Managing impressions during institutional change – The role of organisational accounts in legitimation

Abstract

Public relations literature has only recently drawn on institutional theory to provide insights into legitimacy that go beyond strategic organisational level processes. Many of the existing crisis management studies are approached from a strategic perspective, which have limitations in terms of how organizations manage their legitimacy in relation to broader and often changing social agendas. This study focuses on how impression management is used to deal with legitimacy gaps between organizations and public expectations that draw on an institutional theory perspective. This qualitative study examines the use of organizational accounts through a lens that marries institutional theory and impression management in order to understand how organizations manage their legitimacy. This study of accounts around legitimacy concerns of corporate social responsibility matters shows that organizations relied on their own tangible technical attributes rather than shared norms of what is considered responsible when there are no hard or institutionalised laws and regulations in place around corporate social responsibility concerns. This study offers insights into public relations concerns around impression management during institutional change and in doing so extends existing public relations approaches to crisis management.

Keywords

Climate change corporate social responsibility crisis communication impression management institutional theory legitimacy

Managing legitimacy to protect an organization’s image is one of the central tenets of crisis management. As Heath (2006) suggests, public relation work deals with legitimacy gaps that emerge between organizational practice and societal expectations. One such gap that has emerged in recent years is around corporate social responsibility (CSR) matters focusing on social expectations of the social and environmental practices of organizations. Much of the public relations literature on CSR has been around signalling legitimacy by communicating about the social responsibility initiatives undertaken by organizations (Bartlett, 2011). However, little attention has been paid to understanding public relations work around CSR as managing legitimacy when institutional norms, rules and ideas are undergoing change.

The underlying assumption of existing approaches has been that communicating about CSR is a proactive approach to signal legitimacy. However, little overt attention has been paid to how shifts in social expectations around CSR have put some organizations and industries into crisis like situations where they need to vigorously engage in impression management when under public scrutiny. Considering this situation through an institutional theory perspective opens up questions not previously discussed in the public relations crisis management literature with its emphasis on stakeholder response. One of the central questions that arise is how shifting societal expectations and institutional arrangements are incorporated into crisis responses. This article seeks to deal with this situation.

Only recently has public relations scholarship integrated ideas from institutional theory to add more macro-perspectives to understand public relations problems (Fredriksson et al., 2013; Ihlen et al., 2009; Sandhu, 2009). In relation to CSR problems, Schultz and Wehmeier (2010) integrated institutional theory’s ideas of external pressures on organizations to understand how CSR became integrated into corporate communication. O’Connor and Gronewold (2013) examined organizational discourses and noted the role of institutional contextualisation alongside organizational matters. These types of studies form part of a growing body of work that addresses suggestions that the communication literature has overly relied on considering communication problems at the micro-level of analysis at the expense of the role of macro-perspectives (Jones et al., 2004; Lammers and Barbour, 2006; Schultz and Wehmeier, 2010). Given that legitimacy is conceptualised in terms of societal expectations (Frandsen and Johansen, 2009; Heath, 2006), this study integrates approaches based in institutional theory with its emphasis on societal expectations on organizations with our knowledge of the micro-level analysis of the crisis management literature. In this study, we continue in this tradition (e.g. Bourne and Edwards, 2012; Frandsen and Johansen, 2011; Ihlen, 2009; Jensen, 2001) to investigate empirically how organizations deal with crisis situations created by societal expectations about CSR.

At the same time, this article sits in the vein of recent calls for greater understanding of institutional processes through the role of communication (Suddaby, 2010). For institutional theorists, micro-foundations of institutional work and the agency of actors in maintaining, changing and constructing institutional arrangements (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006) are of interest. However, the contribution of this article is in drawing on insights from the intersection of public relations work, specifically impression management in crisis, and institutional theory perspectives where action and structure are interrelated. This cross-sectional study of the impression management attempts of a group of organizations in an industry facing scrutiny provides a site in which to observe how organizations deal with crisis by drawing on both technical and institutional criteria. This extends public relations’ crisis management literature, and at the same time provides insights into how communication activity is integrated with institutional matters.

The article proceeds as follows. First, we consider how institutional theory and impression management have been used to manage organizational legitimacy in order to develop research questions underpinning this empirical study. We then outline the method for investigating how the Australian coal industry dealt publicly with claims about their contribution to climate change as an element of their environmental CSR and present analysis of the findings. We conclude with insights into how impression management attempts in public relations can be informed through an institutional theory perspective.

Legitimacy and impression management

One of the central tenets of institutional theory is legitimacy (Greenwood et al., 2008). Legitimacy is a ‘generalised perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs and definitions’ (Suchman, 1995). An organization can be considered legitimate when it is endorsed and supported by enough influential stakeholders in that system to ensure its effectiveness and survival (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978). Norms and values can shift and change along with the social expectations of an organization, impacting on how an organization is viewed by its stakeholders. Such a situation occurs when stakeholders constantly inspect and evaluate an organization’s goals and activities and, in turn, retract their endorsement and support for the organization (Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978).

From these institutional theory foundations, the ways in which institutional arrangements change have been the focus of increased scrutiny. Strategic responses and deinstitutionalisation were noted by Oliver (1991) including how to change or protect existing arrangements. Lawrence and Suddaby (2006) conceptualised the idea of institutional work as the ways in which actors actively built, maintained and disrupted institutional arrangements. Here, patterns of purposive work around institutional arrangements were identified and provide a means for understanding agency in shifting arrangements. More recently, Suddaby (2010) suggested that there is more to be learnt about how agency around institutional arrangements takes place and suggested that communication studies and the roles of communication professions such as public relations offer promising insights.

Legitimacy through impression management

One of the seminal papers that echoes this approach to understanding crisis management through the perspective of institutional arrangements was Elsbach’s work on impression management in the Californian Cattle industry (Elsbach, 1994). This study examined how the cattle industry used impression management to deal with complaints about their practices such as food safety and animal treatment. Impression management is the process whereby people seek to control the image others have of them (Rosenfeld et al., 1995). It explores the use of verbal accounts or explanations by individual spokespersons to avoid blame or gain credit for crises or controversial events (Giacalone and Rosenfeld, 1989). If left unexplained, crises and controversial events may cause an organization to lose trust and support, impacting on its legitimacy. Impression management activities allow people to construct and protect meaningful social realities and are strategic adaptations to opportunities and threats encountered in their social environments (Schlenker, 1980).

Used as a strategy for impression management, organizational accounts are explanations designed to remove one from a situation that may reflect unfavourably on one’s image or claims to legitimacy (Ashforth and Gibbs, 1990). Organizational accounts can be constructed as either forms of accounts – acknowledgements or denials – or contents of accounts, that is, references to institutional or technical characteristics of the organization (Elsbach, 1994). Elsbach (1994) suggested that drawing on societal level rules and practices – institutional claims – as opposed to organizational level technical attributes was more effective in responding to challenges to legitimacy.

While there are a number of studies which discuss crises and managing legitimacy (Allen and Caillouet, 1994; Hearit, 1995; Massey, 2001) and the role of accounts (Benoit, 1995), overall the parallel in public relations, crisis management literature, takes a strategic approach to dealing with crises emerging from controversial events. Coombs (1995) suggests that there are five types of crisis response strategies that organizations can draw on. These range from a non-existence strategy that denies an adverse situation has occurred to a suffering strategy which can be used to win sympathy from actors. Other strategies recognise that the crisis event has occurred whereby Coombs suggests organizations can distance, ingratiate or bolster themselves in relation to the situation. While this literature (Coombs 1995, 2007) considers the situations in which these responses take place, it does not, however, suggest the institutional environment in which each strategy might be used effectively. Its focus is on management discretion and choice as to which approach is adopted by an organization and pays little attention to the broader institutional environment in which claims of illegitimacy are made.

The strategic approach described by crisis management authors in public relations literature explores approaches to protecting legitimacy in crisis issues rather than the types of accounts that can be drawn upon to respond to socially constructed issues. Furthermore, there is an assumption in these strategies for the organization to act as an individual person in responding to the issues. This gap exemplifies the need to examine the types of responses organizations or entire industries can utilise in responding to ongoing societal issues.

Criticisms of this work in the crisis management literature are addressed in organizational and institutional theory as well as in broader impression management literature. Impression management theorists too have focused on individuals’ use of different forms of accounts in response to legitimacy threats (Giacalone and Rosenfeld, 1989; Tedeschi and Reiss, 1981), as opposed to the organizational and societal level practices described in institutional theory. Through an institutional theory perspective, organizational communication and responses to legitimacy threats are instead focused on factors in the broader social environment as well as organizational- and industry-level phenomena (Lammers and Barbour, 2006). Given that both the Elsbach and Coomb’s original work are almost 20 years old, it can be timely to consider the crisis phenomena through a fresh lens which incorporates organizational agency within institutional arrangements.

It is well established in the institutional theory literature that organizations can be perceived as legitimate largely from the adoption of institutional practices (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Meyer and Rowan, 1977). Institutionalisation involves the processes by which social structures, practices and actualities come to assume a rule-like status in social thought and action (Meyer and Rowan, 1977). These institutional practices function as myths – highly visible and salient practices which are considered proper, adequate, rational and necessary. As such, they are embedded in society and taken-for-granted as legitimate, and thus are incorporated by many organizations in order to gain legitimacy, resources, stability and enhance survival prospects (Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Suchman, 1995).

The development and retention of institutionalised structures and practices – or characteristics – which adhere to the norms and values of an organization’s environment signal legitimacy to external social actors (Fombrun and Shanley, 1990; Meyer and Rowan, 1997). As such, institutional characteristics or traits which can be referred to in accounts can be a device used to manage legitimacy.

Legitimacy using organizational accounts

Accounts serve a necessary and positive function in organizations (Rosenfeld et al., 1995) and the construction of accounts is evident in the literature on the management of legitimacy (Aerts and Cormier, 2009; Ashforth and Gibbs, 1990; Creed et al., 2002; Elsbach and Sutton, 1992; Hooghiemstra, 2000; Staw et al., 1983). Drawing on seminal work by Goffman (1959) and used as a strategy for impression management, accounts are explanations designed to remove one from a situation that may reflect unfavourably on one’s image or claims to legitimacy (Ashforth and Gibbs, 1990). Scott and Lyman (1968) define an account as,

A statement made by a social actor to explain unanticipated or untoward behaviour – whether that behaviour is his own or that of others, and whether the proximate cause for the statement arises from the actor himself or from someone else. (p. 46)

In the absence of an account, social actors are likely to think less of the offender or punish them in some way (Rosenfeld et al., 1995).

Elsbach (1994) identified a set of account types in her study based on a marriage of institutional practices and impression management techniques, which described how spokespersons from the California cattle industry constructed verbal accounts to manage perceptions of organizational legitimacy following controversial events. As outlined in Figure 1, organizational accounts are constructed as either forms of accounts – acknowledgements or denials – or contents of account, that is, references to institutional or technical characteristics of the organization (Elsbach, 1994).

Figure 1.

Types of organizational accounts.

An acknowledgement is a form of account that argues, ‘We recognise a negative event occurred, but it wasn’t our fault’ or ‘we had a good reason for our actions’ or ‘the ultimate outcome was positive’. Acknowledgements can be used to minimise the organization’s responsibility for events or relax negative perceptions of events (Elsbach, 1994). Acknowledgements may be offered when the consequences of events are not severe or when the acknowledgement of such events would have minor consequences for the organization (Elsbach, 1994; Schlenker, 1980). Furthermore, social actors may expect an acknowledgement from the organization if the organization was clearly involved in actions surrounding or leading up to the controversial event (Elsbach, 1994; Marcus and Goodman, 1991).

On the other hand, a denial is a form of account that proposes, ‘We weren’t involved’ or ‘it didn’t happen’. Denials are used to separate the organization from controversial events (Elsbach, 1994; Schlenker, 1980; Schonbach, 1980). Emotionally charged denials may often be given as an initial response to controversial events, as individual’s place blame on others for negative events due to self-serving biases (Elsbach, 1994; Schlenker, 1980). In addition, legal concerns may also be a motivating factor behind immediate denials in response to organizational controversies (Elsbach, 1994; Marcus and Goodman, 1991).

The second dimension of accounts that Elsbach (1994) discusses is account contents. Account contents are classified as either references to institutional, or broader societal, characteristics or references to technical characteristics. These account contents may be made on their own or, as Figure 1 suggests, they can be linked with account forms to make accounts which combine the two types.

Hence, an acknowledgement or denial can be linked to technical characteristics, which signal efficiency and effectiveness in organizational performance (Elsbach, 1994; Scott, 1987). Technical characteristics have been widely discussed in a variety of literature including management and economic fields (Cummings, 1983; Ghemawat and Ricart I Costa, 1993; Schneider, 1983; Weick and Daft, 1983). Examples of technical characteristics are jobs provided, competitiveness, economic contribution, cost, environmental efficiency, growth, optimal utilisation of resources, productivity, survival, revenue, congruency and employee satisfaction.

Conversely, acknowledgements and denials can also be linked with institutional characteristics, which are account contents that consist of normative and symbolic socially endorsed practices (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Elsbach, 1994; Meyer and Rowan, 1977). These practices align with organizational traits defined by institutional theorists, such as institutional structures (legitimate hierarchies and roles), procedures (legitimate rules and processes), goals (legitimate goals or outcomes) and decoupling (separating legitimate and illegitimate structures), as used by Elsbach (1994).

Legitimacy is managed at an organizational level according to institutional theory; thus, researchers in this area neglect the use of individual-level tools such as spokespersons’ accounts (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Furthermore, most institutional theorists have focused on how organizations prepare for legitimacy threats by using institutionalised structures and practices in day-to-day operations, while few have addressed how organizations may respond to legitimacy threats by adopting or advertising legitimating organizational characteristics following controversies (Covaleski and Dirsmith, 1988). As such, institutional theorists have focused on organizations’ use of characteristics that might be referred to in account contents in preparation for legitimacy threats, but do not provide clarity on the form of accounts that could be used in such a situation. These gaps have been addressed by incorporating literature on impression management, as set out by Elsbach (1994).

Elsbach’s (1994) study suggests that in protecting organizational legitimacy, acknowledgements are more effective than denials, and references to institutional characteristics are more effective than references to technical characteristics. But accounts which combine acknowledgements with references to institutional characteristics are more effective than accounts which consist of either of these components on their own (Elsbach, 1994). Three research propositions have been developed based on these findings:

Proposition 1 – Acknowledgements are used more frequently than denials.

Proposition 2 – Institutional characteristics are referred to more frequently than technical characteristics.

Proposition 3 – Acknowledgements combined with references to institutional characteristics are used more frequently than acknowledgements or references to institutional characteristics on their own.

These propositions were used to guide inquiry in this study. The study focused on statements appearing in the media that were made by coal mining organizations in response to a national public inquiry into the environmental impact of mining (climate change) which had the potential to significantly change the industry’s practices. These statements were examined for evidence of the account forms and contents in order to understand how strategic crisis responses and institutional guidelines were used together for impression management purposes. Based on these elements, the study aims to develop further insight into the ways in which these companies used organizational accounts to manage challenges to legitimacy through the following research question:

What types of organizational accounts are used by organizations in the Australian coal mining industry to deal with challenges to legitimacy regarding climate change?

The sub-questions to guide this research on this question are as follows:

What are the acknowledgements and denials (account forms) being made?

What institutional and technical characteristics (account contents) are being referred to?

What are the ways in which these organizational accounts (forms and contents) are being combined?

Method

This study used a qualitative and descriptive approach, whereby a qualitative content analysis was undertaken to help reveal themes and issues. Statements made by Australian coal mining companies in response to the claims made in the time period of the public review from June 2008 to June 2010 were examined for evidence of the account forms and contents.

A purposeful sampling strategy was utilised to determine the sampling frame, which consisted of four major industry bodies in Australia – Australian Coal Association, Minerals Council of Australia, Queensland Resources Council and NSW Minerals Council – and five of the Australian Coal Association’s major member companies. The sample consisted of the statements collected from these nine organizations, as well as media coverage of the statements attributed to these organizations. Media coverage of statements is collected based on the view that the media confers legitimacy (Deephouse, 1996). This also provided balance of statements through triangulation with the statements released by organizations, thus evenly supporting both sources of data.

Organizational statements were sourced from archival data of the four industry bodies and the five Australian Coal Association major member companies and include media releases and web pages. Media coverage of statements was sourced from articles in the seven Australian newspapers used in media content analyses in previous studies (Bartlett, 2007; Dougall, 2005). Statements ranged from a single quote or sentence to an entire paragraph (Riffe et al., 2005; Weber, 1990).

Data analysis took on an iterative approach of travelling back and forth between data, relevant existing literature and emerging theory (Eisenhardt, 1989; Glaser and Strauss, 1967). A qualitative approach was taken to coding (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Statements were coded as acknowledgement if it said the organization accepted or welcomed the reality of climate change and the responsibility of mining organizations to address the issue. A statement was coded as a denial if it rejected, repositioned, blamed another or provided a negative response to the issue without any further reference to any institutional or technical characteristics. Account contents were references to either institutional or technical characteristics related to matters of the environment. As an account may have multiple references to different institutional or technical characteristics, the total number of these references may be greater than the actual number of accounts made. Thus, the total number of references made to individual institutional or technical characteristics may not concur with the total number of accounts made.

Multiple tables were created to document the different account types that were observed in the data and the details surrounding their usage. This adopts Miles and Huberman’s (1994) view on data reduction in that data analysis, conclusion drawing and verification are concurrent activities. The outcome of this analysis was to operationalise the construction of accounts used to manage legitimacy in the Australian coal mining industry.

Findings

Coal mining industry in Australia

Australia’s mining sector experienced the largest boom in history, adding around AUD119 billion into the economy annually and contributing almost 11 percent to the gross domestic product (GDP) (Reserve Bank of Australia, 2009). As the world’s leading coal exporter, the Australian coal mining industry was the saving point of Australia’s economy during the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), with 820 million tonnes of coal mined and 261 million tonnes exported in 2008/2009 (Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 2009).

While, on one hand, coal mining companies possess financial stability and provide prevalent economic benefits to the country, on the other, the Garnaut Climate Change Review, commissioned to establish Australia’s policy on climate change, noted that emissions from coal-generated energy were one of the biggest contributors to green house gas emissions (Garnaut, 2008). The Garnaut Climate Change Review was an independent study commissioned by Australia’s Commonwealth, state and territory governments, examining the impacts of climate change on the Australian economy. The final report was released in 2008, recommending medium- to long-term policies and policy frameworks to improve the prospects for sustainable prosperity. The Review released the claim against the Australian coal industry stating,

The increasing emission intensity of Australia’s primary energy supply is largely due to its increasing reliance on coal for electricity generation, at a time when other developed countries have shifted significantly to lower-emissions sources. (Garnaut, 2008: 159)

This claim highlights how the shifting norms of other developed countries in using lower-emission sources has impacted on the perceived legitimacy of organizations operating in the Australian coal mining industry, even though the organization itself may not have performed or been involved in any illegitimate action or event. In addition to the Garnaut Review’s claim (Garnaut, 2008), the government’s commitment to cutting Australia’s carbon emissions placed pressure on these organizations to establish their legitimacy, particularly in light of the proposed implementation of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS). As a result of these claims and actions, Australian coal mining companies must consider the ways in which they respond to such challenges to legitimacy in order to maintain support from their social actors.

Account forms

Acknowledgements made by organizations in the Australian coal mining industry accepted or welcomed the reality of climate change and the responsibility of organizations operating in the industry to address the issue. More claims that were acknowledged by these organizations are outlined in Table 1. There were 10 acknowledgements found in this study. For example, the NSW Minerals Council acknowledges its responsibility to manage its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions: ‘The NSW minerals industry accepts the reality of climate change, and its responsibility to manage its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions’ (NSW Minerals Council, 2010). In another example, the Australian Coal Association acknowledged how coal mining and power generation contributed to greenhouse gas emissions:

Greenhouse gases from coal (mining and power generation) globally contribute around 25 per cent to the enhanced greenhouse effect. In Australia, around 90 per cent of coal’s greenhouse gas emissions arise from power generation. (Australian Coal Association, 2008d)

Table 1.

Acknowledgements and denials.

Account type	Number of statements	Claim
Acknowledgement	10	1. The reality of climate change
		2. The contribution of coal to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change through the generation of carbon dioxide
		3. The responsibility of organizations operating in the industry to address the issue
Denial	9	1. The amendments to the CPRS improved assistance to the Australian coal industry
		2. The use of coal and fossil fuels will be phased out completely in the future
		3. The US emissions trading scheme provides more assistance to heavy industries than what is provided by the Australian government to the coal mining industry
		4. The coal industry is not doing enough to combat climate change
		5. CCS technologies are an unfeasible solution to climate change

Source: Developed by researcher.

On the other hand, a statement was coded as a denial if it rejected, repositioned, blamed another or provided a negative response to the issue without any further reference to any institutional or technical characteristics. Denials rejected the claim that the use of coal was the reason behind Australia’s carbon emission problem (refer to Table 1 for more claims that were denied). An example of a denial found in this study is: ‘Australian Coal Association executive director Ralph Hillman said, “The coal industry is already making a fair and reasonable contribution”’ (Taylor, 2008)

Account contents

Unlike acknowledgements or denials, references to institutional characteristics and technical characteristics were made as prescriptive type accounts which appealed to matters of the environment generally rather than as accounts which acknowledged or denied a particular claim. As an account may have multiple references to different institutional or technical characteristics, the total number of these references may be greater than the actual number of accounts made. Thus, the total number of references made to individual institutional or technical characteristics may not concur with the total number of accounts made.

There were a total of 347 accounts made with references to institutional characteristics in data. The main characteristics referred to were decoupling (147), goals (135) and alliances (109). For example, the Australian Coal Association decoupled the industry’s greenhouse gas emissions with its suggestion to implement legitimate goals to capture and store those emissions:

But the ACA … suggests it play a role in carbon capture and storage by building pipelines from power stations to mines for storage. (O’Keefe, 2009)

Examples of references to goals and alliances included when the Australian Coal Association referred to the development and deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies as a legitimate goal – ‘The industry is investing over $1 billion into the development of demonstration scale carbon capture and storage technologies in Queensland and NSW’ (Australian Coal Association, 2009d) – and its legitimate alliances with three different organizations:

Mr Hillman acknowledged the role of the CFMEU, the Climate Change Institute and WWF who worked with the coal industry to develop the proposal for a Carbon Storage Taskforce. (Australian Coal Association, 2008a)

On the other hand, there were 404 accounts with references to technical characteristics counted in the data, making it the most frequently used account type. This means that references to technical characteristics were more frequent than acknowledgements with references to institutional characteristics – the account type that Elsbach (1994) suggested was the most effective in managing legitimacy. The main characteristics referred to were jobs (184 references), competitiveness (147 references), economic contribution (111 references), costs (109 references) and environmental efficiency (106 references). Examples of references to the loss of jobs and competitiveness as a result of the CPRS by the Australian Coal Association included the following:

Independent economic modelling of the impacts of the proposed carbon reduction scheme predict that 16 coal mines will close prematurely and more than 9000 direct and indirect jobs will be lost in the first nine years of the scheme. (Australian Coal Association, 2009a)

The Government had offered to provide only $750 million over five years to address this serious threat to the industry’s international competitiveness: when company tax is taken into account, this will be less than 10% of what the CPRS will cost the industry over five years. (Australian Coal Association, 2009c)

Many of the accounts (see Table 2) combined multiple references to technical characteristics in one account as seen in the following statement by the Minerals Council of Australia:

Minerals Council of Australia chief executive Mitch Hooke said the minerals industry was ‘opposed to the introduction of a flawed ETS. As it is currently designed, this scheme will cost jobs, reduce our international competitiveness and impact of economic growth while delivering little, if any, environmental benefit’. (Taylor, 2009)

Table 2.

Number of accounts with references to institutional characteristics and technical characteristics.

Statement	Number of accounts
References to institutional characteristics (Institutional structures, procedures, goals, decoupling)	347
References to technical characteristics (Jobs, competitiveness, economic contribution, cost, environmental efficiency, growth, optimal utilisation of resources, productivity, survival, revenue, congruency, employee satisfaction)	404

Source: Developed by researcher.

Combination of account forms and contents

Account combinations are strategically designed to make accounts of controversial events more logical, believable and adequate (Elsbach, 1994). The most common combination of account forms and contents was acknowledgments with references to institutional characteristics, which Elsbach (1994) suggested was the most effective type of account in managing legitimacy. There were a total of 40 acknowledgements made with references to institutional characteristics and 28 acknowledgements made with references to technical characteristics. Most commonly, in acknowledging the coal mining industry’s contribution to climate change, the account also indicated their commitment to reducing their carbon emissions by referring to institutional goals:

Mr Hillman said the coal industry had long accepted that coal was also a contributor to the problems of climate change and for that reason the industry had established the billion dollar COAL21 Fund to help finance research and demonstration of low emissions technologies which will significantly reduce greenhouse gases from coal-fired electricity production. (Australian Coal Association, 2009b)

In acknowledging the coal mining industry’s contribution to climate change, the most common technical characteristic referred to in accounts was the organization’s environmental efficiency, demonstrated through their various efforts at reducing carbon emissions, or the lack of environmental efficiency and failure to reduce carbon emissions in the proposed CPRS: ‘We accept the science of climate change and we support an emissions trading scheme, but it must be one that actually cuts emissions, not jobs’ (Queensland Resources Council, 2009).

On the other hand, there were 13 denials made with references to institutional characteristics and 10 denials made with references to technical characteristics. Denials were most commonly linked with institutional characteristics through decoupling of legitimate structures from illegitimate structures, such as the decoupling of the Australian Coal Association’s contribution to research funding:

The Australian Coal Association has rejected the recommendation by Ross Garnaut that the $60 billion coal industry should more than double the amount it spends on research and development into low emissions technology, saying further investment should be funded by power generators. (Breusch and Morris, 2008)

Alternatively, revenue earning capabilities were the most commonly linked technical characteristic to denials:

But the Minerals Council of Australia chief executive Mitch Hooke said the modelling was unrealistic, massively underestimating the cost of changes to the electricity sector and developing carbon capture and storage technology. (Colebatch and Morton, 2008)

Additionally, institutional characteristics were combined with technical characteristics on many occasions, although this account combination was not observed by Elsbach (1994). There were 186 accounts made in total combining institutional characteristics with technical characteristics, compared to 347 accounts referring to institutional characteristics and 404 accounts referring to technical characteristics on their own. For example, the Queensland Resources Council combined references to institutional goals with references to energy efficiency, growth and environmental efficiency in reducing greenhouse gases:

Committed to taking practical steps to reduce greenhouse gas emission, QRC and its members’ endeavour to strike a balance between sustaining economic growth, the need for affordable energy and the global challenge to reduce greenhouse gases. (Queensland Resources Council, 2010)

Account themes and strategies

Organizations either referred to their acquiescence of institutional characteristics or avoidance of claims challenging their institutional characteristics (Oliver, 1991). Accounts which communicated how an organization made habit of imitated or complied with institutional structures, procedures, goals or alliances were coded as using an acquiescence technique. Accounts which decoupled or built gaps between the organization’s formal structures and practice and actual work activities (Meyer and Rowan, 1977) were coded as using the avoidance or buffering technique as can be seen in Table 3. Organizations communicated their acquiescence of institutionalised characteristics as they are considered legitimate, whereas characteristics which were decoupled were also buffered in the communication of accounts.

Table 3.

Strategies to refer to institutional characteristics.

Strategy	Institutional characteristics	Number of references
Acquiescence (making habit, imitating, complying)	Structure, procedures, goals, alliances	347
Avoidance (buffering)	Decoupling	147

Source: Developed by researcher.

References to technical characteristics were investigated in terms of economic/financial, environmental and people themes, as can be seen in Table 4. These themes are commonly used by organizations in communicating their legitimacy in response to public demands (Elsbach, 1994) and in light of corporate social responsibility (Sahlin-Andersson, 2006). Although the climate change situation revolves around global warming and environment, environmental themed characteristics make up the least number of references technical characteristics. Instead, the majority of the technical characteristics referenced in organizational accounts encompassed an economic/financial theme. This is of interest for business ethics as despite claims of corporate social responsibility, there is still evidence of a strong focus on an economic/financial bottom line for organizations in the Australian coal mining company.

Table 4.

Themes of technical characteristics.

Theme	Technical characteristic	Number of references
Economic/financial	Competitiveness, congruency, cost, economic contribution, growth, productivity, revenue, survival	544
Environmental	Environmental efficiency, optimal utilisation of resources	144
People	Employee satisfaction, jobs	190

Source: Developed by researcher.

Discussion

Elsbach (1994) suggests that in protecting organizational legitimacy, acknowledgements are more effective than denials and references to institutional characteristics are more effective than references to technical characteristics. But accounts which combine acknowledgements with references to institutional characteristics are more effective than accounts which consist of either of these components on their own.

However, inconsistent to Elsbach’s (1994) findings that institutional references are more powerful, in this study, it was found that more accounts with references to technical characteristics were made than acknowledgments with references to institutional characteristics. Acknowledgements are made when the organizations are clearly involved in actions leading to the controversies and social actors may have expected such acknowledgements (Elsbach, 1994; Marcus and Goodman, 1991). Moreover, account combinations are strategically designed to make accounts of controversial events more logical, believable and adequate (Elsbach, 1994). Thus, given these views, Elsbach’s finding and in the context of climate change and Australian coal mining, it was expected that organizations would have made frequent acknowledgements with references to institutional characteristics to protect their legitimacy, as per research proposition three. However, this was not the case with only 40 acknowledgements with references to institutional characteristics made as opposed to 404 accounts with references to technical characteristics. It is suggested that very few acknowledgments or denials are made by organizations in the Australian coal mining industry as a whole as their involvement and responsibility in relation to climate change is no longer an agenda of their own or of other social actors within their environment. Organizations have long accepted involvement and responsibility in dealing with climate change, thus they are no longer making denials on the claim. Instead, accounts are now more focused on account contents with references to institutional and technical characteristics to protect their legitimacy.

It appeared more common for organizations to refer to technical characteristics rather than institutional characteristics due to the emergent soft regulatory nature of the latter. Technical characteristics such as jobs, growth and economic contribution have a shared meaning, whereby interpretations of information are understood based on a common knowledge (Heath, 1996). They are also readily available to be drawn upon by organizations when making accounts, having been operationalised in both literature and practice (Drucker, 1967; Ghemawat and Ricart I Costa, 1993). On the other hand, the developing nature of institutional characteristics surrounding climate change due to the current soft regulation on the issue appears to be more difficult for organizations to refer to when making accounts. The structure, procedures, goals and alliances in which organizations can draw upon are not yet institutionalised; thus, the shared meaning of legitimacy gained from these characteristics is unclear among social actors (Deephouse, 1996).

Whether or not an acknowledgement or denial was combined with references to institutional or technical characteristics appeared to affect the number of accounts made. In referring to institutional characteristics, the number of acknowledgements was four times more than the number of acknowledgments made on their own with no references to institutional characteristics. References to technical characteristics also increased the number of acknowledgements made, doubling from the number of acknowledgements made on their own. Thus, acknowledgments combined with account contents can also be viewed as ‘justifications’ or acceptance of responsibility for an action but denies the action was wrong (Schlenker, 1980; Tedeschi and Riess, 1981). In this case, organizations in the Australian coal mining company have acknowledged and accepted their contribution to climate change but have used references to institutional characteristics such as legitimate goals and references to technical characteristics such as jobs provided, to justify their actions and protect their legitimacy.

Given the previous finding that organizations are making few acknowledgements and denials, acknowledgements and denials with references to institutional characteristics and references to technical characteristics were also expected to have little prevalence. However, an account combination that did occur frequently was references to institutional characteristics combined with technical characteristics. As institutional characteristics surrounding climate change are still developing, drawing on readily available technical characteristics in addition to this would help support an organization’s response.

Discussion and conclusion

This study has contributed to the literature in public relations on crisis management by adding insights from an institutional theory perspective which highlight not just the nature of the strategic response but also the content. Specifically, this study identified the nature of the content and whether it was institutional rules that were drawn on: for example, we abide by the law, or technical attributes about the industry; for example, we provide jobs. In doing so, insights into how crisis management practice uses impression management techniques to manage legitimacy. This is an important extension of the strategic approach apparent in the public relations crisis management literature to provide more specificity into how the external environment is integrated into organizational matters.

The integration of institutional theory principles into public relations is relatively recent even though it has been used in studies of CSR extensively. The marriage of institutional theory and public relations is potentially rich as it provides a means to understand how more macro-matters such as expectations in the organization’s environment are integrated into the organization through the everyday practice of public relations in managing legitimacy. While the foundation paper on which this study was based (Elsbach, 1994) provided insights into how an industry managed its reputation when questioned, this article provides further insights into the agency of impression management practices by public relations in how they draw on a range of rationales to support the organization’s position. Specifically, the Australian coal mining context was of particular interest as soft regulation and many of the indicators of corporate social responsibility in a neo-liberal regime mean there is little clarity around which institutional accounts can be used.

This study also contributes to public relations’ crisis management literature by shifting the emphasis from micro-level, strategic choice perspectives to one which considers macro-perspectives which institutional theory provides. It acknowledges that actors like public relations practitioners have the opportunity to draw on existing institutional rules to seek to construct meaning around the organization’s activities. This study suggests that when institutional rules are emergent, organizations may turn to other discourses such as economic rationales like jobs and financial contribution to the economy.

As such, the marriage of institutional theory and public relations sheds light on crisis management around negotiating new ‘environments’ or institutions within which organizations operate and within which legitimacy is judged. The role of communication in creating meanings around CSR has been acknowledged (Ihlen et al., 2011). This study’s descriptive process around impression management work that involves public relations has aided in the creation of a shared rationale (Meyer and Rowan, 1977) of what is considered legitimate in terms of institutional practices and technical activities.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Author biographies

Jenny Le is a Senior Consultant at a global consulting firm. Working as part of the consultancy’s strategy and analytics arm, she specialises in organisational change management and communications. Her research work centres around the areas of legitimacy, corporate communication and corporate social responsibility. With both research and practitioner experience, she has worked with a range of clients in the natural resources industry. She holds degrees in Public Relations and Journalism from the Queensland University of Technology.

Jennifer L Bartlett is Associate Professor in the QUT Business School specialising in public relations. Jennifer’s work centres around the social negotiation of appropriate business practice in industries undergoing significant changes Her research work in the processes of social construction of legitimate practices has been published and presented internationally around the theme of corporate social responsibility (CSR), which provides the theoretical platform for the rationale of stakeholder and community engagement. Her work on CSR in Australia remains one of the most downloaded academic papers in the applied communication field. She is the joint editor of the award winning Handbook of Communication and CSR, which provided the forum for understanding matters of CSR through a communicative and social negotiated lens.

References

Aerts

Cormier

(2009) Media legitimacy and corporate environmental communication. Accounting, Organizations and Society 34: 1–27.

Allen

Caillouet

(1994) Legitimation endeavours: Impression management strategies used by an organization in crisis. Communication Monographs 61: 44–62.

Ashforth

Gibbs

(1990) The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science 1(2): 177–194.

Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (2009) Australia mineral statistics 2009-June quarter. Available at: http://www.abareconomics.com/publications_html/ams/ams_09/ams_sept09.pdf (accessed 23 March 2010).

Australian Coal Association (2008a) About the Australian Coal Association. Available at: http://www.australiancoal.com.au/about-the-aca.aspx (accessed 20 May 2010).

Australian Coal Association (2008b) ACA welcomes Coal Council and Carbon Storage Taskforce (Media release). Available at: http://www.australiancoal.com.au/resources.ashx/MediaReleases/3/MediaRelease/C5A58371D514DEF6B1B0870021235455/coalcouncilrelease_4_.pdf

Australian Coal Association (2009a) Australian Coal Association addresses the Central Queensland Carbon Forum (Media release). Available at: http://www.australiancoal.com.au/resources.ashx/MediaReleases/69/MediaRelease/DA301DA5F975B07BC46BE66FA9FE4436/ACA_Gladstone_Release_081009.pdf

Australian Coal Association (2009b) Coal industry welcomes new funding for carbon capture and storage (Media release). Available at: http://www.australiancoal.com.au/resources.ashx/MediaReleases/58/MediaRelease/54FDA0B4377AC199D747D234EAFDE5DC/ACA_MR_budgetccs_120509_.pdf

Australian Coal Association (2009c) Coal issue needs to be resolved (Media release). Available at: http://www.australiancoal.com.au/resources.ashx/MediaReleases/53/MediaRelease/436D29E47604FEA308B3E533F464FB72/ACA_Media_ETS_Exposure.pdf

10.

Australian Coal Association (2009d) Release of storage acreage another sign of progress (Media release). Available at: http://www.australiancoal.com.au/resources.ashx/MediaReleases/54/MediaRelease/1791F46CA750975A326AB3BA90E926A3/ACA_storage_MR300309.pdf

11.

Bartlett

(2011) Public relations and corporate social responsibility. In: Ihlen

Bartlett

May

(eds) The Handbook of Communication and Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford, UK: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 67–86.

12.

Bartlett

(2007) From personal and interpersonal influence to impersonal influence: A role for media and legitimacy in relationship management. In: Duhe

(ed.) New Media and Public Relations. New York: Peter Lang, pp.43–55.

13.

Benoit

(1995) Accounts, Excuses, and Apologies: A Theory of Image Restoration Strategies. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

14.

Bourne

Edwards

(2012) Producing trust, knowledge and expertise in financial markets: The global hedge fund industry ‘re-presents’ itself. Culture and Organization 18(2): 107–122.

15.

Breusch

Morris

(2008) We’re doing our bit, says coal industry. Australian Financial Review, 2 October, p.6.

16.

Colebatch

Morton

(2008) Third world to do our dirty work. Age, 31 October, p.1.

17.

Coombs

(1995) Choosing the right words: The development of guidelines for the selection of the ‘appropriate’ crisis-response strategies. Management Communication Quarterly 8(4): 447–476.

18.

Coombs

(2007) Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review 10: 163–176.

19.

Covaleski

Dirsmith

(1988) An institutional perspective on the rise, social transformation, and fall of a university budget category. Administrative Science Quarterly 33(4): 562–587.

20.

Creed

WED

Scully

Austin

(2002) Clothes make the person? The tailoring of legitimating accounts and the social construction of identity. Organization Science 13(5): 475–496.

21.

Cummings

(1983) Organizational effectiveness and organizational behavior: A critical perspective. In: Cameron

Whetten

(eds) Organizational Effectiveness: A Comparison of Multiple Models. New York: Academic Press, pp.187–203.

22.

Deephouse

(1996) Does isomorphism legitimate? Academy of Management Journal 39(4): 1024–1040.

23.

DiMaggio

Powell

(1983) The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48: 147–160.

24.

Dougall

(2005) The ecology of public opinion environments and the evolution of organization-activist relationship: A comparative case study of Australia’s major banks, 1981–2001. Theses database, Queensland University of Technology. Available at: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/15989/ (accessed 21 April 2010).

25.

Drucker

(1967) The Effective Executive. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.

26.

Eisenhardt

(1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review 13: 532–550.

27.

Elsbach

(1994) Managing organizational legitimacy in the California cattle industry. Administrative Science Quarterly 39(1): 57–88.

28.

Elsbach

Sutton

(1992) Acquiring organizational legitimacy through illegitimate actions: A marriage of institutional and impression management theories. Academy of Management Journal 35(4): 699–738.

29.

Fombrun

Shanley

(1990) What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal 33(2): 233–258.

30.

Frandsen

Johansen

(2009) Institutionalizing crisis communication in the public sector: An explorative study in Danish municipalities. International Journal of Strategic Communication 3: 102–115.

31.

Frandsen

Johansen

(2011) Rhetoric, climate change, and corporate identity management. Management Communication Quarterly 25: 511–530.

32.

Fredriksson

Pallas

Wehmeier

(2013). Public relations and neo-institutional theory. Public Relations Inquiry, 2(2), 183-203

33.

Garnaut

(2008) Garnaut Climate Change Review: Final Report. Port Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Cambridge University Press.

34.

Ghemawat

Ricart

Costa

(1993) The organizational tension between static and dynamic efficiency. Strategic Management Journal 14(S2): 59–73.

35.

Giacalone

Rosenfeld

(1989) Impression Management in the Organization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

36.

Glaser

Strauss

(1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

37.

Goffman

(1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday Publishing Company.

38.

Greenwood

Oliver

Sahlin

. (2008) The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. London: Sage.

39.

Heath

(2006) Onward into more fog: Thoughts on public relaitons’ research directions. Journal of Public Relations Research 18(2): 93–114.

40.

Hearit

(1995) ‘Mistakes were made’: Organizations, apologia, and crises of social legitimacy. Communication Studies 46(1–2): 1–17.

41.

Hooghiemstra

(2000) Corporate communication and impression management – New perspectives why companies engage in corporate social reporting. Journal of Business Ethics 27(1–2): 55–68.

42.

Ihlen

(2009) Business and climate change: The climate response of the World’s 30 largest corporations. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture 3(2): 244–262.

43.

Ihlen

Bartlett

May

(2011) Conclusions and take away points. In: Ihlen

Bartlett

May

(eds) Handbook of Communication and Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp.550–571.

44.

Ihlen

Ruler

Frederiksson

(2009) Public Relations and Social Theory – Key Concepts. London: Routledge.

45.

Jensen

(2001) Public relations and emerging functions of the public sphere – Analytical framework. Journal of Communication Management 6(2): 133–147.

46.

Jones

Watson

Gardner

. (2004) Organizational communication: Challenges for the new century. Journal of Communication 54: 722–750.

47.

Lammers

Barbour

(2006) An institutional theory of organizational communication. Communication Theory 16(3): 356–377.

48.

Lawrence

Suddaby

(2006) Institutions and institutional work. In: Clegg

Hardy

Lawrence

. (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Organization Studies. London: Sage, pp.215–254.

49.

Marcus

Goodman

(1991) Victims and shareholders: The dilemmas of presenting corporate policy during a crisis. Academy of Management Journal 34(2): 281–305.

50.

Massey

(2001) Managing organizational legitimacy: Communication strategies for organizations in crisis. International Journal of Business Communication 38(2): 153–182.

51.

Meyer

Rowan

(1977) Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83(2): 340–363.

52.

Miles

Huberman

(1994) Qualitative Data Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

53.

NSW Minerals Council (2010) Climate change action. Available at: http://www.nswmin.com.au/Mining-in-NSW/Climate-Change-Action/default.aspx (accessed 5 July 2010).

54.

O’Connor

Gronewold

(2013) Black gold, green earth: An analysis of the petroleum industry’s CSR environmental sustainability discourse. Management Communication Quarterly 27(2): 210–236.

55.

O’Keefe

(2009) Sector must face pain of change. Australian, 9 May, p.5.

56.

Oliver

(1991) Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review 16(1): 145–179.

57.

Pfeffer

Salancik

(1978) The External Control of Organizations. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.

58.

Queensland Resources Council (2009) Climate policy demands focus on effectiveness (Media release). Available at: http://www.qrc.org.au/01_cms/details.asp?ID=2054

59.

Queensland Resources Council (2010) Energy and Climate Change. Available at: http://www.qrc.org.au/01_cms/details.asp?ID=1367 (accessed 20 July 2010).

60.

Reserve Bank of Australia (2009). The level and Distribution of Mining Sector Income. http://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2009/jan/2.html

61.

Riffe

Lacy

Fico

(2005) Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content analysis in research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Incorporated.

62.

Rosenfeld

Giacolone

Riordan

(1995) Impression Management in Organizations: Theory, Measurement, Practice. London: Routledge.

63.

Sahlin-Andersson

(2006) Corporate social responsibility: A trend and a movement, but of what and for what? Corporate Governance 6(5): 595–608.

64.

Sandhu

(2009) Strategic communication: An institutional perspective. International Journal of Strategic Communication 3: 72–92.

65.

Schlenker

(1980) Impression Management: The Self-concept, Social Identity, and Interpersonal Relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

66.

Schneider

(1983) An interactionist perspective on organizational effectiveness. In: Cameron

Whetten

(eds) Organizational Effectiveness: A Comparison of Multiple Models. New York: Academic Press, pp.27–53.

67.

Schonbach

(1980) A category system for account phases. European Journal of Social Psychology 10: 195–200.

68.

Schultz

Wehmeier

(2010) Institutionalization of corporate social responsibility with corporate communications: Combining institutional, sensemaking and communication perspectives. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 15(1): 9–29.

69.

Scott

Lyman

(1968) Accounts. American Sociological Review 33(1): 46–62.

70.

Scott

(1987) The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly 32(4): 493–511.

71.

Staw

McKechnie

Puffer

(1983) The justification of organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly 28(4): 528–600.

72.

Strauss

Corbin

(1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

73.

Suchman

(1995) Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review 20(3): 571–610.

74.

Suddaby

(2010) Challenges for institutional theory. Journal of Management Inquiry 19: 14–20.

75.

Taylor

(2008) Doubts raised over Garnaut’s targets. Australian, 2 October, p.7.

76.

Taylor

(2009) Wong pleads for ETS deal. Australian, 11 March, p.2.

77.

Tedeschi

Riess

(1981) Verbal strategies in impression management. In: Antaki

(ed.) The Psychology of Everyday Explanations of Social Behaviour. London: Academic Press, pp. 210–219.

78.

Weber

(1990) Basic Content Analysis. Newbury Park: Sage.

79.

Weick

Daft

(1983) The effectiveness of interpretation systems. In: Cameron

Whetten

(eds) Organizational Effectiveness: A Comparison of Multiple Models. New York: Academic Press, pp.71–93.