9.1 Summary of the Findings

In today’s world, MNCs not only have great financial power but an immense impact on the communities in the host countries where they operate. In many cases, MNCs have an even greater effect on society than the local government (Molleda & Kochhar, 2014). However, organizations are constantly observed and scrutinized by different actors in their environment, including the media, NGOs, and governments in their home country and host countries. For this reason, MNCs need to find ways to build organizational legitimacy as part of their social license to operate (Boutilier & Thomson, 2011). This thesis first reviewed previous approaches and definitions of corporate diplomacy to develop a distinct definition and conceptualization of corporate diplomacy, which had previously been missing. Second, this research explored how corporate diplomacy engagement with the host country environment on societal issues can enhance the legitimacy-building processes of foreign MNCs. This thesis particularly examined the legitimation process of the largest European MNCs in the UAE through corporate diplomacy on the following three levels: the organizational, the media, and the audience. A summary of the conducted studies is provided hereafter to answer the research questions presented at the beginning of this thesis (see Chapter 1, Figure 1.1).

9.1.1 Research Questions 1 and 2: Corporate Diplomacy as an Engagement Process to Gain Organizational Legitimacy

By conducting in-depth interviews with public relations executives, the following first and second research questions were addressed: To what extent and how is corporate diplomacy in the UAE performed as engagement with its social environment, and to what extent and how is corporate diplomacy in the UAE used to gain organizational legitimacy. The results indicated that MNCs perform corporate diplomacy by engaging with multiple groups within their host country environment, particularly the host country’s government and employees, other MNCs, and, to some extent, local citizens. Furthermore, the results showed that the engagement process is mostly strategic and mainly builds on personal relationship cultivation, a cultural particularity in the UAE. Moreover, the first empirical study revealed that corporate diplomacy is intentionally and unintentionally used as a legitimation strategy. By engaging with different social groups in the host country’s environment, MNCs identify and respond to societal expectations, enabling organizational legitimacy building. Predominantly, corporate diplomacy contributes to organizational legitimacy in the UAE by aligning with the political agenda, contributing to the employees’ needs, and demonstrating corporate diplomacy as a commitment to the local community and the country’s societal development. However, the analysis also pointed to challenges, including cultural and political peculiarities and conflicting values and expectations between actors in the host country and those of the corporate and home country’s culture. Building on the different engagement types and prioritized societal expectations, five corporate diplomacy approaches were derived, affecting organizational legitimacy on different levels.

9.1.2 Research Question 3: Corporate Diplomacy Media Frames and the Construction of Organizational Legitimacy in the Media

This thesis analyzed whether and how media news coverage frames corporate diplomacy in the UAE in a way that constructs or shapes legitimacy perceptions of foreign MNCs, stating the following research question: to what extent and how can the media coverage and media frames of corporate diplomacy contribute to organizational legitimacy in the media? To answer this research question, a quantitative content analysis of local news media coverage was performed. The analysis yielded three corporate diplomacy frames, two of which enabled corporations to build moral or pragmatic legitimacy in the media, while regulative legitimacy did not play a role. First, the moral corporate diplomacy frame emphasized the institutional linkage between corporate diplomacy and the UAE Government, highlighting the benefits of corporate diplomacy for the local community. In this way, corporate diplomacy was not portrayed related to one specific issue and is treated in a normative way. Second, the pragmatic corporate diplomacy frame dealt with cultural corporate diplomacy initiatives, serving the individual interests of the UAE Government and the country. The pragmatic frame did not highlight one specific actor, e.g., partner, linked to a corporate diplomacy activity. Similar to the moral corporate diplomacy frame, in the pragmatic frame, the news highly endorsed and supported the specific corporate diplomacy initiative presented in the news article. Lastly, the neutral corporate diplomacy frame portrayed cultural corporate diplomacy issues but treated corporate diplomacy in a neutral, neither supportive nor critical manner. Instead, the neutral frame was mostly descriptive, not evaluating corporate diplomacy in a way that contributed to any specific socio-political legitimacy level.

9.1.3 Research Question 4: The Effects of Corporate Diplomacy on Organizational Legitimacy

Finally, this thesis focused on the audience’s perspective on corporate diplomacy, aiming to examine how corporate diplomacy news affects the organizational legitimacy perceptions of individuals in the UAE depending on the appearance of institutional linkages. Applying an experimental design study with a survey, the study addressed the research question to what extent and how do institutional linkages with governmental institutions influence the effects of corporate diplomacy on organizational legitimacy? Overall, the results indicated that corporate diplomacy news outlining institutional linkages with the government led to a higher perception of moral and regulative legitimacy and indirectly affected pragmatic legitimacy positively. Furthermore, the findings showed that the effects of corporate diplomacy news on organizational legitimacy were mediated by media credibility, governmental legitimacy, and issue legitimacy. Hence, the findings suggest that corporate diplomacy with governmental involvement positively affects the legitimacy perceptions of the company, both directly and indirectly.

9.2 Implications for Theory and Practice

The current research explored the legitimation process of foreign MNCs in the host country, in this case the UAE, by examining how corporate diplomacy is practiced, how it is evaluated in the media, and how corporate diplomacy news affects organizational legitimacy on different levels. In this way, the thesis contributes to corporate diplomacy and public relations theory and practice in several ways while enriching communication and public relations research using neo-institutional approaches.

First, concerning the implications for theory and research, this thesis contributes significantly to theory building in corporate diplomacy. By applying a sociological neo-institutional approach, a distinct and comprehensive conceptualization was developed, advancing the theoretical foundation of corporate diplomacy in the realm of public relations. Corporate diplomacy was defined as the engagement process of MNCs with host country actors on political and societal issues through which the expectations of the host country’s actors can be identified and responded to, enabling MNCs to build legitimacy. By pointing to the MNCs’ embeddedness in the host country’s society, this thesis offered an outside-in perspective on corporate diplomacy. In this way, the research extends previous scholarship exploring the role of corporate diplomacy in society (Mogensen, 2017, 2019; Weber & Larsson-Olaison, 2017) and offers an alternative view to the purely strategic perspectives on corporate diplomacy as an instrument of public diplomacy (e.g., Fitzpatrick et al., 2020; White, 2015; White & Kolesnicov, 2018). Additionally, concerning the role of societal expectations in the host country, the current research empirically derived different corporate diplomacy approaches reflecting different degrees of prioritization of internal, external local, and external global expectations, leading to legitimacy at different levels.

Moreover, the results indicate that building relationships with host country’s actors is central for corporate diplomacy to identify the expectations of the different social groups in the host country. Accordingly, relationship cultivation is a core element of corporate diplomacy, which had been partly pointed out in earlier research (White et al., 2011). However, there has been little explanation so far of what such relationship-building in corporate diplomacy may entail, who is involved, or what outcomes they have. In particular, this research emphasized the role of institutional relations, i.e., linkages between the MNCs and institutional actors in the host country and media relations. Although the role of media and mediated communication has been emphasized in previous public diplomacy research (Gilboa, 1998, 2001), empirical research has thus far rarely explored how media portrays public diplomacy efforts by non-state actors and how media presentations might affect the perception of the public diplomacy efforts of private entities.

Furthermore, the findings imply that understanding and adapting to the (multi)cultural and political conditions are central to corporate diplomacy to demonstrate congruence with the host country’s expectations and gain legitimacy. Accordingly, the thesis suggests that corporate diplomacy is highly context-dependent and that, due to the inherent transnational orientation of corporate diplomacy (Mogensen, 2019, 2020a), the host country’s culture and political system constitute corporate diplomacy. In that respect, this research points to the role of the cultural and political systems in constructing expectations and cultivating relationships. While relationship cultivation with local institutional actors in the UAE follows local cultural standards, according to which personal affairs are highly valued, interactions with other foreign MNCs and employees seem to be less individual and close. In this way, the thesis makes an essential contribution to corporate diplomacy theory by not only defining the scope of corporate diplomacy but also determining its antecedents (i.e., culture and politics), components (i.e., relationship cultivation with institutional actors and the media), and outcome (i.e., legitimacy).

In addition, this thesis has implications for corporate diplomacy and legitimacy research from an empirical point of view. To the best of my knowledge, the studies included in this thesis are the first empirical studies to examine corporate diplomacy practices as a legitimation strategy, linking organizational perspectives with the media’s and the audience’s perspectives to provide insights into the legitimacy constructions. This thesis offers an empirically tested measurement for organizational legitimacy on different levels in the context of media portrayals and audience effects. In this way, this thesis informs and extends previous corporate diplomacy research and research in public relations and organizational and management studies addressing the issue of organizational legitimacy (e.g., Bitekine, 2011; Etter et al., 2018; Merkelsen, 2011, 2013; Tost, 2011; Vergne, 2011). The triangulation of research methods allowed for a robust investigation into organizational legitimacy on the moral, pragmatic, and regulative levels. Previous research has frequently pointed to the lack of a profound measurement of organizational legitimacy on different levels and regarding the different types of legitimacy (Etter et al., 2018; Sandhu, 2012; Vergne, 2011). By analyzing legitimacy on different levels and accounting for different perspectives on the construction of organizational legitimacy, this thesis significantly contributes to legitimacy measurements, which previously “only partly account[ed] for the plurality of norms, values, expectations, and concerns” (Etter et al., 2018, p. 62).

Finally, this research contributes to public relations theory by proposing a concise and comprehensive definition of neo-institutional public relations, integrating the sociological neo-institutional approach with newer developments in public relations as an engagement process. In this way, this thesis expands the previous scholarship on neo-institutional public relations (e.g., Frandsen & Johansen, 2013; Fredriksson et al., 2013; Sandhu, 2012) and informs relational (engagement) approaches to public relations (e.g., Johnston et al., 2018; Kent & Taylor, 2002). This thesis adds to international public relations research by conducting the studies in a non-Western and non-democratic country context. As outlined by Dhanesh and Duthler (2019), international public relations research is still dominated by studies in Western countries. Furthermore, scholars often fail to clearly contextualize their research studies, for instance, by illustrating a country’s cultural, political, or economic system (Dhanesh & Duthler, 2019). Therefore, as declared by Sriramesh and Verčič (2009, 2019), public relations research can rarely capture a wide range of global performances. The present work attempted to contextualize the reviewed and conducted research as best as possible, including a comprehensive chapter on the UAE’s economic, political, cultural, and media systems (see Chapter 5).

In addition to implications for theory and research, this thesis has practical implications for corporate diplomacy and public relations on a transnational level. First, the findings highlight the role of societal values and expectations, recommending that companies be aware of and sensitive to the values and norms in a specific culture. Since societal values and norms can vary within a country’s context, particularly in multicultural settings, public relations practitioners must identify, interpret, and respond to societal expectations. In this regard, it is essential to understand the major institutional actors and their expectations and gain insights into the inherent cultural values often forming societal expectations (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Suchman, 1995).

Second, this thesis demonstrated how corporate diplomacy contributes to gaining legitimacy by showing congruence between organizational behavior and societal expectations. In this context, the role of media relations and the linkages of the MNCs with institutional, established actors in the host country’s environment were emphasized. The findings suggest that in the Middle East region, engaging in public-private partnerships is highly useful as this form of collaboration is highly valued in the specific cultural and political context. Furthermore, public-private partnerships enhance corporate diplomacy engagement and allow for overcoming the liability of foreignness, which foreign MNCs often face in their host countries (Kostova & Zaheer, 1999). In the specific case of the UAE, the current research recommends that MNCs emphasize the benefits of corporate diplomacy for the local community to gain legitimacy on a moral level. To build pragmatic legitimacy, MNCs should highlight corporate diplomacy as a commitment to the UAE Government and the country.

Third, this thesis outlined five corporate diplomacy modes (see section 8.1), derived from theory and based on empirical results. These models can serve as an orientation for corporate diplomacy practices, offering insights into how global, local, and “glocal” approaches play into the expectations of MNCs’ diverse stakeholder groups, which might affect organizational legitimacy differently.

Lastly, this research emphasized the role of issue legitimacy in the organizational legitimation process. According to the findings, MNCs must be aware of critical and sensitive issues that could vary across countries and cultural settings. Companies risk threatening their legitimacy if they engage in societal issues considered unacceptable in the host culture based on their societal values and standards. In this regard, engagement with the host country’s environment helps to detect these sensitive topics and issues.

9.3 Limitations

This research comes with limitations, which offer directions for future research. The limitations can be divided into the following two sections: First, there are limitations related to the theoretical approaches and their core assumptions and, in this regard, the triangulation of different theoretical approaches constituting the theoretical framework. Second, limitations are outlined related to this thesis’s methodology.

Concerning the theoretical framework, the limitations are related to neo-institutional approaches, the conceptualization of corporate diplomacy, and the triangulation of neo-institutional and public relations approaches. First, neo-institutional approaches come with significant advantages for this research, lying in the main assumption of most of the neo-institutional approaches—organizations are embedded in society and need to strive for organizational legitimacy (Scott, 2001, 2008; Senge, 2011). However, neo-institutional approaches have been criticized for the presumed homogeneity of cultural beliefs and the understanding of individual institutions such as the government (Senge, 2011). In particular, neo-institutional approaches have often argued that organizations’ actions and structures can only be explained by superordinate sets of rules emerging from or as institutions (Scott, 2001). However, in a multicultural, global context, rules and institutions can have various meanings and might be considered different or even ignored by organizations. Organizations themselves, particularly financially powerful MNCs, can take an active role and make decisions independently from certain institutions such as governments, NGOs, or the media. Moreover, the sociological neo-institutional approach mostly focuses solely on societal expectations (Meyer & Rowan, 1977), neglecting or ignoring organizations’ endeavors toward economic efficiency. Reality shows that companies operate or are successful without adapting to their societal environment (see, e.g., Senge, 2011). However, this thesis attempted to explore how MNCs can gain legitimacy from their societal environment, and, for this purpose, the neo-institutional approach is a valuable theoretical angle. Future research may explore corporate diplomacy from a different theoretical angle allowing for an examination of factors other than the institutional environment and societal expectations. For instance, theoretical approaches and concepts of power such as the work of Foucault (e.g., 1982) and Lukes (1974) could be applied to corporate diplomacy, enabling an exploration of the relationships and communication between private and public actors and local communities more critically to uncover issues of power disparities between the involved actors.

Second, previous corporate diplomacy research has often pointed to the role of the home country, for instance, by defining the goal of corporate diplomacy as enhancing the image of the company’s country of origin (e.g., White, 2015). This research merely touched on the role of the MNCs’ home countries since the interviews showed that the country of origin plays a minor role. However, in other contexts, the image of the country of origin, as well as the relationships between the home and the host countries, may play a role in the evaluation of the organizational legitimacy of foreign MNCs in the host country (see Kostova & Zaheer, 1999; Warren, 1999). Therefore, future research could have a more in-depth look at the role of a company’s home country in its legitimation abroad, including embassies, which may serve as intermediaries.

Another limitation of this thesis is the triangulation of theories that scholars have previously criticized for potential conflicts between the applied theoretical frameworks and the higher demands on the researchers (Denzin, 1989; Neuman, 2003). For instance, the literature has pointed to the increased number of possible interpretations resulting from the mix of theories that researchers often find challenging to sort out (Neuman, 2003). In this research, the sociological neo-institutional approach, public relations, and public diplomacy approaches were triangulated. Neo-institutional approaches and public relations have been linked before (Frandsen & Johansen, 2013; Fredriksson et al., 2013; Sandhu, 2009, 2012); however, empirical research in the realm of neo-institutional public relations is still rare. Therefore, future research is needed to analyze and discuss public relations within a neo-institutional approach to determine whether similar assumptions suggested in this thesis can be made in the case of corporate diplomacy and other public relations and communication phenomena.

Regarding methodological issues, the limitations are related to the specific research context, the methods and research objects used, the organizational legitimacy measurement, and the triangulation of methods. First, the major limitation is the specific country context of the UAE. This country’s context is singular, representing a non-democratic, collectivist, and Islamic state, lacking public opinion and free press, which are highly important for effective corporate public relations efforts (Khakimova Storie, 2015; Sriramesh & Verčič, 2009). Due to this single country context, the results are not generalizable. For instance, due to the peculiarities of the media system, in which journalists can rarely be critical without fearing sanctions (Duffy, 2011), it is questionable to what extent media coverage in the UAE would be critical toward companies that address societal issues, particularly when they contribute to the national agenda. Consequently, future research may explore the role of the media in organizational legitimation in countries with a liberal media system. Moreover, legitimacy judgments build on societal values and cultural beliefs (Deephouse et al., 2017; Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975; Scott, 1995). In the UAE, these are predominantly affected by the dominant Islamic, collectivist culture that generally appreciates the societal engagement of organizations. Hence, corporate diplomacy might be perceived as more legitimate because it addresses societal issues. Future research is needed to investigate corporate diplomacy in countries that are more critical of corporate actors and their engagement in political and societal issues. In liberal, individualistic states, it seems reasonable that corporate activities are under greater critical observation (e.g., by the media and activist groups) (see Amann et al., 2007; Islam & Deegon, 2010; Scherer & Palazzo, 2011).

Second, the limitations are related to the three empirical methods and the research objects used. Concerning the interview study, the corporate sample was small (N = 25). However, first, a qualitative approach was chosen, which does not necessitate a large number of research objects (Vasileiou et al., 2018). Second, the approach seems appropriate since information saturation was reached (Fusch & Ness, 2015). Still, interviewing corporate representatives comes with limitations concerning their limited objectivity about the actions of the MNCs they work for. Moreover, for the quantitative content analysis of news coverage, the current research looked at English-speaking Emirati newspapers only. English is one of the main languages in the UAE and is widely used in businesses and government departments (Dorsey, 2018) due to the high number of expatriates from all over the world. Nonetheless, Arabic-speaking newspapers could be included in another study. As Duffy (2013) has found, there are differences between English- and Arabic-language newspapers in the UAE when it comes to reports on sensitive subjects, such as national security and military issues. Furthermore, the experimental design with the survey raises issues of social desirability. Particularly, the statements on political issues or the perception of the government might have been answered according to what is expected in the given country context. This concern is related to the specific culture and political system of the UAE in which freedom of expression is limited (Duffy, 2011, 2013; Kirat, 2006, 2016). Nevertheless, the study took several steps to minimize the effects of social desirability, including the full anonymization of the collected data and assurance of high confidentiality, summarized in the informed consent form. The form was distributed before the survey and provided further information on the study. The survey was carried out only with the permission of the participants to produce feelings of security concerning the respondents’ answers.

Third, another limitation is related to the measurement of legitimacy, analyzed at one point. Organizational legitimacy emerges over a more extended period and can change over longer periods or immediately due to scandals and crises (Bitekine & Haack, 2015). Thus, future research is necessary to conduct longitudinal studies on the development of legitimacy perceptions, including context factors that allow for further insights into the complexity of legitimation processes. For instance, future research could analyze additional context factors, such as the prior history or the sector of a company, which are supposed to play a role in building organizational legitimacy (Bitekine & Haack, 2015; Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005). In this context, it should be noted that organizational legitimacy, even if it is essential for multinational organizations (Bitekine, 2011), represents just one resource of the organization in addition to other critical corporate assets, such as trust, credibility, or reputation, which emerge from engagement and relationship cultivation (see Johnston et al., 2018, for an overview of outcomes of engagement).

Lastly, the triangulation of methods comes with limitations. Particularly the interpretation of both quantitative and qualitative data may lead to inconsistencies that are often addressed insufficiently (Arksey & Knight, 1999). The potential disharmony in analyzing data collected through different methods might also be related to the investigator’s biases (Thurmond, 2001). However, for the examination of organizational legitimation through corporate diplomacy, a mixed-method design appeared to be of high value since legitimation involves different levels and actors (in this case, the legitimacy-seeking organization, the written documents in the media co-determining legitimacy, and individuals as evaluators of legitimacy), which necessitate different methods. In this regard, the advantages of the triangulation of methods are the higher validity of the results and the more in-depth insights from different angles, increasing the level of knowledge (Silverman, 2000).

9.4 Research Outlook

In addition to the suggested research directions related to this study’s limitations, further research opportunities are presented in this section. Firstly, comparative research would allow for interesting insights into the determination of corporate diplomacy by other social and institutional factors. The relevance and impact of certain actors and institutions generally differ due to different levels of pressure, their possibilities of sanction, and their access to financial and social resources (Scott, 1995). In the UAE, the power of the government is omnipresent and ubiquitous, and no other actors that wield a comparable impact on corporate actors. Consequently, corporate diplomacy and legitimation attempts may differ between social, cultural, and country contexts. Research is necessary to explore other (institutional) actors and factors that may have essential voices in corporate diplomacy decision-making and the legitimation process and how they affect these processes, particularly in a comparison between different national and cultural contexts.

Moreover, corporate diplomacy has often been related to the role of MNCs in public diplomacy influencing and being influenced by the MNCs’ home countries (e.g., White & Fitzpatrick, 2018). In this regard, it would be interesting to determine how corporate diplomacy is affected by the home country, for instance, depending on the political relationships between the home country and a given host country. Related to this, the results indicated that some MNCs follow a global approach (see section 8.1) and mostly perform the same initiatives in their host countries. In this context, it would be interesting to examine the role of the corporation’s headquarters regarding its corporate diplomacy engagement abroad and explore whether corporate diplomacy activities differ among host country’s contexts and why. This would allow for examining further why MNCs follow different corporate diplomacy approaches, as suggested by this research.

Moreover, this thesis explored corporate diplomacy on three levels and found that the engagement process of corporate diplomacy includes multiple groups within the host country, other than media actors and the general audience explored in this thesis. Future research could analyze the perspectives of other involved actors, such as government representatives, to explore other perspectives on and aspects of corporate diplomacy engagement. Furthermore, the thesis highlighted the role of corporate diplomacy as employee engagement, increasingly discussed in public relations research, given that employee engagement is significantly related to employee satisfaction (e.g., Gill, 2015). Thus, future research may further investigate corporate diplomacy as employee engagement, analyzing, for instance, how corporate diplomacy contributes to employee well-being or how employees shape corporate diplomacy, which has been presented in this thesis.

Furthermore, the results pointed to the role of moral values and norms and outlined that they can differ across social and cultural contexts (see Scott, 2008). Future studies could explore in-depth what concrete (moral) expectations individuals have of MNCs and how they vary within groups or societies or across different cultural contexts. Previous research is in disagreement as to whether moral values emerge from an intact nation-state system serving as a point of moral reference and are, therefore, homogenous within a national context or whether moral values are fragmentized in global, post-national world order (see Scherer & Palazzo, 2011). However, due to the increasing role of moral legitimacy, it is necessary to gain more insights into the construction of moral values and related expectations of MNCs.

Lastly, this thesis examined the role of corporate diplomacy regarding organizational legitimacy. The interviews made it apparent that corporate diplomacy involving relationship cultivation is related to other social resources that emerge in the relationship-cultivation process, such as trust and loyalty. Future research may consider other consequences resulting from the engagement process in corporate diplomacy. In this context, it might be interesting to explore the impact of relationship quality and the role of legitimacy as a premise of relationship cultivation (see Ledingham, 2003).

9.5 Concluding Remarks

In an increasingly connected and dynamic world, where MNCs, along with other non-state actors, take part in global governance, societal and political corporate engagement becomes a core feature of MNCs. This thesis explored how corporate diplomacy efforts can help MNCs to gain legitimacy in their host country’s environment. Corporate diplomacy has been defined as the activities of MNCs engaging with members of the host country’s environment in societal and political issues to identify and respond to societal expectations, contributing to organizational legitimacy. This conceptualization of corporate diplomacy highlights the essential role of interaction and collaboration between organizations and their environment and points to the organization’s embeddedness in society and societal expectations. The social perspective on companies was applied by understanding legitimacy as the result of relationships between organizations and their environment. From a neo-institutional perspective, the thesis showed that corporate behavior reflects interpretations of social reality. On the other hand, it was highlighted that organizations could take an active role in the legitimation process—even if, in the case of the UAE, this active role is limited due to cultural and political particularities.

It can be assumed that private companies will be given more options through globalization to (co-)create social practices abroad. Furthermore, increasing moralization will likely exert higher pressure on companies and increase their need for legitimacy. At the same time, however, this raises questions about what social and political roles private companies are allowed to play. Against this background, corporate diplomacy and its added value for legitimacy will become increasingly important for research and practice. The current research extensively investigated current corporate diplomacy practices, the role of the media in corporate diplomacy, and the effects of corporate diplomacy on legitimacy. Overall, the results suggest that corporate diplomacy plays a significant role in the legitimacy process of MNCs. Furthermore, the thesis emphasized the role of culture and power (in relation to politics), significantly influencing social practices. The results suggest cultural differences and power relations can be barriers to corporate diplomacy. At the same time, culture and power enable and determine society. Thus, corporate diplomacy can be considered an exchange between cultures and actors at different power levels. As partly shown, these opportunities arise in particular from the interaction between the various actors involved in the engagement process rather than the management of expectations or relationships.

Specifically, it became apparent that public relations and communications are inevitable in identifying key actors and their societal expectations and responding to them, which can contribute to MNCs’ legitimacy in the given environment. This thesis revealed that legitimation attempts might differ within an organizational field. Most MNCs seem to adapt their corporate diplomacy approaches according to whether they address key institutional groups. This is, to some extent, reflected in the media news coverage. The findings suggested that, in the case of the UAE, legitimacy evaluations in the local news media depend predominantly on the linkages between the MNC and the host country’s actors and less on the specific societal issue of the corporate diplomacy initiative. Similarly, the findings indicated that the effects on organizational legitimacy are higher when the organization is linked to established, legitimate actors in the host country. In the case of the UAE, it was shown that, to a great extent, the involvement of the host country’s government is mostly inevitable for corporate diplomacy efforts to be implemented.

By analyzing corporate diplomacy from a communicative and relationship-oriented perspective on three levels, this thesis provided substantial findings on how MNCs can take an active role in gaining legitimacy while shedding light on how legitimacy is co-constructed by the media and its audiences. This central research gap has not been analyzed until now, and therefore, the thesis contributes immensely to international public relations research and practice. Moreover, by studying corporate diplomacy in the UAE, a non-democratic, emerging country built on Islamic values while increasingly integrating multicultural values, the thesis offers significant insights into the roles of political, economic, and cultural contexts in corporate diplomacy and public relations and provides a considerable alternative to the research in public relations dominated by the American-Euro context.