Advertisement

Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 215–230 | Cite as

Outlining a strategic legitimacy assessment method: the case of the Illinois livestock industry

  • Peter GoldsmithEmail author
  • Filipe Pereira
Article
  • 347 Downloads

Abstract

The case and importance for managers and stakeholders to understand organizational legitimacy is very clear. A gap though exists, in both theory and application, as to how managers and community stakeholders proceed when they seek to understand and affect the legitimacy state of a firm or an industry. This article addresses this problem. Using public hearing transcripts we analyze over 7,000 lines of text to build a database of 589 statements regarding the legitimacy/illegitimacy of large confined animal operations. These data reflect the perspectives of 77 stakeholders, and cover 21 legitimacy themes, four legitimacy bases, and 13 authoritative references. The article presents, and then applies, a four-part method for legitimacy state assessment that integrates theory on legitimacy themes and bases, stakeholders, and authoritative references.

Keywords

Legitimacy Livestock Inductive research Stakeholder theory 

Abbreviations

CAFO

Confined animal feeding operation

IDOA

Illinois Department of Agriculture

LMFA

Livestock Management Facilities Act

References

  1. Aldrich, H.E. 1999. Organizations evolving. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Aldrich, H.E., and C.M. Fiol. 1994. Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review 19: 645–670.Google Scholar
  3. Appellate Court of Illinois. 2011. Pierson vs. Bible. http://www.state.il.us/court/R23_Orders/AppellateCourt/2011/5thDistrict/5090308_R23.pdf. Accessed 20 April 2012.
  4. Arthur, M.M. 2003. Share price reactions to work-family initiatives: an institutional perspective. Academy of Management Journal 46: 497–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ashforth, B.E., and B.W. Gibbs. 1990. The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science 1: 177–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bansal, P., and I. Clelland. 2004. Talking trash: legitimacy, impression management, and unsystematic risk in the context of the natural environment. Academy of Management Journal 47: 93–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berger, P.L., and T. Luckmann. 1967. The social construction of reality. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor.Google Scholar
  8. Bonanno, A., and D.H. Constance. 2006. Corporations and the state in the global era: the case of Seaboard Farms and Texas. Rural Sociology 71(1): 59–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buescher, J. 2004. York neighbor opposes ethanol plant in Conoy. Intelligencer Journal 24 May, p. B10.Google Scholar
  10. Burawoy, M. 1991. Ethnography unbound. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  11. Burnett, A., and D.M. Badzinski. 2000. An exploratory study of argument in the jury decision-making process. Communication Quarterly 48: 380–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Butterfield, K.D., L.K. Trevino, and G.A. Ball. 1996. Punishment from the manager’s perspective: A grounded investigation and inductive model. Academy of Management Journal 39: 1479–1512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clarkson, M.B.E. 1995. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review 20: 92–117.Google Scholar
  14. Cohen, B.D., and T.J. Dean. 2005. Information asymmetry and investor valuation of IPOs: top management team legitimacy as a capital market signal. Strategic Management Journal 26: 683–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Constance, D.H. 2008. The Southern Model of Broiler Production and Its Global Implications. Culture & Agriculture 30(1&2): 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Danneels, E. 2003. Tight-loose coupling with customers: the enactment of customer orientation. Strategic Management Journal 24: 559–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Deephouse, D.L. 1996. Does isomorphism legitimate? Academy of Management Journal 39: 1024–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dentoni, D., and H.C. Peterson. 2011. Multi-stakeholder sustainability alliances in agri-food chains: a framework for multi-disciplinary research. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 14(5): 83–108.Google Scholar
  19. DiMaggio, P.J., and W.W. Powell. 1991. Introduction. In The new institutionalism in organizational analysis, ed. W.W. Powell, and P.J. DiMaggio, 1–38. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Eesley, C., and M.J. Lenox. 2006. Firm responses to secondary stakeholder action. Strategic Management Journal 27: 765–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eisenhardt, K.M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review 14: 488–511.Google Scholar
  22. Elsbach, K.D. 1994. Managing organizational legitimacy in the California cattle industry: the construction and effectiveness of verbal accounts. Administrative Science Quarterly 39: 57–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Freeman, R.E. 1984. Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  24. Friedman, A.L., and S. Miles. 2006. Stakeholders: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Glaser, B., and A. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. London: Wiedenfeld and Nicholson.Google Scholar
  26. Goldsmith, P.D., and P.L. Martin. 2006. Community and labor issues in animal agriculture. Choices 21(3): 1–5.Google Scholar
  27. Hannan, M.T., and G.R. Carroll. 1992. Dynamics of organizational populations: Density, legitimation, and competition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hannan, M.T., and J. Freeman. 1989. Organizations and social structure in organizational ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Henson, Z., and C. Bailey. 2009. CAFOS, culture, and conflict on Sand Mountain: Framing rights and responsibilities in Appalachian Alabama. Southern Rural Sociology 24(1): 153–174.Google Scholar
  30. Herriges, J.A., S. Secchi, and B.A. Babcock. 2005. Living with hogs in Iowa: The impact of livestock facilities on rural residential property values. Land Economics 81(4): 530–545.Google Scholar
  31. Higgins, M.C., and R. Gulati. 2006. Stacking the deck: The effects of top management backgrounds on investor decisions. Strategic Management Journal 27: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hoffman, A.J. 1999. Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the US chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal 42: 351–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Human, S.E., and K.G. Provan. 2000. Legitimacy building in the evolution of small-firm multilateral networks: A comparative study of success and demise. Administrative Science Quarterly 45: 327–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. IDOA (Illinois Department of Agriculture) 2011. The Livestock Management Facilities Statistics. http://www.agr.state.il.us/Environment/LMFA/lmfastats.html. Accessed 10 March 2012.
  35. IDOA (Illinois Department of Agriculture) 2007. The Livestock Management Facilities Program. http://www.agr.state.il.us/Environment/LMFA/index.html. Accessed 10 December 2007.
  36. Kim, J., and P.D. Goldsmith. 2009. A spatial hedonic approach to assess the impact of swine production on residential property values. Environmental & Resource Economics 42(4): 509–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kim, J., P.D. Goldsmith, and M.H. Thomas. 2010. Economic impact and social cost of confined animal feeding operations: a comparison and compensation analysis at the parcel level. Agriculture and Human Values 27(1): 29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kostova, T., and S. Zaheer. 1999. Organizational legitimacy under condition of complexity: the case of the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review 24: 64–81.Google Scholar
  39. Maguire, S., C. Hardy, and T.B. Lawrence. 2004. Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. Academy of Management Journal 47: 657–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Martin, A. 2004. Factory farms foes fed up: sick of the foul odors and government inaction, critics of huge swine operations are taking complaints to court. Chicago Tribune 14 March, p. N1.Google Scholar
  41. Martin, H. 2001. The California energy crisis. Los Angeles Times 10 January, p. A16.Google Scholar
  42. McMichael, P. 1996. Globalization: myths and realities. Rural Sociology 61(I): 25–55.Google Scholar
  43. Mitchell, R.K., B.R. Agle, and D.J. Wood. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review 22: 853–886.Google Scholar
  44. National Hog Farmer. 2009. Illinois hog farm wins three-year-old lawsuit. http://nationalhogfarmer.com/environmental-stewardship/regulations/0210-hog-farm-wins-lawsuit. Accessed 4 December 2012.
  45. Orton, J.D. 1997. From inductive to iterative grounded theory: zipping the gap between process theory and process data. Scandinavian Journal of Management 13: 419–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Paterik, S. 2004. Living with power plant next door: Gilbert residents lost fight vs. expansion 3 years ago. The Arizona Republic 5 April, p. A1.Google Scholar
  47. Pollock, T.G., and V.P. Rindova. 2003. Media legitimation effects in the market for initial public offerings. Academy of Management Journal 46: 631–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rich, R. 2008. Fecal free: Biology and authority in industrialized Midwestern pork production. Agriculture and Human Values 25: 79–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rock River Times. 2012. A.J. Bos to abandon Traditions megadairy in Jo Daviess County. http://rockrivertimes.com/2012/11/28/a-j-bos-to-abandon-traditions-megadairy-in-jo-daviess-county/. Accessed 4 December 2012.
  50. Romero, S. 2004. Fears drain support for natural gas terminals. New York Times 14 May, p. C1.Google Scholar
  51. Scott, W.R. 2001. Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  52. Singh, J.V., D.J. Tucker, and R.J. House. 1986. Organizational legitimacy and the liability of newness. Administrative Science Quarterly 31: 171–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1998. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  54. Suchman, M.C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review 20: 571–610.Google Scholar
  55. Wagner, M., and D. Dempsey. 2003. Big farms creating turf wars. Dayton Daily News 9 November, p. A1.Google Scholar
  56. Zelditch Jr, M. 2001. Theories of legitimacy. In The psychology of legitimacy: emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations, ed. J.T. Jost, and B. Major, 33–53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Zimmerman, M.A., and G.J. Zeitz. 2002. Beyond survival: achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review 27: 414–431.Google Scholar
  58. Zuckerman, E.W. 1999. The categorical imperative: securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount. American Journal of Sociology 104: 1398–1438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Consumer EconomicsUniversity of IllinoisUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations