate actionable elements (Nyberg et al., 2020). Some research states that it is essential to partly decouple from the present and engage with distant futures as abstract, and potentially more radical, imaginations of “what might be”, to collectively develop alternatives for a future in the face of climate change that, consequently, can become treated as asif realities (Augustine et al., 2019). This is closely related to the notion of desirability, which allows actors to articulate desirable futures through acts of imagination and provide hope (Gümüsay & Reinecke, 2022). Hence, desirable futures are performative in that they actively shape the future in the present. However, research on future-oriented action presupposes that actors have sufficient time to develop, and craft shared collective futures. In moments of crisis that imply urgency and need for immediate action, those future imaginaries must be brought into the here and now to “disrupt present thinking” (De Cock et al., 2021, p. 470). While engaging with desirable futures invokes imagination for transformation, the construction of a shared sense of urgency by anticipating undesirable futures may be of equal importance to evoke collective action in the first place (Alimadadi et al., 2022). Consequently, the question arises as to how organizations should adjust their time perspectives in response to climate change. Research argues that organizations face inter-temporal tensions resulting from the different temporal horizons of economic and environmental logics (Slawinski & Bansal, 2015). Thus, organizations must make trade-offs between benefits now, such as short-term financial profits, and benefits later, such as long-term sustainability targets. A present-time perspective favours pay-offs in the short-term at the expense of the long-term, therefore, contributes to shorttermism (Laverty, 1996; Marginson & McAulay, 2008) which inherently prevents organizations from taking action towards sustainable development (Bansal & DesJardine, 2014; Slawinski et al., 2017). Thus, this stream of research emphasizes the need for organizations to adopt a long-term, future perspective that aligns with the temporality of the environment (Slawinski & Bansal, 2012,2015). To be sustainable, organizations must be willing to make intertemporal trade-offs by balancing the different temporalities (Reinecke & Ansari, 2015; Slawinski & Bansal, 2015)). Surprisingly, with one notable exception (Kim et al., 2019), the present-time perspective has received little attention in the literature on temporality and sustainability even though it is commonly agreed that climate change is an urgent issue that requires immediate action (Wenzel et al., 2020). Kim et al. (2019) challenge the assertion that a present-time perspective is not compatible with sustainable development by introducing the concept of a long present. By framing the present as an extended duration, rather than a distinct moment with no temporal depth, actors were able to see connections among processes that enabled rather than hindered sustainable development. 3. Methods My study follows a phenomenon-driven case study approach (Yin, 1993) to understand the dynamics present S. Lüpnitz /Junior Management Science 10(2) (2025) 349-368354 within the environmental movement LG (Eisenhardt, 1989). Conducting a single-case study enabled me to engage deeply with the phenomenon and collect and analyze a rich set of data from multiple sources to ensure the robustness of my findings. Combining the lens of framing with a temporal perspective ensured a contemporary methodological approach to analyze my data and craft out insightful, new theory. 3.1. Data Collection The data collection happened between December 2022 and September 2023 and included interviews with participants of LG, internal documents, and contextual observations. The triangulation allowed me to complement and contrast my different data sources, thereby providing robustness to my findings and theory (e.g., Eisenhardt, 1989). Appendix A provides an overview of the empirical material I collected. 3.1.1. Interviews To gain deep insight into individual perspectives on climate change and LG, I conducted ten interviews with eight participants of the movement over a period of two months. They were all explicitly interviewed as individuals involved in LG, not as official spokespeople of the movement (Munshi et al., 2022). In the sampling process I selected people with different demographic characteristics (esp. in terms of age and gender), different levels of experience (esp. in terms of history in climate activism and hierarchical level at LG), and different functional areas within the movement to limit bias and ensure a diverse range of perspectives (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). In the beginning, I approached individuals via Instagram and open chat groups of LG. From these initial contacts, I applied a snowballing principle and asked for further potential interview partners. In addition, one interviewee agreed to share my request in internal chat groups of LG. That way, I was able to reach out to individuals who acted more in the background or did not use social media. The interviews followed a guideline that was adapted to the respective individual and to the thematic focus over time. Where possible, I collected information on my interviewees in social media postings or press releases before the interview. Initially, the guideline focused on understanding how the individuals frame climate change and climate action in general. To examine the role of temporality, I asked questions on their interpretation of the past and present in terms of political action and the role of environmental movements, and how they imagine the future in the face of climate change. Over time, the focus switched to the specific framing strategies of LG and the role of polarization. Afterwards, as the importance of networking activities emerged as a key finding, I conducted three interviews with a specific focus on understanding the mechanisms of networking. Overall, a key challenge in the interviews was to create a safe space where the interviewees felt free to talk about their perspectives and experiences. The reason behind this was that because of the harsh criticism the movement faces, in interview situations the participants feel like they must continuously justify their actions. Early on I noticed that this would hinder me from getting individual and insightful responses. To address this challenge, I started the interviews with more open and personal questions, e.g., about the interviewees´ motivation to participate in the movement, how they feel about the current political situation, and their views on climate activism in general. By showing interest, I meant to create a pleasant atmosphere for the interview. Afterwards, I asked more specific and potentially critical questions, e.g., about the strategy and organization of LG. Furthermore, all meetings included informal talk before and after the interview. With two individuals, I conducted a second interview. One was motivated because of a different thematic focus, as the interviewee had two relevant roles at the time. The other one had the aim to understand how the attitude and understanding of a new participant of LG changed over time (seven weeks in between the interviews). Both interviews turned out to be very insightful as a certain feeling of trust was established. In this thesis, I refer to the interviewees with the term “participants” (of the movement LG). This term emphasizes the active involvement of the individuals in the movement. I deliberately decided against the more common term “activists” as it may not accurately represent the selfidentification of the interviewees. Some individuals explicitly criticized the term because it implies a kind of identity that suggests a social life of dropouts where activism is seen as an end in itself. Therefore, I argue that “participants” can be a more inclusive term that encompasses a broader range of individuals involved in the movement. In addition, it includes the diversity of different activities the interviewees engage in, ranging from “protesters” to “networkers”. To protect respondent confidentiality I do not assign pseudonyms as potential conclusions on the gender may harm their anonymity (Kaiser, 2009). The interviews lasted between 39 and 70 minutes with an average length of 56 minutes. All of them were conducted in German. Nine interviews took place online via Zoom and one interview took place in person. All interviews were audiorecorded and subsequently transcribed verbatim. In total, the approximately 9.5 hours of recorded interview material (9h 21min) resulted in 128 transcribed, and fully anonymized, pages. All interview excerpts used to present my findings were translated from German to English. Table 1provides an overview of the interviews I conducted. 3.1.2. Documents In addition to the interviews, I collected internal strategic plans as well as information material, guidelines, declarations, and organizational charts from the internal wiki of LG. The movement is transparent about its strategy, structure, and organization and I was able to access relevant data online via the website. In addition, the interviewees provided me access to transcripts from their presentations on the strategy as well as scientific papers the strategy is based upon. The documents supported me in creating an effective guideline, to ensure that I do not include superfluous questions, and in the interviews, to be able to talk about the topic and S. Lüpnitz /Junior Management Science 10(2) (2025) 349-368 355 Table 1: Interviews Code Role Description* Date Length (minutes) LG_01 Protestant 05.06. 44 LG_02 Protestant, Coordinator of regional protest team 14.06. 52 LG_03 Supporter of protest and mobilization 15.06. 60 LG_04 Protestant, Supporter of protest and networking 22.06. 52 LG_05 Protestant, Coordinator of regional networking, Communicator of strategy 23.06. 70 LG_06 Supporter of public relations and mobilization 05.07. 39 LG_07** Protestant, Coordinator of regional networking, Communicator of strategy 19.07. 67 LG_08 Coordinator of a nationwide networking pillar 24.07. 56 LG_09 Coordinator of a nationwide networking pillar 26.07. 57 LG_10** Supporter of protest and mobilization 02.08. 64 * Roles in critical positions (i.e., leading roles with decision-making power and personnel responsibility – called Coordinators) are clearly defined. Nevertheless, it is not unusual for participants of LG to have multiple roles at the same time. For interviewees not having an explicit role I used the term Supporter and mentioned the primary areas they supported. ** Interviews with recurring interviewees ask subsequent questions. Moreover, I used the documents to underpin and enrich my data but also to contrast them with the statements my interviewees made. In total, I analyzed 161 written pages. 3.1.3. Contextual Observations Moreover, I followed the public discourse and the development of LG in detail by observing meetings and collecting other publicly available material. In December 2022, I participated in a regular mobilization process of LG, which consisted of two online meetings, where a participant of LG presented the strategy and gave room for discussion. In the following weeks, I participated in the weekly update meetings of LG, to get a gist of how the movement works and organizes. Moreover, I listened to two podcasts, one directly produced by LG and one from journalists who investigated the movement over seven months. Over the whole time, I followed three open LG chat groups, including update and discussion rooms and relevant Instagram accounts, including the official account of LG and accounts from key strategic individuals. This helped me to contextualize my data and enrich as well as contrast emerging findings. Due to timely constraints, this data was not analyzed systematically. 3.2. Data Analysis My analysis followed an inductive approach going from data to theory (Eisenhardt, 1989). Due to the phenomenondriven nature of my research, I approached the data with a broadly scoped research question to ensure flexibility in the analysis process (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). Puzzled by the societal rejection the movement faces and them holding on to their strategy, I initially entered the field with a general interest in how LG tries to foster change. Cycling between the literature and my data, framing emerged as a valuable lens to study social movements. The concept of framing and frame analysis (Gamson, 1975; Goffman, 1974), and the toolkit of framing tasks, framing processes, and framing features (e.g., Benford and Snow, 2000) provided me with a decent body of literature to comprehend my emerging findings. The role of time and temporality emerged as a core theme early in the analysis process. Consulting the literature, the temporal lens turned out to be a promising, yet mostly unstudied, perspective on framing, because it enabled me to unravel framing and framing strategies through a dynamic lens (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014; Nyberg et al., 2020). To craft out the themes and patterns of the temporal construction and the framing strategies, I broadly followed the methodological approach of reflexive thematic analysis suggested by Braun and Clarke (2021). Iterating between data collection and data analysis enabled me to adapt and specify my interview questions to emerging puzzles and findings. Following I describe the four main steps of my analysis process. Step 1: Familiarize with the data. In the first step, I aimed to familiarize myself with the dataset and get a general overview of the various data sources. I skimmed through all the collected documents and thoroughly read and re-read through the interview transcripts to immerse and critically engage with the data (Braun & Clarke, 2021). I made textual and visual notes for every interview to get an understanding of the different perspectives on climate change and LG and afterwards compared the notes to look for recurring topics. The centrality of time as the constructing dimension of the framing of climate change and the resulting strategies from LG emerged in this step. Step 2: Coding the data. Second, after uploading my data into MAXQDA software, I systemically coded the interview and document data employing an open coding approach. Following an inductive orientation, I shifted my attention to asking questions and focusing on puzzles (Grodal et al., 2021). For example, I noticed how the interviewees focused strongly on the present as a small time window for action, but highlighted the need for broad, systemic S. Lüpnitz /Junior Management Science 10(2) (2025) 349-368356 transformation in the future. I iteratively went back and forth between data sources, making sure to go through every transcript at least twice (Braun & Clarke, 2021; Locke et al., 2022). To enhance coding quality and ensure reflexivity within the process, I created memos after every analysis session (Birks et al., 2008) to reflect on my progress, challenges, uncertainties or emerging candidate themes. In this step, I noticed how the codes revolve around two central topics, namely the construction of urgency by a present focus and the creation of a shared sense of urgency by polarizing and aligning framing strategies. Step 3: Develop themes from overarching patterns. Third, I organized the codes to overarching patterns across the data. Following an abductive approach, I iterated between data, literature, and emerging findings. To enhance my understanding of the findings on temporality, I consulted the literature on inter-temporal tensions (e.g., Slawinski and Bansal, 2015), desirability in temporal work (e.g., Alimadadi et al., 2022) and the small body of literature available on temporality in framing (e.g., Nyberg et al., 2020). Moreover, I contrasted my findings on polarizing as a framing strategy to the literature on frame resonance (e.g., Lee et al., 2018; Snow et al., 1986). To organize my thoughts, I moved away from textual memos and continuously developed and modified models to visualize my findings. In this step, I developed meaningful categories for the construction of temporality and the framing processes. Step 4: Integrate and reflect on findings. In the last step, I used post-it notes and mind-mapping to integrate my findings into a conceptual model. I specifically looked at the interrelations between my two core findings, thus how the specific framing strategies resulted from the temporal construction of the initial frame on climate change. Finally, I reflected on my findings and contrasted them against my contextual observations and data sources. 4. Findings 4.1. Introduction to the Case: We are The Last Generation! LG focuses on disruptive forms of protest. The start of the movement can be traced back to September 2021, before the federal election in Germany, where a few individuals initiated a hunger strike in pursuit of a public dialogue on the climate crisis with the candidates for chancellor. To date, some of these individuals form the core group of LG being responsible for the strategic orientation of the movement. The first protest under the name of Last Generation took place in January 2022 as a road blockade in Berlin. Since then, LG initiated various campaigns (e.g., turning off oil pipelines, soiling famous art paintings, spray-painting a private jet, and, more recently, larger unannounced protest marches), while the main and most frequent form of protest is still road blockades in all major cities in Germany. To achieve maximum disruption, the protesters usually glue themselves to the streets, prolonging their removal by authorities. The strategic foundation behind those protests builds on the idea of peaceful civil disobedience. The movement itself defines peaceful civil disobedience as “the strategic use of peaceful means by citizens who want to make a difference socially, politically, or economically” (Letzte Generation, 2023b). In practice, this includes deliberate acts of rule-breaking or violation of the law under the imperative of peacefulness to disturb the public and build up political pressure. Civil disobedience gained popularity in climate activism in recent years. An early, wellknown example is the British movement Extinction Rebellion (XR). Interestingly, LG was predominantly initiated by individuals with prior involvement in the movement XR, who split off because of a perceived missing strategic and organizational clarity. Furthermore, together with several other environmental movements practicing civil disobedience, LG formed the international A22 Network. Because of their disruptive protest, LG polarizes the public. Despite the young history and relatively small number of members (e.g., in comparison to Fridays for Future (FFF)), the movement has received great media attention and triggered a debate on climate activism in Germany. While the majority agrees on the importance of climate protection (Lehmphul, 2016), there are sharp divisions on the legitimacy of the protest of LG. The media uses fierce rhetoric, e.g., branding the participants of LG as Klimakleber (ClimateGluers) or Klimachaoten (Climate-Anarchists). Also, leading politicians criticize the protest as inappropriate, e.g., the chancellor of Germany Olaf Scholz called the actions “completely crazy” (dpa, 2023), or even counter-productive, e.g., vice chancellor Robert Habeck argues that “this process prevents a majority in favour of climate projection” in (dpa & epd, 2023). Furthermore, the protests of LG are largely rejected in society (Statista Research Department, 2023). In addition, there is a lack of clarity on whether the protests of LG, particularly the road blockades, are legal. Many protesters face major legal repressions including temporary custody and monetary fines. In May 2023, the repressions culminated in a nationwide raid, where the homes of several key individuals of LG were searched, based on the suspicion that LG forms a criminal organization.1Despite the criticism and repressions, the movement to date continues with their strategy. To ensure the ability to act in the face of criticism and repression, LG organizes itself in a centralized and hierarchical structure. A core team of three individuals, who are also referred to as the ‘founding team´, owns the decisionmaking mandate and is responsible for the strategic direction of the movement. Together with three other individuals, they form the core group. The core group discusses strategic questions and provides strategic orientation for the regional groups. While they are not directly involved in operational tasks like campaign plannings, they do own the power to veto if decisions do not align with the broader strategy. Overarching operational decisions are delegated to a coordination 1As of the time of the writing process (October 2023), the suspicion has been temporarily dropped. However, the discussion persists, and the possibility of an indictment has not yet been ruled out. S. Lüpnitz /Junior Management Science 10(2) (2025) 349-368 363 Figure 1: Strategic framing processes the last possibility to prevent undesirable futures. Consequently, a better, desirable future can only emerge out of the crisis mode in the present. The movement intentionally deprioritizes the future as a temporal perspective to accentuate the sense of urgency and thereby strategically excludes questions for broader changes in the future. The way the movement constructs time forms the foundation of the framing and determines the processes through which the movement deploys its frame to foster collective action. To convey the constructed urgency LG actively manages the balance between disrupting the present by keeping a static framing and aligning its framing to achieve a certain degree of resonance. This balancing act is reflected in the two interrelated but in practice decoupled processes of pushing and translating. While the movement utilizes synergies between the processes, such as leveraging the attention from the protest for access to networking partners, they build on fundamentally different mechanisms. Disruptive strategies, including all public activities like protests, press interviews, and court hearings, are employed to push the present focus. Therefore, the movement aims to disrupt the present and strategically trigger a certain degree of polarization. On the one hand, polarization is used to gain attention, be unignorable, and provoke a discourse in the here and now. This logically emanates from the framing of climate change as a catastrophe, emphasizing the limited time window for action. While specific campaigns, such as protests targeting affluent individuals or oil companies, garnered significantly greater resonance among the public audience, the movement observed a stark disparity in the level of attention received by S. Lüpnitz /Junior Management Science 10(2) (2025) 349-368364 Figure 2: A theoretical model of temporality in crisis frames: Balancing disruption and alignment these actions compared to the road blockades. On the other hand, the framing inevitably generates polarization due to its present focus, implying direct and immediate influence on the actions of political and economic actors, rather than in the future. Thus, the temporal construction of the frame limits the margin in which the framing can be aligned with potential adherents. Consequently, within the context of a crisis, attaining a high degree of resonance may not necessarily be the primary objective of strategic framing processes, and triggering some degree of non-resonance might be crucial. However, the movement endeavours to foster resonance by engaging in networking activities. LG aligns the climate catastrophe frame to persuade prospective supporters of the framing. By translating the climate catastrophe frame to the various pillars of society the movement projects concrete undesirable future states that will inevitably result from inaction in the present. To provide a tangible perspective, the complexity of crises intertwined with the climate catastrophe is deconstructed and contextualized within the framework of the institution or actor. Thus, networking also focuses on conveying the urgency and the need for immediate action in the here and now but partially aligns the framing to achieve that objective. By especially highlighting undesirable futures in the context of the respective networking partner, the movement triggers feelings of fear and regret and, therefore, aims to create an emotional connection to the climate catastrophe that in turn fosters resonance for the framing of LG and stimulates support. In the short term, the movement focuses on strategically powerful partners that can support the movement in public through solidarity statements and function as trustworthy carriers of the catastrophe framing in their specific context. In the long term, the movement engages in transformative processes within the institutions or actors by emphasizing that another future is possible. In summary, the case illustrates how the strategic framing processes are linked to the temporal construction of the framing. For crisis frames that aim to create a shared sense of urgency, aligning the framing to achieve resonance may not constitute the primary objective of all strategic processes because of the inherent present focus. Instead, the movement deploys its framing in a dialectic process, actively orchestrating an intricate equilibrium between disruptive strategies, aimed at triggering non-resonance, and alignment strategies, aimed at fostering resonance. To shift the temporal focus to the present the case demonstrates that movements may strategically employ polarizing framing tactics. However, also for crisis frames resonance is necessary. The movement recognizes the importance of creating resonance within society to foster change. Nonetheless, for frames with a strong present focus, generating resonance and conveying urgency presents an enormous challenge. To partially align the framing, the case indicates how movements may initiate alignment processes independently, which subsequently take place decoupled from the main and visible public campaigns. 5.2. Contributions and Implications The theoretical contribution of this study is twofold. First, it contributes to the research on framing in social movements by illustrating the fundamental role of time and temporality in framing processes and providing an in-depth temporal perspective on a unique, contemporary case. Second, it contributes to research at the intersection of time and sustainability by emphasizing the relevance of a present-time perspective in the face of climate change and, therefore, enhances theories on inter-temporal tensions and futureoriented action. This study reveals how framing processes cannot be studied isolated from their temporal construction. Especially for collective action frames that serve an interpretative and a strategic function (Snow & Benford, 1988), time plays a fundamental role in how actors make sense of the past, present, and future but also aim to challenge and change dominant S. Lüpnitz /Junior Management Science 10(2) (2025) 349-368 365 temporal beliefs. By unravelling how the movement strategically constructs a temporal chronology and tries to shift the temporal focus to the present, this study shows how framing can be understood as a form of temporal work (Bansal et al., 2022; Kaplan & Orlikowski, 2013; Nyberg et al., 2020). A temporal lens provides outcome-focused research on strategic framing processes and the somewhat static framing literature in general with a dynamic character to come up with the complexity of framing as an ongoing, interpretative process of meaning construction (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014). However, this study extends beyond how actors construct time (Granqvist & Gustafsson, 2016) and mobilize temporality (Nyberg et al., 2020) by examining how the temporal construction and the strategic framing processes are inextricably intertwined. Building on the theory of temporal portability introduced by Nyberg et al. (2020) this case illustrates how a movement seeks to construct a temporal chronology to make the framing more convincing and actionable by for example “reducing the time frames for climate action” and “linking climate change to what are seen as legitimate and immediate concerns” (p. 192). The present-time perspective resulting from the movements´interpretation of climate change as a catastrophe that requires immediate action affected the framing processes and objectives. The present focus posed a two-fold challenge, requiring the simultaneous cultivation of resonance and compelling conveyance of urgency, which in turn constrains frame alignment possibilities. Moreover, polarization is employed as a framing strategy in the process of pushing to display and enforce the present focus. While the framing literature conceptualizes resonance as a key mechanism for effectiveness (Benford & Snow, 2000; Cornelissen & Werner, 2014), this study illustrates how a movement had to balance strategies that aimed to create non-resonance and resonance to create a shared sense of urgency. This advances our understanding of frame resonance (Lee et al., 2018; Snow & Benford, 1988; Snow et al., 1986; Zeng et al., 2019) insofar as resonance might not always be the primary objective of all framing processes and employing polarizing frames can be a strategy to display the temporal perspective of the framing. Furthermore, this study introduces the process of translating as an alternative form of frame alignment. Building on the theory of strategic alignment processes (Benford & Snow, 2000; Snow & Benford, 1988), translating contains elements of frame bridging because it involves making connections between two unconnected but ideologically related frames (e.g., networking with other climate justice movements or scientific institutions), and frame extension because it expands the scope and relevance of the frame by associating it with other issues or interests (e.g., networking with health organizations or church). However, it introduces a unique element in that it focuses specifically on the context of the different institutions or actors and tailors the framing to resonate with their specific concerns and values. The emphasis on creating an emotional connection to the issue in line with the temporal construction of the catastrophe framing distinguishes translating as a distinct process in the broader frame alignment theory. Translating, in this context, involves not only conveying but also persuading potential supporters to adopt the movement´s temporal beliefs, aiming to establish quick common ground during moments of crisis. This study also contributes to the literature on intertemporal tensions in sustainable development (e.g., Bansal and DesJardine, 2014; Reinecke and Ansari, 2015; Slawinski and Bansal, 2015) by illustrating how a present-time perspective may be more valuable than previously assumed. The literature argues that organizations have to apply a long-term perspective to be sustainable and examine how actors navigate different temporalities and make trade-offs (Reinecke & Ansari, 2015; Slawinski & Bansal, 2015). Surprisingly, the case of LG represents an example of an actor who fights for a sustainable future and simultaneously claims a present-time perspective. Therefore, this study provides insights into how actors assess a long-term, future perspective as problematic in the face of climate change. First, because the undeniable urgency of the climate crisis requires immediate action to mitigate the ever-worsening situation and prevent the tipping points. By prioritizing the present, the movement underscores the idea that a socially just future can only be secured through immediate action in the present. Second, adopting a long-term perspective on climate change implies that there is enough time for change. As a result, actors might not perceive the urgency or “hide” behind long-term goals and, therefore, deliberately postpone climate action as a question for the distant future. Thus, this study contributes to the discourse on how actors imagine collectively dealing with the tension between the need for immediate action because of the urgency and the need for broader changes in the future inherent in climate change (Slawinski & Bansal, 2015; Wenzel et al., 2020). The proposed crisis mode suggests that by prioritizing shortterm goals, such as the implementation of first steps as crisis measures, concrete action and responsibility can be assigned. This enables a more effective evaluation compared to complex, long-term goals, determining whether society perceives the urgency and necessity for change. The shortterm goals can further function as the starting point through which a catastrophe can be mitigated and a better, desirable future can emerge from. By perceiving the present as interconnected to the future rather than a distinct moment, the present-time perspective provides an alternative view of sustainable development that is not about trade-offs (Kim et al., 2019). Consequently, this study reveals how movements may not assess the missing long-term perspectives but the unwillingness to act in the present as the key issue that hinders sustainable development. Moreover, this study contributes to research on futureoriented action by illustrating how actors make connections between the present and the future to construct urgency. While prior research focuses on how distant and desirable futures are imagined to invoke transformation (Augustine et al., 2019; Gümüsay & Reinecke, 2022), this study shows how actors deliberately project near and undesirable future states to emotionalize and create a shared sense of S. Lüpnitz /Junior Management Science 10(2) (2025) 349-368366 urgency (Alimadadi et al., 2022). To foster collective action the anticipation of undesirable futures directly connected to present states might be crucial to achieve a sense of urgency for change in the first place. Furthermore, this study advances research on future desirability (Alimadadi et al., 2022; Gümüsay & Reinecke, 2022) by showing how actors strategically exclude the amplification of desirable future possibilities. By not making connections between the present and a distant, desirable future the movement tries to avoid the discourse from derailing to political future imaginaries and thereby not tackling the actual urgency of the crisis in the present. The case depicts the challenge of connecting future social imaginaries to the present (De Cock et al., 2021; Nyberg et al., 2020) in urgent situations. In the face of a pressing crisis, the question arises as to how to achieve resonance for a framing that depicts a future vision that may be radically and ideologically different from the present, e.g., anti-capitalism. Therefore, the present-time perspective is used to deliberately distract from broader changes in the future to foster actionability in the present (Vandevoordt & Fleischmann, 2021). On a practical note, movements trying to foster change need to craft collective action frames by constructing temporality in a convincing way (Nyberg et al., 2020). In times of crisis, movements may need to employ a strong focus on the present to construct urgency. However, focusing on the present and excluding broader future questions may result in a perceived imbalance between the movement´s claims and the action of the movement. While a simultaneous focus on the present and future might pose a risk for movements, potentially shrinking its power (Vandevoordt & Fleischmann, 2021), it is important to make strong connections between the present and the future and explain the temporal focus to achieve resonance, e.g., by engaging in networking activities. 5.3. Limitations and Future Research An inherent limitation of this study stems from the singlecase research design. LG provides a highly interesting and relevant case for studying social movements and the organization of time in framing because it is critical, in that the unusual framing strategies challenge existing theory, and is unique, in that the approach is new and triggered major discourse (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007; Yin, 1993). Therefore, conducting a single case study that allows immersion and a rich description of the phenomena can be a powerful example for extending existing theory and inspiring future research (Siggelkow, 2007). However, as a single case study only investigates one specific example the quality of the emergent theory is limited in terms of robustness, generalizability, and testability (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). To enhance and strengthen my findings, future research could conduct multiple case studies (Yin, 1993). Specifically, I see great potential in comparative case studies that investigate polar types (Eisenhardt, 1989) of movements that seemingly have similar objectives but employ different framing strategies. Studies could examine how and why environmental movements construct time differently in their framing while agreeing on the urgency of climate change. FFF, for example, has a strong temporal focus on the future and explicitly claims systemic change. Research could then investigate the implications of diverse temporal constructions for collective action in the broader climate justice movement. Nonetheless, I also encourage future research to test the applicability of my findings in other contexts, such as social movements where there is less obvious temporal tension between urgency and broader chances in the future. The short time horizon of the data collection process represents another limitation of this study. Derived from the processual and dynamic understanding of framing, it is certain that frames and framing strategies will change over time (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014). Although the strong and deliberately transparent strategic component of framing in the movement as well as observing the development over nine months enabled me to analyze and contextualize framing processes, the time horizon in which the interviews were conducted (two months), being the primary source of my findings, represents a rather short snapshot of time. If and how the framing of LG will change over time and how the movement will assess whether the claimed crisis mode is established requires further observation. An interesting question would be whether the temporal focus will shift back to the future once the movement perceives that a shared sense of urgency is achieved and how this affects framing strategies. While one plausible scenario could be that LG acts as a temporary organization that disbands upon completing its mission, an alternative scenario is that the movement significantly changes and takes on a new role in the climate change discourse. Furthermore, I see the need for studies that investigate the societal outcomes of polarizing framing strategies, e.g., in terms of policy change (Zeng et al., 2019) or the mobilization of counter-movements (Sombatpoonsiri, 2023). Future research could for example analyze framing contests to study the effectiveness of non-resonating frames (Nyberg et al., 2020). In times of crisis, the question arises as to how much resonance is needed to foster change and whether it is sufficient to solely address resonance on an emotional level, e.g., by activating emotions of fear and regret (Giorgi, 2017). In sum, I encourage future research to critically evaluate resonance as the key mechanism for frame effectiveness, particularly within ideological and political contexts (Giorgi & Weber, 2015). Another limitation stems from the lack of observational data to capture the complexity of the phenomena. The observations I conducted solely had the objective to contextualize and contrast the emerging findings. I did not observe how the participants pushed their framing in actual situations like protests or court hearings and how participants translated the framing in networking talks to create an emotional connection. Future research could, therefore, benefit from collecting first-hand experiences by attending protests, internal plannings, or networking talks to further nuance the relation of temporality and framing processes. Moreover, contrasting emerging findings with perspectives of critics or fellow climate movement participants could provide valuable insights S. Lüpnitz /Junior Management Science 10(2) (2025) 349-368 367 into the external evaluation of the strategy. Consequently, and building on the call from Cornelissen and Werner (2014), I encourage future research to conduct ethnographies over a longer period to come up with the complexity of framing processes and to enrich my findings. Overall, this work should also be a call for management and organizational studies to incorporate more strongly atypical, other than business-related cases in their research. Especially in contexts like climate change that imply a need to change in the near and distant future, research should put a stronger emphasis on actors who challenge dominant beliefs and fight for change, like environmental movements (Gümüsay & Reinecke, 2022; Wenzel et al., 2020). Moreover, this case is a powerful example of how highly organized social movements can be, especially when they play a strong counterpart to dominant beliefs. Future research could investigate how movements in times of crisis reach this level of organization that goes beyond temporarily achieving ‘organizationality’ through identity claims (Dobusch & Schoeneborn, 2015) to establishing boundaries and constant actionability through structure that enables actors to build resilience to societal criticism and negative evaluations (Roulet, 2020). 6. Concluding Thoughts Humanity is currently facing a self-induced yet existential crisis. Facing such a crisis requires a radical transformation of society, particularly our economic system. Scholars and practitioners are confronted with the pressing question of how societal change and political action can be organized in time to ensure a sustainable future. Although the necessity for change has been acknowledged for quite some time, there is still an underlying perception that progress remains insufficient. While the imperative of transcending the familiar paradigms of “business as usual” is apparent (Wright & Nyberg, 2017), especially within social actors like environmental movements, climate change as an actionable framing is “indeed foreign to our very sense of being” (Nyberg et al., 2020, p. 193). This thesis sought out to unravel the framing activities of the environmental movement LG in Germany puzzled by the seemingly static and counterproductive strategy. By applying a temporal lens, this study illustrated the complexity of (strategic) framing processes. Framing climate change as a catastrophe involved a strong focus on the present and near undesirable future states among participants of the movement. My findings show how the temporal construction shaped the strategic framing processes. To convey the sense of urgency, framing activities were in parts deliberately targeted at triggering polarization by non-resonance. Therefore, the findings enhance research on framing in social movements by demonstrating the centrality of time and its consequences on strategic framing processes. Moreover, the study holds valuable implications for the discourse on time and sustainability, highlighting the primary challenge of cultivating a collective sense of urgency to foster action in the face of the escalating climate crisis. Certain academic discourses within the field, such as those focusing on long-term perspectives or desirable futures, found limited applicability in this case. Instead, concepts of undesirable futures and emotionalization that resulted in a present-focused approach to climate action were far more prominent. On a final note, referring to the introductory quote by the SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations António Guterres, “[t]ime is no longer on our side”. This is further amplified by powerful and affluent actors who attempt to slow down sustainable development for their own gain, leading to a precarious situation where “delay is the new denial” (p. 2) in the discourse on climate action (Shue, 2023). Against the backdrop of scientific evidence, the urgency to redirect our discourse on sustainability, both in academia and practice, to the present and the means of immediate action has likely never been more pressing. I hope this study can inspire future research to embrace the present-time perspective and recognize the relevance of societal actors like social movements more strongly. References Alimadadi, S., Davies, A., & Tell, F. (2022). A palace fit for the future: Desirability in temporal work. Strategic Organization,20(1), 20–50. Augustine, G., Soderstrom, S., Milner, D., & Weber, K. (2019). Constructing a Distant Future: Imaginaries in Geoengineering. Academy of Management Journal,62(6), 1930–1960. Bansal, P., & DesJardine, M. R. (2014). Business sustainability: It is about time. Strategic Organization,12(1), 70–78. Bansal, P., Reinecke, J., Suddaby, R., & Langley, A. (2022). Temporal Work: The Strategic Organization of Time. Strategic Organization, 20(1), 6–19. Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639. Birks, M., Chapman, Y., & Francis, K. (2008). Memoing in qualitative research: Probing data and processes. Journal of Research in Nursing,13(1), 68–75. Bluedorn, A. C. (2002). The Human Organization of Time: Temporal Realities and Experience. Stanford University Press. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide to Understanding and Doing. SAGE Publications. https://us.sagepub.com /en-us/nam/thematic-analysis/book248481 Cornelissen, J. P., & Werner, M. D. (2014). Putting Framing in Perspective: A Review of Framing and Frame Analysis across the Management and Organizational Literature. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 181–235. De Cock, C., Nyberg, D., & Wright, C. (2021). Disrupting climate change futures: Conceptual tools for lost histories. Organization,28(3), 468–482. Dobusch, L., & Schoeneborn, D. (2015). Fluidity, Identity, and Organizationality: The Communicative Constitution of Anonymous. Journal of Management Studies,52(8), 1005–1035. dpa. (2023). Scholz über Anklebe-Aktionen: „Finde das völlig bekloppt“ [Sueddeutsche Zeitung].https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politi k/letzte-generation-kriminelle-vereinigung-justizsenatorin-berli n-pruefung-1.5874146 dpa & epd. (2023). Habeck: Gruppe “Letzte Generation” schadet Klimaschutz [ZDF].https://www.zdf.de/uri/1b1cdd0987ce4ec3-8ead-9aecf85656fa Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy of Management Review,14(4), 532–550. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory Building From Cases: Opportunities And Challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32. Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What Is Agency? American Journal of Sociology,103(4), 962–1023. S. Lüpnitz /Junior Management Science 10(2) (2025) 349-368368 Gamson, W. A. (1975). Review of Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Contemporary Sociology,4(6), 603–607. Giorgi, S. (2017). The Mind and Heart of Resonance: The Role of Cognition and Emotions in Frame Effectiveness. Journal of Management Studies,54(5), 711–738. Giorgi, S., & Weber, K. (2015). Marks of Distinction: Framing and Audience Appreciation in the Context of Investment Advice. Administrative Science Quarterly,60(2), 333–367. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Harvard University Press. Granqvist, N., & Gustafsson, R. (2016). Temporal Institutional Work. Academy of Management Journal,59(3), 1009–1035. Gray, B., Purdy, J. M., & Ansari, S. ( (2015). From Interactions to Institutions: Microprocesses of Framing and Mechanisms for the Structuring of Institutional Fields. Academy of Management Review, 40(1), 115–143. Grodal, S., Anteby, M., & Holm, A. L. (2021). Achieving Rigor in Qualitative Analysis: The Role of Active Categorization in Theory Building. Academy of Management Review,46(3), 591–612. Gümüsay, A. A., & Reinecke, J. (2022). Researching for Desirable Futures: From Real Utopias to Imagining Alternatives. Journal of Management Studies,59(1), 236–242. Guterres, A. (2022). Secretary-General’s video message to the Petersberg Dialogue | United Nations Secretary-General. https://www.un.o rg/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2022-07-18/secretary-generals -video-message-the-petersberg-dialogue Hernes, T., & Schultz, M. (2020). Translating the Distant into the Present: How actors address distant past and future events through situated activity. Organization Theory,1(1), 1–20. Johnston, H., & Oliver, P. E. (2000). What a Good Idea! Frames and Ideologies in Social Movement Research. Mobilization, (5), 1–18. Kaiser, K. (2009). Protecting Respondent Confidentiality in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Health Research,19(11), 1632–1641. Kaplan, S. (2008). Framing Contests: Strategy Making Under Uncertainty. Organization Science,19(5), 729–752. Kaplan, S., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2013). Temporal Work in Strategy Making. Organization Science,24(4), 965–995. Kim, A., Bansal, P., & Haugh, H. (2019). No Time Like the Present: How a Present Time Perspective Can Foster Sustainable Development. Academy of Management Journal,62(2), 607–634. Laverty, K. J. (1996). Economic “Short-Termism”: The Debate, the Unresolved Issues, and the Implications for Management Practice and Research. The Academy of Management Review,21(3), 825–860. Lê, J. K. (2013). How constructions of the future shape organizational responses: Climate change and the Canadian oil sands. Organization,20(5), 722–742. Lee, M., Ramus, T., & Vaccaro, A. (2018). From Protest to Product: Strategic Frame Brokerage in a Commercial Social Movement Organization. Academy of Management Journal,61(6), 2130–2158. Lehmphul, K. (2016, January). Umweltbewusstsein in Deutschland [Umweltbundesamt].https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/nach haltigkeit-strategien-internationales/umweltbewusstsein-in-deu tschland Letzte Generation. (2023a). Letzte Generation vor den Kipppunkten. https: //letztegeneration.org Letzte Generation. (2023b). Ziviler Widerstand. https://letztegeneration.or g/ziviler-widerstand Locke, K., Feldman, M., & Golden-Biddle, K. (2022). Coding Practices and Iterativity: Beyond Templates for Analyzing Qualitative Data. Organizational Research Methods,25(2), 262–284. Marginson, D., & McAulay, L. (2008). Exploring the debate on shorttermism: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Strategic Management Journal,29(3), 273–292. McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1977). Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory. American Journal of Sociology.htt ps://doi.org/10.1086/226464 Munshi, D., Cretney, R., Kurian, P., Morrison, S. L., & Edwards, A. (2022). Culture and politics in overlapping frames for the future: Multidimensional activist organizing and communicating on climate change in Aotearoa New Zealand. Organization.https://doi.org /13505084221131641 Nyberg, D., Wright, C., & Kirk, J. (2020). Fracking the Future: The Temporal Portability of Frames in Political Contests. Organization Studies, 41(2), 175–196. Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D. C., Tignor, M. M. B., Poloczanska, E. S., Mintenbeck, K., & et al. (2022). Summary for policymakers. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Reinecke, J., & Ansari, S. (2015). When Times Collide: Temporal Brokerage at the Intersection of Markets and Developments. Academy of Management Journal,58(2), 618–648. Reinecke, J., & Ansari, S. ( (2021). Microfoundations of Framing: The Interactional Production of Collective Action Frames in the Occupy Movement. Academy of Management Journal,64(2), 378–408. Roulet, T. J. (2020). The Power of Being Divisive: Understanding Negative Social Evaluations. Stanford University Press. Schultz, M., & Hernes, T. (2013). A Temporal Perspective on Organizational Identity. Organization Science,24(1), 1–21. Shue, H. (2023). Unseen urgency: Delay as the new denial. WIREs Climate Change,14(1), e809. Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuasion With Case Studies. Academy of Management Journal,50(1), 20–24. Slawinski, N., & Bansal, P. (2012). A Matter of Time: The Temporal Perspectives of Organizational Responses to Climate Change. Organization Studies,33(11), 1537–1563. Slawinski, N., & Bansal, P. (2015). Short on Time: Intertemporal Tensions in Business Sustainability. Organization Science,26(2), 531–549. Slawinski, N., Pinkse, J., Busch, T., & Banerjee, S. B. (2017). The Role of Short-Termism and Uncertainty Avoidance in Organizational Inaction on Climate Change: A Multi-Level Framework. Business & Society,56(2), 253–282. Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research,1(1), 197–217. Snow, D. A., & Corrigall-Brown, C. (2005). Falling on Deaf Ears: Confronting the Prospect of Nonresonant Frames. In Rhyming Hope and History: Activists, Academics, and Social Movement Scholarship (pp. 222–238). University of Minnesota Press. Snow, D. A., Rochford, E. B., Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. D. (1986). Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation. American Sociological Review,51(4), 464–481. Sombatpoonsiri, J. (2023). ‘A lot of people still love and worship the monarchy’: How polarizing frames trigger countermobilization in Thailand. Journal of Peace Research,60(1), 88–106. Statista Research Department. (2023). Bewertung der Klimaproteste von “Letzte Generation”. https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/s tudie/1345160/umfrage/bewertung-der-letzte-generation-klim aproteste Vandevoordt, R., & Fleischmann, L. (2021). Impossible Futures? The Ambivalent Temporalities of Grassroots Humanitarian Action. Critical Sociology,47(2), 187–202. Wenzel, M., Krämer, H., Koch, J., & Reckwitz, A. (2020). Future and Organization Studies: On the rediscovery of a problematic temporal category in organizations. Organization Studies,41(10), 1441– 1455. Williams, R. H. (2004). The Cultural Contexts of Collective Action: Constraints, Opportunities, and the Symbolic Life of Social Movements. In The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements (pp. 91– 115). World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford University Press. Wright, C., & Nyberg, D. (2017). An Inconvenient Truth: How Organizations Translate Climate Change into Business as Usual. Academy of Management Journal,60(5), 1633–1661. Wright, C., Nyberg, D., Rickards, L., & Freund, J. (2018). Organizing in the Anthropocene. Organization,25(4), 455–471. Yin, R. K. (1993). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Rev. ed., 13th print.). SAGE Publications. Zeng, F., Dai, J., & Javed, J. (2019). Frame alignment and environmental advocacy: The influence of NGO strategies on policy outcomes in China. Environmental Politics,28(4), 747–770.