Legitimacy and Legitimacy Gap

Organizational legitimacy and legitimacy gap are terms that explain how corporations lose, meet, and regain societal approval to operate. They explain how organizations seek to “establish congruence between the social values associated with or implied by their activities and the norms of acceptable behavior in the larger system of which they are a part” (Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975, p. 122). That is, organizational legitimacy is a result of a company's ability to assure the public it has their interests in mind. These concepts are important to public relations as companies rely on the industry to help them account for their actions in a manner that satisfies the public. Whether a company's legitimacy has been threatened or just needs maintenance, public relations is often necessary.

The concept of legitimacy gap originated in 1977 with the claim by S. Prakesh Sethi that organizations suffer such a gap when their policies and operations violate expectations held by their key publics. During the period of political unrest in the United States during the 1960s and 1970s, the right of organizations to operate as they preferred had been sharply challenged on an increasing number of fronts. Sethi's explanation of the effect of such challenges began an ever more insightful exploration of how organizations may lose key public [Page 487]support for their legitimate right to operate as they wish.

Public accusations of wrongdoing can thrust organizations into legitimacy crises. These challenges to corporate existence occur when the public perceives a gap between social values and a company's actions and can cause an organization to lose its ability to function successfully. To retain their legitimacy, organizations must show that they operate by society's value systems. Most members of American society are familiar with such events as the nuclear emergency at Three Mile Island, the seven deaths caused by tainted Tylenol capsules, or the aftermath of the explosion at Union Carbide's Bhopal, India, chemical plant. Many people are likely to remember the scandals created by questionable corporate decisions, such as Dow Corning's decision to market what proved to be health-threatening silicone breast implants or Chrysler's selling vehicles as new, which in fact executives had driven with disconnected odometers. In all of these situations, these organizations faced public charges of wrongdoing because their actions suggested they did not meet society's standards of safety, honesty, justice, and fairness.

To continue to operate, companies must repair these legitimacy gaps between society's expectations and their behavior. For example, when a commercial airliner crashes, the public looks to that company as well as to federal investigators for an explanation of why the event occurred and reassurance that a similar tragedy will not occur. All sectors of our society, including institutions of government, education, religion, and private enterprise, are called to account for their actions at some point when they appear to violate public expectations. The public seeks answers and explanations for issues of corporate behavior that resonate in society's collective mind. They seek responses from companies whose actions have aroused public concern. Until corporations adequately address public anxiety, these concerns will continue to hold public attention. Companies that fail to produce acceptable explanations face threats to their legitimacy and their freedom to operate in society.

...