Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Letter C corresponds to the Transcript of Public Informational Meeting of Farm C, and number 50 corresponds to an individual in order of appearance. The line number (ln) where the quote can be found in the transcript follows.

  2. Other authority agents are: the Department of Public Health, the Illinois Departments of Transportation, Environmental Protection, Natural Resources, the Illinois Geological Survey, the Illinois Secretary of State, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the United States Department of Agriculture, local government (county/township) offices, University of Iowa, Illinois, and Missouri researchers, the Illinois Pork Producers Association, being a local/nearby resident, or president of an agricultural organization.

Abbreviations

CAFO:

Confined animal feeding operation

IDOA:

Illinois Department of Agriculture

LMFA:

Livestock Management Facilities Act

References

  • Aldrich, H.E. 1999. Organizations evolving. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, H.E., and C.M. Fiol. 1994. Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review 19: 645–670.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appellate Court of Illinois. 2011. Pierson vs. Bible. http://www.state.il.us/court/R23_Orders/AppellateCourt/2011/5thDistrict/5090308_R23.pdf. Accessed 20 April 2012.

  • Arthur, M.M. 2003. Share price reactions to work-family initiatives: an institutional perspective. Academy of Management Journal 46: 497–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, B.E., and B.W. Gibbs. 1990. The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science 1: 177–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P., and I. Clelland. 2004. Talking trash: legitimacy, impression management, and unsystematic risk in the context of the natural environment. Academy of Management Journal 47: 93–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P.L., and T. Luckmann. 1967. The social construction of reality. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonanno, A., and D.H. Constance. 2006. Corporations and the state in the global era: the case of Seaboard Farms and Texas. Rural Sociology 71(1): 59–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buescher, J. 2004. York neighbor opposes ethanol plant in Conoy. Intelligencer Journal 24 May, p. B10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burawoy, M. 1991. Ethnography unbound. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnett, A., and D.M. Badzinski. 2000. An exploratory study of argument in the jury decision-making process. Communication Quarterly 48: 380–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butterfield, K.D., L.K. Trevino, and G.A. Ball. 1996. Punishment from the manager’s perspective: A grounded investigation and inductive model. Academy of Management Journal 39: 1479–1512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M.B.E. 1995. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review 20: 92–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, B.D., and T.J. Dean. 2005. Information asymmetry and investor valuation of IPOs: top management team legitimacy as a capital market signal. Strategic Management Journal 26: 683–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Constance, D.H. 2008. The Southern Model of Broiler Production and Its Global Implications. Culture & Agriculture 30(1&2): 17–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E. 2003. Tight-loose coupling with customers: the enactment of customer orientation. Strategic Management Journal 24: 559–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deephouse, D.L. 1996. Does isomorphism legitimate? Academy of Management Journal 39: 1024–1039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dentoni, D., and H.C. Peterson. 2011. Multi-stakeholder sustainability alliances in agri-food chains: a framework for multi-disciplinary research. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 14(5): 83–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P.J., and W.W. Powell. 1991. Introduction. In The new institutionalism in organizational analysis, ed. W.W. Powell, and P.J. DiMaggio, 1–38. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eesley, C., and M.J. Lenox. 2006. Firm responses to secondary stakeholder action. Strategic Management Journal 27: 765–781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K.M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review 14: 488–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elsbach, K.D. 1994. Managing organizational legitimacy in the California cattle industry: the construction and effectiveness of verbal accounts. Administrative Science Quarterly 39: 57–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R.E. 1984. Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, A.L., and S. Miles. 2006. Stakeholders: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B., and A. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. London: Wiedenfeld and Nicholson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith, P.D., and P.L. Martin. 2006. Community and labor issues in animal agriculture. Choices 21(3): 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, M.T., and G.R. Carroll. 1992. Dynamics of organizational populations: Density, legitimation, and competition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, M.T., and J. Freeman. 1989. Organizations and social structure in organizational ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henson, Z., and C. Bailey. 2009. CAFOS, culture, and conflict on Sand Mountain: Framing rights and responsibilities in Appalachian Alabama. Southern Rural Sociology 24(1): 153–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herriges, J.A., S. Secchi, and B.A. Babcock. 2005. Living with hogs in Iowa: The impact of livestock facilities on rural residential property values. Land Economics 81(4): 530–545.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, M.C., and R. Gulati. 2006. Stacking the deck: The effects of top management backgrounds on investor decisions. Strategic Management Journal 27: 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, A.J. 1999. Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the US chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal 42: 351–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Human, S.E., and K.G. Provan. 2000. Legitimacy building in the evolution of small-firm multilateral networks: A comparative study of success and demise. Administrative Science Quarterly 45: 327–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IDOA (Illinois Department of Agriculture) 2011. The Livestock Management Facilities Statistics. http://www.agr.state.il.us/Environment/LMFA/lmfastats.html. Accessed 10 March 2012.

  • IDOA (Illinois Department of Agriculture) 2007. The Livestock Management Facilities Program. http://www.agr.state.il.us/Environment/LMFA/index.html. Accessed 10 December 2007.

  • Kim, J., and P.D. Goldsmith. 2009. A spatial hedonic approach to assess the impact of swine production on residential property values. Environmental & Resource Economics 42(4): 509–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., P.D. Goldsmith, and M.H. Thomas. 2010. Economic impact and social cost of confined animal feeding operations: a comparison and compensation analysis at the parcel level. Agriculture and Human Values 27(1): 29–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostova, T., and S. Zaheer. 1999. Organizational legitimacy under condition of complexity: the case of the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review 24: 64–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maguire, S., C. Hardy, and T.B. Lawrence. 2004. Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. Academy of Management Journal 47: 657–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, A. 2004. Factory farms foes fed up: sick of the foul odors and government inaction, critics of huge swine operations are taking complaints to court. Chicago Tribune 14 March, p. N1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, H. 2001. The California energy crisis. Los Angeles Times 10 January, p. A16.

  • McMichael, P. 1996. Globalization: myths and realities. Rural Sociology 61(I): 25–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R.K., B.R. Agle, and D.J. Wood. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review 22: 853–886.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Hog Farmer. 2009. Illinois hog farm wins three-year-old lawsuit. http://nationalhogfarmer.com/environmental-stewardship/regulations/0210-hog-farm-wins-lawsuit. Accessed 4 December 2012.

  • Orton, J.D. 1997. From inductive to iterative grounded theory: zipping the gap between process theory and process data. Scandinavian Journal of Management 13: 419–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paterik, S. 2004. Living with power plant next door: Gilbert residents lost fight vs. expansion 3 years ago. The Arizona Republic 5 April, p. A1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, T.G., and V.P. Rindova. 2003. Media legitimation effects in the market for initial public offerings. Academy of Management Journal 46: 631–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rich, R. 2008. Fecal free: Biology and authority in industrialized Midwestern pork production. Agriculture and Human Values 25: 79–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rock River Times. 2012. A.J. Bos to abandon Traditions megadairy in Jo Daviess County. http://rockrivertimes.com/2012/11/28/a-j-bos-to-abandon-traditions-megadairy-in-jo-daviess-county/. Accessed 4 December 2012.

  • Romero, S. 2004. Fears drain support for natural gas terminals. New York Times 14 May, p. C1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W.R. 2001. Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, J.V., D.J. Tucker, and R.J. House. 1986. Organizational legitimacy and the liability of newness. Administrative Science Quarterly 31: 171–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1998. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M.C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review 20: 571–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, M., and D. Dempsey. 2003. Big farms creating turf wars. Dayton Daily News 9 November, p. A1.

  • Zelditch Jr, M. 2001. Theories of legitimacy. In The psychology of legitimacy: emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations, ed. J.T. Jost, and B. Major, 33–53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, M.A., and G.J. Zeitz. 2002. Beyond survival: achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review 27: 414–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, E.W. 1999. The categorical imperative: securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount. American Journal of Sociology 104: 1398–1438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois, 326 Mumford Hall, 1301 W. Gregory Drive, Urbana, IL, 61801-3605, USA

    Peter Goldsmith & Filipe Pereira

Authors
  1. Peter Goldsmith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Filipe Pereira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Goldsmith.

Appendix: Eight sections of the Livestock Management Facility Act

Appendix: Eight sections of the Livestock Management Facility Act

  1. 1.

    Whether registration and livestock waste management plan certification requirements, if required, are met by the notice of intent to construct.

  2. 2.

    Whether the design, location, or proposed operation will protect the environment by being consistent with this Act.

  3. 3.

    Whether the location minimizes any incompatibility with the surrounding area’s character by being located in any area zoned for agriculture where the county has zoning or where the county is not zoned, the setback requirements established by this Act are complied with.

  4. 4.

    Whether the facility is located within a 100-year floodplain or an otherwise environmentally sensitive area (defined as an area of karst area or with aquifer material within 5 feet of the bottom of the livestock waste handling facility) and whether construction standards set forth in the notice of intent to construct are consistent with the goal of protecting the safety of the area.

  5. 5.

    Whether the owner or operator has submitted plans for operation that minimize the likelihood of any environmental damage to the surrounding area from spills, runoff, and leaching.

  6. 6.

    Whether odor control plans are reasonable and incorporate reasonable or innovative odor reduction technologies given the current state of such technologies.

  7. 7.

    Whether traffic patterns minimize the effect on existing traffic flows.

  8. 8.

    Whether construction or modification of a new facility is consistent with existing community growth, tourism, recreation, or economic development or with specific projects involving community growth, tourism, recreation, or economic development that have been identified by government action for development or operation within one year through compliance with applicable zoning and setback requirements for populated areas established by this Act.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Goldsmith, P., Pereira, F. Outlining a strategic legitimacy assessment method: the case of the Illinois livestock industry. Agric Hum Values 31, 215–230 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-013-9464-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-013-9464-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation