Impression management strategies to gain regulatory approval

Journal of Business Research 105 (2019) 136–153

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

Impression management strategies to gain regulatory approval

T

Chethan D. Srikant Management Department, Mihaylo College of Business & Economics, California State University, Fullerton 800 N. State College Blvd., Fullerton, CA 92831, USA

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Impression management Rhetoric Regulatory legitimacy Community opposition Political climate

Using fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis and data from the U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) import industry (2000−2013), I explore the complex configurations of conditions that impact regulatory approval and approval speed for a new venture's market entry. Rather than let conditions alone dictate outcome, firms use impression management strategies based on three types of rhetoric (persuasive, issue dissuasive, and detractor dissuasive), but these strategies are not always effective. I find an evasive strategy—avoiding any type of rhetoric—ensures faster regulatory approval under extremely favorable conditions, but is ineffective when community need is low, and there is either sustained community opposition or an adverse political climate. Conversely, an exuberance strategy, involving all three rhetorical types, ensures regulatory approval under adverse social conditions when supply conditions are favorable, but approval speed is slower. This research highlights the tangible but contingent impact of these impression management strategies on gaining regulatory legitimacy.

1. Introduction The need for regulatory legitimacy, one of the three pillars of legitimacy, guides a firm's behavior not only because there are legal ramifications to lacking it, but also because it provides a basis for gaining acceptance from other stakeholders (Hoffman, 1999; Scott, 1995; Suddaby, Bitektine, & Haack, 2017). The importance of regulatory legitimacy is magnified for new ventures as lacking such legitimacy can be a difficult stumbling block to overcome (Zimmerman & Zeitz, 2002), particularly considering the various other liabilities that they already face during market entry (Stinchcombe, 1965). Lack of regulatory legitimacy can often explain the inability of a new venture to transition from a planned venture to an operational start-up (Sine, David, & Mitsuhashi, 2007). While researchers have gained important insights by considering broader systemic changes in how regulatory legitimacy is conferred (e.g., Maguire & Hardy, 2009), extant research does not completely address the immediate concern of a new venture: the means of obtaining regulatory approval before it can establish broader legitimacy. To address this gap, relevant insights may be found by consulting the body of literature examining how firms use rhetoric-based impression management strategies to gain widespread legitimacy (Andreu, Casado-Díaz, & Mattila, 2015; Elsbach & Sutton, 1992; Harmon, Green, & Goodnight, 2015; Perks, Farache, Shukla, & Berry, 2013). There is also anecdotal evidence of firms, such as Uber (Lawler, 2012) and Vonage (Brown, 2018), employing rhetoric during the

regulatory approval process for gaining market entry. However, the complex nature of regulatory legitimacy makes it difficult to establish a direct link between the use of rhetoric as part of an impression management strategy and the regulatory approval of the new venture. We have to answer the question: How do impression management strategies based on rhetoric impact the outcome of the regulatory approval process? This is an important question to address, as firms may have limited ability to influence the outcome of a process that is already subject to a combination of factors. The primary role of the regulator is to match demand (the community's need for a new venture) with supply (firms with the appropriate resources and capabilities), but because the regulator has a responsibility to work in the public interest and improve social welfare, adverse social conditions also play an important role in this process (Laffont & Tirole, 1991). In such complex and contentious settings, rhetoric-based impression management strategies play an essential role in helping firms establish the public validity necessary for “the regulators to rule in their favor” (Gurses & Ozcan, 2015: 1710). To fully understand the link between impression management strategies and regulatory approval, we need to consider the complex combination of contextual conditions that impact approval and the repertoire of rhetorical responses available to address adverse social conditions. Hence, my methodology relies on the configurational approach and employs fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (FSQCA) as the analytical tool (Fiss, 2011; Misangyi & Acharya, 2014; Ragin, 2008b; Roig-Tierno, Huarng, & Ribeiro-Soriano, 2016); FSQCA

E-mail address: [email protected]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.08.006 Received 26 July 2018; Received in revised form 1 August 2019; Accepted 5 August 2019 0148-2963/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Journal of Business Research 105 (2019) 136–153

C.D. Srikant

Throughout this process, the firm is forced to invest time and money as well as apply its social skill—“the ability to induce cooperation in others” (Fligstein, 2001: 105). Without obtaining regulatory approval, these requirements can complicate the firm's efforts to establish legitimacy in that industry. When competing firms are simultaneously trying to establish a foothold in an industry (Upson, Ketchen, Connelly, & Ranft, 2012), it is no longer sufficient merely to get regulatory approval—it is also important that this approval be obtained as quickly as possible. Regulatory approval, similar to certifications, can send social cues to rival firms concerning the prospects for further value capture (Polidoro, 2013): by obtaining regulatory approval more quickly, a firm indicates to its rivals that it is far ahead in the race to market, and is better equipped to capture the market. Such a firm will also expend fewer resources to obtain approval than a firm going through a more prolonged process. Additionally, a slower regulatory approval process can cause negative perceptions of the new venture to become entrenched (Lee, Hiatt, & Lounsbury, 2017). Hence, regulatory approval and regulatory approval speed should be considered related but independent outcomes that each play a role in the establishment of regulatory legitimacy. From the regulator's perspective, the approval process for a new venture must objectively address the imbalance between demand and supply (Joskow, 2011). The firm demonstrates its suitability (in terms of resources and capabilities) to supply the proposed product or service, and the community determines the demand based on its needs. New ventures also rely on their resources and capabilities to sustain themselves through an arduous regulatory approval process amplified by competing demands from multiple stakeholders (Hiatt & Park, 2013). However, achieving a balance in demand-supply conditions is not enough for gaining regulatory legitimacy, nor is merely filing the application and following the rules. Indeed, as regulatory processes tend to be very involved and publicly visible, approval is also impacted by adverse social conditions. Such conditions pose a significant threat to the legitimacy of new ventures (Hiatt, Sine, & Tolbert, 2009), and are particularly pronounced for firms that face community opposition and adverse political climates (Stevenson & Greenberg, 2000). For instance, firms proposing new facilities that will substantially affect the local community can face impediments imposed by community members (Greve, Pozner, & Rao, 2006; Marquis & Lounsbury, 2007; Wright & Schaffer Boudet, 2012); should community opposition escalate and an adverse political climate emerge, the two can combine to have a considerable impact on the regulatory process. Accordingly, the way that firms respond to community opposition and adverse political climates can influence the outcome and speed of the regulatory process, as regulators must at the very least appear to work in the public interest and to improve social welfare (Laffont & Tirole, 1991); in contentious settings, firms must first publicly validate the legitimacy of their endeavor so they can then “put pressure on the regulators to rule in their favor” (Gurses & Ozcan, 2015: 1710). Over the longer term, regulatory approval can confer benefits beyond legal endorsement by legitimating a firm within the broader sector (Sine et al., 2007). It is in this context that the firm's rhetorical response to adverse social conditions becomes important. In summary, a complex interaction of various contextual conditions may influence whether a firm obtains regulatory legitimacy, but firms have at their disposal an array of rhetorical responses that can mitigate the impact of adverse social conditions while promoting more favorable demand-supply conditions. To further understand the impact of these conditions on regulatory approval and speed, I first review the literature related to a range of contextual conditions (community need, firm resources and capabilities, community opposition, and adverse political climate), and then consider the extant literature concerning rhetorical responses to adverse social conditions.

is finding increasing use in business research (see for example: Ageeva, Melewar, Foroudi, Dennis, & Jin, 2018; Armanios, Eesley, Li, & Eisenhardt, 2017; Greckhamer, 2016; Kabakova & Plaksenkov, 2018). For my analysis, I used data from the liquefied natural gas (LNG) import industry in the United States from 2000 to 2013. This research setting was ideal for FSQCA as the contextual conditions that could impact regulatory outcomes varied across the new ventures proposing LNG terminals. Using the extant literature, I classify rhetorical responses to adverse social conditions according to which of three types of rhetoric they employ. Firms use persuasive rhetoric to redirect attention towards the positive attributes of the firm (Grougiou, Dedoulis, & Leventis, 2016; McDonnell & King, 2013), and use issue dissuasive rhetoric to provide counterarguments to issues raised by social actors (Lamin & Zaheer, 2012). Prior research has further hinted at another type of dissuasive rhetoric—detractor dissuasive rhetoric—that directly targets the detractor who raises the issue, instead of merely countering their arguments (Oliver, 1991). Results from the configurational approach helped me identify four primary impression management strategies that employ various combinations of these three rhetorical types. The Evasive strategy does not involve the use of any rhetoric, either because the firm deliberately avoids it or because of a lack of media attention. The Positive strategy relies on persuasive rhetoric but avoids both types of dissuasive rhetoric. The Defensive strategy involves a combination of persuasive and issue dissuasive rhetoric but avoids detractor dissuasive rhetoric. Finally, the Exuberance strategy involves extensive use of all three types of rhetoric. I find that the effectiveness of these strategies on gaining regulatory approval is extremely contingent on the specific combination of contextual conditions present. With the Evasive strategy, firms tend to gain regulatory approval under the most favorable conditions—low community opposition, high community need, favorable political climate, and higher firm capabilities and resources—and under these conditions, the Evasive strategy also leads to faster approval. On the other hand, when certain conditions are not favorable, the Evasive strategy can result in the failure to achieve regulatory approval. Furthermore, when internal factors (firm resources and capabilities) are favorable, but external conditions (community opposition, community need, and political climate) are unfavorable, an Exuberance strategy appears to facilitate gaining regulatory approval, albeit at a slower pace. Findings in this paper provide an integrative framework for understanding which impression management strategies can help firms gain regulatory approval. As such, this study contributes to research on the use of rhetoric as part of impression management strategies (Andreu et al., 2015; Desai, 2011; Grougiou et al., 2016; Lamin & Zaheer, 2012; Perks et al., 2013; Zavyalova, Pfarrer, Reger, & Shapiro, 2012) by emphasizing how the tangible consequences of using such strategies vary when contextual conditions interact in complex configurations. Additionally, I provide a theoretical foundation and extensive empirical evidence for understanding the role of dissuasive rhetoric targeting a firm's detractor—a type of rhetoric that has only been hinted at in extant research (see Elsbach, Sutton, & Principe, 1998; James & Wooten, 2006). 2. Theoretical framework 2.1. Regulatory legitimacy: regulatory approval and speed A new venture cannot establish regulatory legitimacy without regulatory approval, especially in industries where governmental and quasi-governmental institutions can create barriers to market entry (Delios & Henisz, 2003). Even when there are no outright barriers, the regulatory process often requires input from multiple stakeholders, leading to an arduous effort for the firm involved (Hiatt & Park, 2013). As the regulatory process progresses, the firm must share information, conduct studies, and engage with local community audiences. 137

Journal of Business Research 105 (2019) 136–153

C.D. Srikant

regulatory agencies involved in policy implementation are part of the executive wing of the government (Christensen & Lægreid, 2007). Multiple channels of interaction connect political entities and regulatory agencies (Stevenson & Greenberg, 2000), including both overt expressions of preference as well as shared inherent biases, and these can play a role in determining regulatory legitimacy. Political entities that oppose the new venture can try to influence the regulatory decision-making process by announcing their opposition publicly; regulatory agencies tend to be sensitive to such opposition as these political entities “have the ability to punish errant agencies through budgetary cuts, committee hearings, and the enactment of new statutory constraints” (Holburn, Bergh, & Vanden Bergh, 2008: 536). As political opposition represents a conflict within the broader policy arena (Stryker, 1994), it thus has a direct and significant impact on regulatory legitimacy, which occupies the same arena. Regulatory legitimacy can also be affected by the inherent biases and leanings within a community, which are often reflected by who gets elected in that community (Lee & Lounsbury, 2015); thus, elected officials may influence regulatory agencies behind closed doors, or the members of the regulatory agencies themselves may have political beliefs that create inherent biases and are informed by the overall political climate (Christensen & Lægreid, 2007).

2.2. Contextual conditions 2.2.1. Community need Since regulators have a responsibility to work towards improving social welfare (Laffont & Tirole, 1991), community need can become a key determinant of whether a new business venture obtains regulatory approval. Any new venture must consider at least two basic community needs: the need for the new venture's output once it is operational (Joskow, 2011), and the need for employment that the new venture and related businesses will provide (Birch, 1987). In other words, the proposed new venture must be appealing to the community in terms of the economic benefits it will bring. My expectation is that community need will increase the likelihood of regulatory approval and lead to faster approval, as the firm may not have to engage in impression management to convince anyone that the venture is needed. 2.2.2. Firm resources and capabilities A firm's resources and capabilities constitute an important contextual condition that impacts regulatory legitimacy, as appropriate resources and capabilities enable the firm to navigate the regulatory process and successfully transition from a proposal to an operational stage. While resources and capabilities are key to the success of every aspect of the business venture (Barney, 1991; Barney, Ketchen, & Wright, 2011; Crook, Ketchen, Combs, & Todd, 2008; Teece, 2007), scholars have extended this perspective to better understand a firm's likelihood of success in dealing with regulatory and public-policy-related institutions (Doh, Lawton, & Rajwani, 2012). Financial resources are relevant in this context in multiple ways, as they enable the firm to engage with local communities repeatedly and to respond to regulatory requirements such as conducting feasibility studies. Another resource the new venture can draw upon is its parent organization's relevant industry experience and capabilities, particularly in terms of successfully getting new ventures operational and interacting with regulatory institutions on a regular basis (Bonardi, Holburn, & Vanden Bergh, 2006). Finally, a new venture's ability to manage its reputation is a critical strategic resource (Deephouse, 2000), as it can help the venture shape public perception and secure approval. The ability to manage these perceptions is particularly valuable when a new venture is faced with adverse social conditions that might sway the regulator against it. Thus, a firm's financial resources, relevant industry capabilities, and reputationmanagement abilities can all impact the speed and outcome of the regulatory process.

2.3. Combinations of contextual conditions Apart from the direct impact that these contextual conditions have on regulatory legitimacy independently, regulatory legitimacy is also influenced by the specific ways these conditions combine and interact. For instance, community need can be offset by community opposition if that opposition is motivated by issues other than need, such as quality of life impacts, broader societal implications, or even potentially fatal risks. Community opposition can also be informed by a firm's resources and capabilities: as Bartley and Child (2014) demonstrate in their study of the anti-sweatshop movement, movements select target firms because of their power and industry position, as well as their reputation. Social movement scholars have also recognized that an adverse political climate and community opposition can mutually reinforce one another. For one thing, the concept of political opportunity structure suggests that these movements seek openings through which they can take advantage of political climates favorable to their goals (McAdam, McCarthy, & Zald, 1996); moreover, these movements are more likely to achieve their goals when they ally with sympathetic political entities (Cress & Snow, 2000). Thus, rather than wait for an opening in the political structure, social movements can actively seek to win over the relevant political entities. Relatedly, as constituent support is necessary for reelection, we can expect political entities to adopt positions that reflect widespread opposition to a new venture within their community. Political allies increase an opposition movement's credibility and power, producing extremely adverse social conditions for the new venture. The combinations of conditions discussed here are only some examples of how the various contextual conditions can interact, but other possible configurations of these conditions could also potentially impact regulatory legitimacy.

2.2.3. Community opposition The “NIMBY” research (not-in-my-backyard; see Schively, 2007) has extensively considered the impact of community opposition on new industrial activities. Often, community opposition emerges when the mobilization of local social movements against certain business endeavors is supported by the availability of resources such as the civic organization capacity of local NGOs (Boudet, 2011; McAdam & Boudet, 2012; Wright & Schaffer Boudet, 2012). Additionally, social movement organizations typically understand the power of media and frequently use it to apply pressure on the target firms (King, 2008). Anecdotal evidence, such as the controversy surrounding the Keystone XL pipeline in the US, demonstrates that community opposition can have an impact on regulatory approval. With support from local NGOs, limited disapproval can transform into long and intense episodes of opposition. My expectation is that sustained community opposition will negatively impact the likelihood of regulatory approval and thus will create incentives for firms to use impression management strategies in response.

2.4. Rhetorical responses to adverse social conditions Adverse social conditions (community opposition and adverse political climate) that can threaten regulatory approval tend to be beyond the control of a new venture. Researchers have previously demonstrated the effectiveness of rhetoric in managing impressions when faced with such conditions (Desai, 2011; Elsbach & Sutton, 1992; Harmon et al., 2015; McDonnell & King, 2013; Zavyalova et al., 2012). I broadly classify such responses to adverse social conditions as either dissuasive or persuasive rhetoric. Table 1 below summarizes the research supporting this categorization. Persuasive rhetoric is intended to

2.2.4. Adverse political climate An adverse political climate can make regulatory legitimacy especially difficult to obtain, as regulatory agencies and political entities are closely related. The elected officials responsible for most policy decisions are members of the legislative wing of the government, while the 138

Controversial events

Elsbach (1994)

139 Case studies

Widespread, taken-forgranted practices of DDT use

Railway accidents

Nuclear accident

Industrial practice (sweatshops)

Wrongdoings (product recalls by U.S. toy companies) Consumer boycotts

Desai (2011)

Patriotta, Gond, and Schultz (2011)

Lamin and Zaheer (2012)

Zavyalova et al. (2012)

McDonnell and King (2013)

Hypotheses testing

Discrimination lawsuits

James and Wooten (2006) Maguire and Hardy (2009)

Hypotheses testing

Hypotheses testing

Hypotheses testing

Multifirm qualitative analytic Case study

Avert undesirable responses

Elsbach et al. (1998)

Case studies

Mixed methods

Case studies

Controversial and possibly unlawful actions

Theoretical

Institutional processes

Hypotheses testing

Theoretical

Crisis

Case studies

Chapter 11 filing for Bankruptcy Problematic legitimacy

Sutton and Callahan (1987) Ashforth and Gibbs (1990) Oliver (1991)

Marcus and Goodman (1991) Elsbach and Sutton (1992)

Type of article

Specific themes

Article

Statements of ceremonial actions (“do not directly address the cause of a recall but instead highlight positive characteristics of a firm”) Prosocial claims (“expressions of the organization's commitment to socially acceptable norms, beliefs, and activities”)

“communicate gains made or planned in the industry” “political actor able to contribute to solving the problem of energy”; green rationale

“Countering problematization of efficacy directly, i.e. asserting effectiveness of DDT.”

Accommodating (favors/positive selfcharacterizations) Change efforts

Enhancements and entitlings (“to highlight the positive changes … and to claim credit for these changes”) Acknowledgments linked to technical characteristics

Espousing socially acceptable goals (“It is necessary to promote them”) Manipulate

Persuasive

Table 1 Categorization of the firm's rhetorical responses to adverse social conditions.

Denial; process retaliation “firms demonstrated uncooperative behavior and found ways to manipulate” Defending the cognitive pillar (“used science to challenge the factual basis of the problematizations”); defend the normative pillar and the regulative pillar. “place blame for accidents or poor safety performance on actors or forces outside of organizations in the field” “industrial ‘test of worth’ to define the problem, attribute causes, and defend itself”; “maintain that any assertions not based on analytical grounds lacked credibility” Denial (dismissal of the allegation); defiance (“firm challenges the assertion that … and forcefully questions its portrayal as …‘bad’ company”) Statements of technical actions (“actions that are perceived as addressing the problem of manufacturing and selling defective toys”)

Denials “linked to institutional characteristics”; denials “linked to technical characteristics”; acknowledgments “linked to institutional characteristics” Bureaucratic

Justifications and defenses (“of innocence to reduce negativeness of the event and the organization”)

Defensive signals

Defining and denying responsibility (“top management and the firm are not, or should not be, discredited”) Redefining means and ends (“frame an issue in terms of other values that are seen as legitimate”) “Defiance: dismiss (ignoring explicit norms and values); challenge (contesting rules and requirements)”

Issue dissuasive

Plaintiff retaliation (“firms harassed or threatened their accusers”)

Intimidating (threats)

Defiance: “Attacking organizations strive to assault, belittle, … the external constituents that express them”

Detractor dissuasive

C.D. Srikant

Journal of Business Research 105 (2019) 136–153

Journal of Business Research 105 (2019) 136–153

C.D. Srikant

pressures, where she considers attacks to be a form of defiance whereby organizations can “assault, belittle, or vehemently denounce institutionalized values and the external constituents that express them” (p. 157; emphasis added). Apart from a couple of exceptions, empirical research has given little attention to detractor dissuasive rhetoric. Elsbach et al. (1998) considers intimidation as one of two tactics hospitals employ to prevent the escalation of patients' initial requests for audits of hospital billing practices. James and Wooten (2006) examine plaintiff retaliation as one of two tactics used in the resolution of discrimination lawsuits. While these studies begin to elaborate on Oliver's (1991) theoretical insight, they shed no light on how detractor dissuasive rhetoric, alone or in conjunction with other types of rhetoric, can affect organizational outcomes for firms dealing with adverse social conditions. Besides, detractor dissuasive responses need not take the extreme form of intimidation or public defamation that these works have considered, but could also involve simply questioning the capability, motivations, and roles of various stakeholders within the evaluation process. Such tactics are intended to “delimit the population of those entitled to take part in the struggle” (Bourdieu, 1993: 40). Under certain conditions, detractor dissuasive responses may become a powerful tool for restricting the set of legitimate participants in the contested institutional arena.

redirect attention away from opposition to the venture and towards the positive attributes of the firm and its activities (Grougiou et al., 2016), while dissuasive rhetoric counters the opposition head-on. Much of the extant literature on dissuasive rhetoric has focused on firm rhetoric that counters the issues underlying the opposition's position, rather than those that target the detractors directly by emphasizing their own negative attributes. I refer to the former as issue dissuasive (i.e., rhetoric directly targeting the issue) and to the latter as detractor dissuasive (i.e., rhetoric directly targeting the detractor). 2.4.1. Persuasive responses Firms entering novel social settings often overcome the critical challenge of establishing legitimacy (Aldrich & Fiol, 1994) by employing rhetoric to cultivate sociocultural acceptance (Khaire & Wadhwani, 2010; Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001; Santos & Eisenhardt, 2009; Weber, Heinze, & DeSoucey, 2008). To ensure widespread sociocultural acceptance, firms tend to highlight their positive attributes and paint an optimistic picture of the future (Garud, Schildt, & Lant, 2014). In the context of obtaining regulatory legitimacy, firms must deal with a novel setting that occurs at the intersection of community need and the resources and capabilities the firm possesses to meet that need. Highlighting this demand-supply condition can support the firm's efforts to gain legitimacy. Moreover, firms can use persuasive rhetoric when faced with opposition and other potential threats to their legitimacy (Perks et al., 2013). For example, Zavyalova et al. (2012) show that firms can deflect negative media attention by highlighting the positive aspects of their venture, even when done merely as a ceremonial gesture. Grougiou et al. (2016: 905) further find that for stigmatized firms, CSR disclosures play an integral part in achieving their “strategic goal to distract attention from their controversial activities, lessen the negative consequences of stigmatization and neutralize the impact of litigation proceedings.” Additionally, in their study of reactions to consumer boycotts, McDonnell and King (2013) demonstrate how firms employ prosocial claims to emphasize the broader societal benefits of their activities, and seek to offset the negative attention of consumer boycotts by stressing “the company's positive features without giving credence to the boycotters' grievances” (McDonnell & King, 2013: 391). Hence, for firms facing both a novel social setting (such as the specific demand-supply condition) and adverse social conditions, persuasive responses play an important role in highlighting the positive attributes of the firm and its proposal, while deflecting attention from the negative claims of the opposition.

2.5. Combinations of rhetorical responses Firms need to balance competing possibilities in deciding which rhetorical types to adopt in the face of adverse social conditions. For instance, when a firm counters the issues raised by hostile stakeholders, it can shift focus away from the benefits it promotes and give greater salience to the opposition's arguments. Hoffman and Ocasio (2001) find that certain critical events in the chemical industry were more likely to attract public attention when industry insiders (rather than outsiders) sought to address them; when only industry outsiders raised concerns, similar events that also had the potential to inspire significant opposition failed to attract the same degree of attention. Thus, on the one hand, highlighting speculative concerns that lack an empirical basis can be counterproductive for the firm. On the other hand, failing to react to intensifying opposition can affect the perceptions of other critical entities such as venture capital firms, potential suppliers, and potential customers. Alternatively, attacking the detractors themselves represents a proactive option by which the nascent enterprise can demonstrate strategic intent rather than passive conformity (Oliver, 1991). While any of the three rhetorical types (persuasive, issue dissuasive, and detractor dissuasive responses) may be viable give the circumstance, it is also possible for a firm to use a combination of these responses to form their impression management strategies. In this paper, I explore the impact of the impression management strategies, based on various configurations of the rhetorical responses described above (persuasive, issue dissuasive, and detractor dissuasive responses), on the regulatory outcome. I seek to understand the impacts of these strategies by considering a range of contextual conditions: sustained community opposition, firm resources and capabilities, community need, and adverse political climate. Depending on what combination of contextual conditions is present, there can be multiple paths that link the firm's usage of impression management strategies and the regulatory outcome. I capture this conceptual complexity in the figure below (Fig. 1).

2.4.2. Issue dissuasive responses Firms facing adverse social conditions may seek not only to promote the positive attributes of their endeavor, but also to counter the issues raised by opponents. If a firm fails to counter its opponents' arguments, those claims can become culturally embedded and inform subsequent interactions between a firm and its stakeholders (Hoffman, 1999). As the intensity of opposition (e.g., the frequency of attacks) increases, mass media coverage will focus considerable attention on the negative aspects of the firm's core operations. This negative attention can be problematic for new ventures, especially because media attention plays such an important role in the “market sensemaking” (Kennedy, 2008) by which a coherent shared understanding between producers and audiences is created. When media stories focus more on a venture's negative aspects, those elements can become embedded in this shared understanding—a “collective vocabulary” of sorts (Fiss & Hirsch, 2005: 30)—and firms must counter the damaging claims if they wish to change these perceptions. In such situations, using issue dissuasive rhetoric becomes an appealing tactic (Desai, 2011; Elsbach, 1994; Lamin & Zaheer, 2012).

3. Methods and data In this study, I seek to integrate a wide-ranging body of knowledge as well as produce novel theoretical insights by exploiting the richness of the empirical context. Specifically, I want to understand how the three rhetorical types complement one another, and how various configurations of these rhetorical types affect regulatory outcomes. To “combine the empirical richness of the traditional case-study approach

2.4.3. Detractor dissuasive responses The theoretical possibility of detractor dissuasive rhetoric is raised by Oliver (1991) in her typology of strategic responses to institutional 140

Journal of Business Research 105 (2019) 136–153

C.D. Srikant

Fig. 1. Conceptual framework.

This context has certain characteristics that make it suitable for addressing the research question of this study. The regulatory process governing the approval of new terminals is an arduous one, potentially spanning years and costing significant amounts of money. For instance, Kestral Energy reportedly invested nearly $17.5 million over six years to secure approval for the Downeast LNG project without even clearing the last two regulatory milestones. Because proposals for LNG import terminals were open to public deliberations as part of the regulatory processes, many faced intense community opposition as well as an adverse political climate—though there were many others that did not face either. Since firms proposed LNG import terminal projects across the U.S., the characteristics of the communities where the terminal was located, as well as the related community need, varied significantly. There was also a high degree of variation in the kinds of companies involved in these ventures, from large and established oil and gas companies to smaller startup energy firms. This industry faced intense competition due to the number of new ventures proposed and the limited scope for any given terminal to secure contracts from suppliers and customers. Because firms had to deal with pressures from multiple stakeholders, and because these terminals were still in the proposal stage, the use of a combination of rhetorical responses as an impression management strategy became very prevalent—though merely employing an impression management strategy did not necessarily guarantee a favorable regulatory outcome. Additionally, a firm authoring a new LNG proposal could not simply learn and copy from other successful proposals for two reasons: one, there was a great deal of variance in the combinations of contextual conditions these proposals faced; two, many of the proposals took years to resolve, so the outcome was not yet evident for subsequent proposals. Thus, this context offers further support for adopting a configurational approach that explicitly models a complex combination of conditions and considers multiple paths to the same outcome.

with the inferential possibilities of large-N statistical studies” (McAdam & Boudet, 2012: 25), and leverage both the qualitative and quantitative dimensions of the data, I opted for the FSQCA methodology (Ragin, 2008b). Despite its recent advent into management and organizational scholarship, FSQCA has already resulted in rich theoretical insights (Bell, Filatotchev, & Aguilera, 2014; Crilly, Zollo, & Hansen, 2012; Fiss, 2011; Garcia-Castro & Francoeur, 2016; Greckhamer, 2016; Misangyi & Acharya, 2014). A crucial motivation for using FSQCA is to investigate situations characterized by “conjunctural causation”—that is, “where single conditions do not display their effect of their own, but only together with other conditions” (Schneider & Wagemann, 2012: 6). Using this configurational approach, we can investigate social phenomenon not by isolating related factors or aspects of the outcome but by trying to “explain how order emerges from the interaction of those parts as a whole” (Chen & Lin, 2018: 5). Relatedly, FSQCA also supports the notions of equifinality—the idea that multiple, alternative paths can lead to the same outcome—and causal asymmetry—the conceptual difference between the set of conditions that leads to the occurrence (or success) of an outcome and those that lead to its non-occurrence (or failure). 3.1. Context: establishing a foothold in the U.S. LNG industry The U.S. liquified natural gas (LNG) import industry attracted renewed interest in the early 2000s because of an imbalance in demandsupply conditions that led to steep and sustained price increases (Pirog, 2004). Conversions of power plants from coal to natural gas, as well as increased heating needs in the northeastern region due to consecutive harsh winters, were driving demand (Energy Information Administration [EIA], 1998). On the supply side, domestic natural gas production had decreased, while there were still restrictions on new exploration of other potential sources, such as the Outer Continental Shelf (Humphries, 2005). Indeed, a series of blackouts in California was blamed on the unreliable supply of natural gas and the industry's insufficient storage infrastructure (Gopal et al., 2003). Solving the demand-supply imbalance required importing natural gas in its liquefied form from outside the U.S., where the industry was undergoing a revival (Jensen, 2003) that made the possibility of importing it as an alternative source of energy economically viable (Energy Information Administration, 2003; Jensen, 2004; Mazighi, 2003; World Gas Intelligence, 2006). Taking advantage of these developments, firms within the U.S. started intensely competing to propose new terminals and establish a foothold in the LNG importation market.

3.2. Data sources I compiled a list of proposed LNG import terminals from Oil & Gas Journal's “Construction Updates,” Reuters News' list of proposed North American terminals, Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports, “Gas-to-Liquid News,” and various publications of federal regulatory agencies. My search identified a total of 59 LNG import terminal proposals for the period 2000 to 2013. Importantly, this list is exhaustive; that is, I have data on the entire U.S. LNG industry over the entire 141

Journal of Business Research 105 (2019) 136–153

3.4. Contextual conditions 3.4.1. Community need Community need for the proposed terminal captures the potential 142

409.38 1018.12

2.2 4.0

2006 392 Regulatory approval speed

Table 2 Descriptive statistics and details for outcome variables.

3.3.2. Regulatory approval speed I determined regulatory approval speed by identifying the number of days between a project's announcement and its final approval. I considered this outcome only for the 26 projects that received final approval.

0.0

Number of milestones completed by a proposal. Milestones considered: Filing of application, Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), and Approval (Certification) of the terminal proposal. Number of days from announcement to final approval for the 26 projects that got approved Regulatory approval

3.3. Outcome variables 3.3.1. Regulatory approval For a firm trying to establish a foothold in an industry, it is crucial to stay ahead of the competition during the regulatory process. Other stakeholders may view reaching regulatory milestones as a signal of the intent and commitment of the firm to the project; in my context, I found examples of firms finding committed suppliers or customers only after achieving regulatory milestones. Based on the information provided by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and the significance attached to regulatory events in firms' press releases and trade journals, I identified the following milestones: filing of the application, Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), and approval (Certification) of the terminal proposal. If the project reached every milestone, I assigned it a value of 4, indicating a complete success in attaining this outcome. If the project did not even file an application with the regulator, I assigned a value of zero. The firm can remain in the regulatory process until it withdraws or the regulator makes a final decision. Since many projects achieve only certain milestones, I find the regulatory approval value varies from 0 to 4.

Reuters; O&G Journal; FERC; MARAD Reuters; O&G Journal; FERC; MARAD

Description Outcome

Source

Min

Max

Average

Standard deviation

period. For each of the 59 proposals, I compiled a list of attributes from various sources, including the LNG terminal's website, the relevant regulatory agencies, media reports, trade journals and related websites, and websites of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that track energy projects. Using the results of searches conducted in ProQuest, Factiva, and LexisNexis, I collated an extensive collection of news reports and press releases. Since the media plays a critical role in determining firms' responses (Desai, 2011; King, 2008; Lamin & Zaheer, 2012; Zavyalova et al., 2012), my primary data source was media reports. For my initial search, I did not exclude any media outlet, so the same news item was often duplicated across media outlets and the source databases (i.e., ProQuest, Factiva, and LexisNexis). I converted each article to a simple text file and eliminated duplicates as well as similar articles using the plagiarism detection software WCopyfind. This process yielded a database of 16,201 media news reports. I then manually coded the content of each report to derive three categories of data: a) data indicating social opposition; b) statements issued by representatives of the proposing firms; and c) any other information deemed relevant to that proposal. I also used other data sources, including the various agencies of the U.S. government; for company-specific information, I accessed Capital IQ, Wharton Research Data Services (WRDS), PrivCo, and Mergent Online. I collected additional county-level data through the Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) County Characteristics database for 2000–2007, and the National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS) database for NGO and charitable donations data. Following previous research on communities (Boone & Ozcan, 2014; Greve & Kim, 2014; Lee & Lounsbury, 2015), I used county borders to define communities because of the socio-economic dynamics that coalesce at the county level and because of the extensive data available at that level. Tables 2 and 3 below list all the variables along with included measures, brief descriptions, data sources, and descriptive statistics.

1.8

C.D. Srikant

Per capita income Natural gas prices

Unemployment rate

Included measure

143

Years of coverage

Total Relative use Years of usage

Years of coverage

Detractor dissuasive rhetoric Total Relative use Years of usage

Years of coverage

Issue dissuasive rhetoric Total Relative use Years of usage

Persuasive rhetoric

Regulatory leaning in the last year

Sustained community opposition Total Average Final year Years of opposition Years of coverage NGO Revenue Per Year (mn dollars) Adverse political climate Total political opposition Average political opposition LCV Average regulatory leaning

Revenue in the year of entry

Reputation

Oil and gas firms

Public

Firm resources and capabilities

Community need

Causal conditions

Source

Min

Max

Average

S.D.

indicates whether powerful political entities were favorable to an LNG proposal or not. I consider both the overt expression of opposition as well as inherent biases. A count of number of instances of opposition, that included state and federal elected officials FERC; O&G Journal; Media report 0.0 261.0 Average number of opposition events over the proposal period FERC; O&G Journal; Media report 0.0 32.8 League of conservation voters score for representatives with overlapping districts in the county. ICPSR 3.0 96.5 Officials with regulatory power coded for their party membership with democrats 1 and republicans FERC; Media reports; State govt. 0.0 1.0 0. Tenures matched with project period. Average taken over the years when the project was in effect website Same coding as above. This reflects only the leaning in the last year of the project and not its entire FERC; Media reports; State govt. 0.0 1.0 length. website Responses meant to redirect attention away from the opposition and instead typically focus attention on the positive attributes of the firm and its activities The total count of rhetoric use Media report and press release 0.0 64.0 The ratio between the use of this rhetoric type and the use of all three types Media report and press release 0.0 1.0 The number of years during which this particular type of rhetoric was used FERC; O&G Journal; Media report 0.0 9.0 and press release The ratio between the number of years of use and the total number of years the proposal was in effect FERC; O&G Journal; Media report 0.0 1.0 and press release Responses meant to counter the issues embedded within the opposition claims The total count of rhetoric use Media report and press release 0.0 112.0 The ratio between the use of this rhetoric type and the use of all three types Media report and press release 0.0 1.0 The number of years during which this particular type of rhetoric was used FERC; O&G Journal; Media report 0.0 9.0 and press release The ratio between the number of years of use and the total number of years the proposal was in effect FERC; O&G Journal; Media report 0.0 1.0 and press release Responses meant to counter the detractors directly by pointing out their negative attributes (see Appendix B) The total count of rhetoric use Media report and press release 0.0 61.0 The ratio between the use of this rhetoric type and the use of all three types Media report and press release 0.0 0.4 The number of years during which this particular type of rhetoric was used FERC; O&G Journal; Media report 0.0 8.0 and press release The ratio between the number of years of use and the total number of years the proposal was in effect FERC; O&G Journal; Media report 0.0 1.0 and press release

0.2

4.8 0.1 1.3

0.4

10.2 0.3 2.3

0.6

10.3 0.4 3.0

0.4

14.5 2.4 54.4 0.4

0.3

11.2 0.1 2.0

0.4

18.1 0.2 2.2

0.3

12.0 0.2 1.9

0.3

46.4 6.1 30.5 0.3

Aspects that make the proposal appealing to the community in terms of economic benefits. County-level unemployment rate. 2000 used as the year for calibration. The higher the BEA; ICPSR 2.4 7.4 4.7 1.1 unemployment rate, the greater the community's need for the project. The lower the per capita income, greater the need for the project. BEA; ICPSR 15,477.0 48,128.0 27,566.8 7285.3 Natural gas prices affect the local heating, electricity, and industrial costs. Average costs for EIA 3.5 11.8 7.6 2.0 2000–2013 were used. The firm's ability to successfully implement the proposed terminal and navigate the regulatory process because of above-average capabilities to manage media and public perceptions, related industry capabilities, and financial resources. Publicly listed firms have the appropriate infrastructure and experience for managing public opinion. Capital IQ, WRDS, PrivCo, and 0.0 1.0 0.7 0.4 Mergent Online Firms directly involved in the oil and gas sector will likely have the expertise and connections needed Capital IQ, WRDS, PrivCo, and 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.4 for a successful project. Mergent Online Firms appearing in Harris reputation rank are likely to have the capability to manage expectations but Harris reputation rank 18.2 100.0 87.2 25.4 are also likely to be targets for opposition. Lower the rank, higher the reputation For every firm involved in the project, its financial ability was estimated on the basis of revenue Capital IQ, WRDS, PrivCo, and 0.0 358,600.0 47,416.0 80,922.0 during the year of entry. Mergent Online This captures a combination of measures that indicate sustained pressure on the firm from the local community. A count of number of instances of opposition recorded (see Appendix C) Media report 0.0 227.0 26.3 46.0 Average number of opposition events over the proposal period FERC; O&G Journal; Media report 0.0 31.8 4.9 6.8 Number of opposition events in the final year FERC; O&G Journal; Media report 0.0 10.0 1.5 2.8 Number of years when opposition occurred FERC; O&G Journal; Media report 0.0 1.0 0.6 0.4 Ratio of number of years when opposition occurred to number of proposal years FERC; O&G Journal; Media report 0.0 9.0 2.6 2.4 The sum total of all NGO revenues in the county NCCS database 0.8 36,800.0 3752.8 8700.2

Description

Table 3 Descriptive statistics and details for causal conditions (variables).

C.D. Srikant

Journal of Business Research 105 (2019) 136–153

Journal of Business Research 105 (2019) 136–153

C.D. Srikant

the period the proposal was active and the leaning score for the final year of the proposal.

economic benefits that make a proposal appealing to the community. My expectation is that high community need will increase the likelihood of regulatory approval and decrease the appeal of using impression management strategies, given the favorable bargaining situation created by strong community need. I assessed community need in terms of the potential jobs the new venture could create and the market for the output of these terminals once operational, using measures of the county's unemployment rate and per capita income, and of the state's natural gas prices, respectively.

3.5. Rhetorical responses I analyzed my database of media reports to capture firm rhetoric. To measure persuasive, issue dissuasive, and detractor dissuasive responses, I first aggregated media statements into discrete, time-based “claim segments.” For each segment, I assigned the shorter of the following two time windows: a) from the first date a particular rhetorical response was explicitly referenced in media reports until the next incident of opposition, or b) from the first reported date of a response to the fifth day of that response; using this method, I identified a total of 1627 claim segments. Second, I manually coded each claim segment for the presence (coded 1) or absence (coded 0) of each of the three rhetorical types: persuasive, issue dissuasive, or detractor dissuasive. I developed a detailed coding protocol for this purpose (see Appendix A). Since detractor dissuasive rhetoric has received scant scholarly attention, I carried out further coding and cluster analysis for this rhetorical type (see Appendix B). To assess the extent to which a firm consistently tended to use a particular rhetorical type over time, I looked at a combination of the following measures: the total number of occasions that rhetorical type was used; the ratio between the use of that rhetorical type and the use of all three types; the number of years during which that rhetorical type was used; and the ratio between the number of years of use and the total number of years the proposal was in effect.

3.4.2. Firm resources and capabilities From firm resources and capabilities, we can infer whether the firm's financial resources, reputation-management abilities, and related industry capabilities are sufficient for successfully navigating the regulatory process and implementing the proposed terminal. Yet these measures also correspond to attributes likely to make the firm a target of community opposition (Bartley & Child, 2014). To construct this variable, I obtained several measures for each of the parent firms involved in the project and averaged these measures, weighted according to the relative involvement of each parent firm. The measures I used for this purpose were: public listed firms, oil and gas firms, Harris reputation scores, firms in the oil and gas sector, and revenues. 3.4.3. Sustained community opposition This variable captures the occurrence of long and intense episodes of opposition. My expectation is that sustained community opposition will negatively impact the likelihood of regulatory approval and create additional incentives for firms to use impression management strategies to counter such a possibility. I manually coded the media reports for incidents of opposition (see Appendix C for details), adopting several different measures to capture the length and intensity of the opposition: total number of opposition events, average number of opposition events per year over the proposal period, number of opposition events in the final year of the proposal, number of years in which opposition occurred, and ratio of number of years in which opposition occurred to total number of proposal years. I also included the annual revenue of local NGOs as an indication of civic organization capacity within the local community, as well as of the NGOs' ability to continue opposing the project. I employed the sum of all NGO revenues in the county, rather than just the revenue of those NGOs opposing the project, for two reasons: the community may in the future redirect its financial support to NGOs opposing the project, and NGOs currently not involved in the opposition may become involved in the future.

3.6. Fuzzy set calibration and analysis For each proposal, I determined the extent of set membership (scored in the interval [0,1]) using an analytical process called “calibration” (Ragin, 2008a). I created the variables (outcome, contextual conditions, and rhetorical responses) as combinations of multiple measures to capture the multiple dimensions of the constructs, and thereby to improve the validity of the models. Accordingly, the calibration process involved two stages: calibration of the individual measures and calibration of the cumulative variables. I utilized the calibration function built into the FSQCA 3.0 software to create a continuous calibration, where a score of 0.95 indicates full membership and a score of 0.05 indicates full non-membership in the mathematical set for that measure. For all the variables and measures, I used the numerical average for the midpoint, the sum of the average and the standard deviation (SD) as the 0.95 reference point, and the difference between the average and the standard deviation as the 0.05 reference point. To perform FSQCA on the second outcome variable, regulatory approval speed, I recalibrated all the variables using only the 26 proposals that were approved. For some of the measures, I employed variations on this default approach. 1) Certain measures had an inverse relationship with their corresponding variable; for example, higher per-capita income indicated lower community need. For such measures, the sum of the average and the SD was used to determine the 0.05 reference point and the difference between them for the 0.95 reference point. 2) If the difference between the average and the standard deviation was negative and a negative value did not make practical sense for that measure, I used the zero value of the measure to determine the 0.05 reference point. For example, the total number of community opposition events per venture has an average of 26.3 and an SD of 46. A negative difference does not make sense here as the number of events cannot be negative. 3) For calibrating the outcome variable regulatory approval, I used the value 4 (final approval) as the full membership point, the value 3 (FEIS) as the mid-way point, and the value 0 (announced but not filed) as the full non-membership point. This qualitative approach made sense for regulatory approval because it is an ordinal measure in which an increase in value connotes the achievement of a milestone. 4) For the reputation measure, since not all firms were assigned a Harris

3.4.4. Adverse political climate Political climate indicates whether powerful political entities were favorably or unfavorably disposed to an LNG proposal. Here, I considered both overt expressions of opposition as well as inherent biases. For overt expressions of opposition, I used the same coding approach I employed for community opposition, coding for both state and federal elected officials as the political entities; I identified the total number of incidents of opposition in which each political entity participated, as well as the average number of such events per year over the period the proposal was active. For capturing inherent biases, I used the League of Conservation Voters score as a proxy for the anti-business sentiment of the county. I also coded the political leanings of the Federal Energy Regulation Commission (FERC) commissioners, who are nominated by the President of the United States; I assigned Democratic commissioners a value of 1 and Republicans a value of zero, as Republicans are generally considered more pro-business than Democrats. (For deep-water projects, the governors of proximal states have veto power even though MARAD oversees the regulatory approval process, so I included them using the same coding scheme of 1 for Democratic governors and 0 for Republicans.) By matching the years these officials were in office with the years the proposal was under consideration, I created an annual score for regulatory leaning, then used both the average leaning over 144

Journal of Business Research 105 (2019) 136–153

C.D. Srikant

three combinations associated with lack of regulatory approval. Table 8 presents combinations of conditions associated with two outcomes, fast regulatory approval speed and slow regulatory approval speed; I have included both outcomes in a single table because for each of these outcomes, only one combination was valid. Each of the combinations in Table 8 is also present in Table 6—in other words, the combinations associated with regulatory approval speed are a subset of those associated with regulatory approval. While this is not wholly surprising, it still provides insight into which of the combinations presented in Table 6 (regulatory approval) are consistently associated with either fast or slow regulatory approval speed. To interpret these results further, I return to the research question—How do impression management strategies based on rhetoric impact the outcome of the regulatory approval process?—and elaborate on the insights these findings provide into the impression management strategies.

reputation rank, I had to adopt a different approach. The Harris Poll lists firms in descending order, with the highest reputation firms having the lowest rankings. First, I determined the average and standard deviation for the set of projects with ranked parent firms. I then adopted the highest ranking (lowest reputation) as the mid-point, used the difference between the average and the SD as the full membership value, and assigned a score of 100 to each unranked firm to indicate their full non-membership in the set. After calibration, I generated a truth table that includes every possible combination of the variables. Each variable is considered Boolean and can take a value of 1 or 0. FSQCA then associates each case from the data with the corresponding combination of variables. Once the truth table was generated, I employed two minimum thresholds to determine whether a given combination of conditions was relevant for the outcome in question. First, for the frequency—that is, the number of cases associated with that specific combination (a row in the truth table)—I set the threshold to two. Second, for the minimum consistency score, though this is typically set at 0.79 by convention, I adopted a slightly more conservative threshold of 0.80. I deleted from the truth table any combination of variables that had fewer than two cases associated with them. For the remaining combinations, FSQCA associates those that meet the consistency criteria—and disassociates those that are below the consistency criteria—with the outcome. The final truth tables, both for firms that gain regulatory approval and for firms that fail to gain regulatory approval, are presented below as Tables 4 and 5, respectively. I conducted a similar analysis for regulatory approval speed using the subset of 26 proposals that completed the entire regulatory process. After the final truth tables were generated, I conducted the standard analysis with the FSQCA 3.0 software for each of the outcomes of interest.

4.1. Impression management strategies Based on the combinations of conditions shown in Tables 6, 7, and 8, I identified the following impression management strategies. The Evasive strategy does not involve the use of any type of rhetoric, either because the firm deliberately avoids it or because of a lack of media attention. The Positive strategy employs persuasive rhetoric but avoids either type of dissuasive rhetoric. The Defensive strategy involves a combination of persuasive and issue dissuasive rhetoric, but avoids attacking detractors directly through detractor dissuasive rhetoric. Finally, the Exuberance strategy involves extensive use of all three types of rhetoric. I find parallels between these impression management strategies and the typology developed by Bolino, Kacmar, Turnley, and Gilstrap (2008); in their typology, impression management strategies are categorized according to their goals—(to minimize or maximize) good or (to minimize or maximize) bad. We can interpret the Evasive strategy as minimizing both good and bad and, at the other end of the spectrum, the Exuberance strategy as maximizing both good and bad. Moreover, the Defensive strategy appears to minimize bad (through issue dissuasive rhetoric) and maximize good (through persuasive rhetoric), while the Positive strategy can be thought of as purely focused on maximizing good. To further understand the impact of contextual conditions on the effectiveness of these impression management strategies, I conducted qualitative analyses of the cases associated with each of these combinations.

4. Findings We present the results of FSQCA in a column-wise manner in Tables 6, 7, and 8 below. The symbol ● represents the presence of a condition, and the symbol ○ represents its absence. If neither symbol is present, that condition is not relevant for the causal pathway considered in that solution. As Grant et al. (2010: 487) note, FSQCA treats “cases as combinations of attributes [conditions] and use[s] Boolean algebra to derive simplified expressions of combinations associated with an outcome.” Each column presents a solution (configuration of conditions) that was algorithmically derived by the FSQCA software utilizing data from the cases provided (for a mathematical elaboration of the algorithm, see Mendel & Korjani, 2013). Table 6 presents three combinations of conditions that are consistently associated with regulatory approval, while Table 7 presents

4.1.1. Evasive strategy I find that the Evasive strategy is present in one combination of conditions associated with regulatory approval, and in two combinations associated with lack of regulatory approval. I further find that the Evasive strategy is present in the only combination associated with fast

Table 4 Truth-table for regulatory approval. Community need

1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0

Firm resources and capabilities

0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1

Persuasive rhetoric

Adverse political climate

Sustained community opposition 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1

0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0

1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0

145

Number of cases

Detractor dissuasive rhetoric

Issue dissuasive rhetoric 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0

0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

2 2 2 5 2 2 5 5 3 2 2 2 3

Raw consistency

Outcome: regulatory approval 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.84 0.82 0.82 0.81 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.61 0.57 0.57 0.54 0.51 0.49

Journal of Business Research 105 (2019) 136–153

C.D. Srikant

Table 5 Truth-table for lack of regulatory approval. Community need

Firm resources and capabilities

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1

0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1

Persuasive rhetoric

Adverse political climate

Sustained community opposition 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

Issue dissuasive rhetoric

1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0

Table 6 FSQCA results for regulatory approval. S2

● ● ○ ○ ○

●

○ ○ 0.25 0.09 0.82 7

○ ○ 0.23 0.06 0.83 4 0.4 0.82

○ ○ ●

S3 Contextual conditions Community need Firm resources and capabilities Sustained community opposition Adverse political climate Persuasive response Dissuasive responses Issue Detractor Raw coverage Unique coverage Consistency Number of cases Solution coverage Solution consistency

○ ● ● ● ● ● ● 0.13 0.08 0.82 2

2 3 3 2 2 2 5 5 2 2 2 2 5

1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.96 0.94 0.87 0.85 0.83 0.75 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.63 0.54 0.48 0.47

F1

F2

○ ● ○ ○ ○ ○ 0.19 0.09 0.90 6

○ ● ● ● ● ○ 0.15 0.09 0.88 4 0.32 0.85

Fast

Slow

● ● ○ ○ ○

● ○ ● ● ●

○ ○ 0.3 0.3 0.97 4 0.3 0.97

● ● 0.22 0.22 0.95 2 0.22 0.95

not just gaining regulatory approval, but also doing so more quickly than other firms. Indeed, since these firms have higher resources and capabilities, it is conceivable that rather than accidental, avoidance is a deliberate choice, as such firms are constantly subject to media scrutiny already. There are also two combinations of conditions associated with lack of regulatory approval in which an Evasive strategy is used. In one instance (solution F1), there is a lack of an adverse political climate, which is a favorable condition, but there is also sustained community opposition, and community need is low. On closer examination of the cases associated with F1, I found that firms frequently withdrew these proposals at a very early stage. This suggests that those firms may have sought to avoid bringing attention to the lack of community need; when faced with community opposition, they likely decided that withdrawal was a better option than going through a costly and time-consuming regulatory process, and that any kind of rhetoric use would be wasteful. In the other instance (solution F3) where the Evasive strategy is associated with lack of regulatory approval, there is a lack of sustained community opposition and the firms have relatively high resources and capabilities, which are favorable conditions, but an adverse political climate, an unfavorable condition, is present. Both cases associated with F3 were deepwater terminals with experienced firms involved (hence the higher resources and capabilities), and were withdrawn at a very early stage, even before the regulatory filing. For these firms, dealing with an adverse political climate when there was no demonstrable community need may have led to political escalation that could endanger future ventures, so ending the project likely appeared the best option. With both F1 and F3, it appears that the Evasive strategy was a deliberate choice: as there was no demonstrable community need and at

Table 7 FSQCA results for rack of regulatory approval.

Contextual conditions Community need Firm resources and capabilities Sustained community opposition Adverse political climate Persuasive response Dissuasive responses Issue Detractor Raw coverage Unique coverage Consistency Number of cases Solution coverage Solution consistency

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

Raw consist.

Outcome: Lack of regulatory approval

Table 8 FSQCA results for regulatory approval speed. S1

Contextual conditions Community need Firm resources and capabilities Sustained community opposition Adverse political climate Persuasive response Dissuasive responses Issue Detractor Raw coverage Unique coverage Consistency Number of cases Solution coverage Solution consistency

1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

Number of cases

Detractor dissuasive rhetoric

F3

○ ● ○ ● ○ ○ ○ 0.12 0.04 0.85 2

regulatory approval speed. Thus, avoiding any kind of rhetoric or failing to receive media coverage for a proposal is not necessarily good or bad. Both S1 in Table 6 and “fast regulatory approval speed” in Table 8 include the use of the Evasive strategy, as well as higher community need, higher firm resources and capabilities, lack of sustained community opposition, and lack of an adverse political climate. This would be the most favorable set of conditions for any firm going through the regulatory approval process, as demand-supply conditions are favorable and adverse social conditions are minimized. When such conditions exist, flying under the radar either intentionally or accidentally may be the best possible impression management strategy for 146

Journal of Business Research 105 (2019) 136–153

C.D. Srikant

by the firms' own lack of resources and capabilities. I consider the Defensive strategy to be an approach to engagement that firms tentatively employ when faced with steep obstacles, but which is bound to fail because the firms involved do not have the necessary resources to sustain themselves through the entire regulatory process.

least one of the social conditions was adverse, firms seem to have quietly (and literally) abandoned these projects rather than get caught in a cycle of escalating commitment and contention. In both cases, the choice to adopt an Evasive strategy was as much an implicit admission of error (in the choice of location) as a deliberate avoidance of attention.

5. Discussion 4.1.2. Positive strategy I find that the Positive strategy, in which persuasive rhetoric is used and the other two rhetorical types are not, is associated with only a single combination of conditions (S2). To better understand this combination, we need to compare it to S1, where the contextual conditions are similar but the Evasive strategy is employed. In both S1 and S2, three favorable conditions are present—lack of sustained community opposition, lack of an adverse political climate, and demonstrable community need. The main difference is that, for S2, firm resources and capabilities is not a relevant condition. To analyze this further, I qualitatively examined the four cases associated with this combination, finding that they involved firms with a mix of low and high resources and capabilities. This suggests that S2 is a strategy that can be employed successfully by firms with lower resources and capabilities, but which does not necessarily lead to failure when employed by firms with higher resources and capabilities. However, there is another key difference between S1 and S2: S1 is also associated with fast regulatory approval speed, but S2 is not relevant for either fast or slow regulatory approval speed. This suggests that S2 may be a sub-optimal solution relative to S1. Thus, although promoting an economic endeavor's positives and avoiding its negatives may intuitively seem to be an effective strategy, when firms have relatively high resources and capabilities it appears that adopting the Evasive strategy is a better choice. We can understand the effectiveness of the Evasive strategy in such circumstances in light of what Bartley and Child (2014) found in their study of anti-sweatshop movements—namely, that movements often target firms due to their reputations (which is an element of firm resources and capabilities). Thus, rather than draw attention to its high resources and capabilities while highlighting the positives of a venture, such a firm may find that adopting the Evasive strategy is a much lower risk option.

This paper opened with a simple question: How do impression management strategies based on rhetoric impact the outcome of the regulatory approval process? First, this study identified four impression management strategies—Evasive, Exuberance, Positive, and Defensive—which draw from a repertoire of three available types of rhetoric: persuasive, issue dissuasive, and detractor dissuasive. Second, I demonstrated that these four strategies could be associated with regulatory approval (fast or slow) or the lack of it only when considered in conjunction with a complex combination of contextual conditions. The key takeaway from the findings is that the use of impression management strategies based on rhetoric can have tangible positive impacts in the presence of adverse social conditions, even when such strategies are more emergent than deliberate. 5.1. Tangible consequences of rhetorical responses to adverse social conditions To date, researchers have considered the impact of rhetorical responses to adverse social conditions in the context of interactions between three main types of actors: proponents (e.g., firms), opponents (e.g., opposing communities), and infomediaries (Deephouse & Heugens, 2009). Scholars have provided evidence that the rhetoric of opponents can have a serious impact on proponents, including the destabilization of an entire industry's legitimacy (Hoffman, 1999; Maguire & Hardy, 2009). Often, the mass media play the role of infomediary by amplifying the opponent's rhetoric, which can lead the firm to take specific actions, such as deliberately hiding controversial practices (Briscoe & Murphy, 2012). Consequently, firms often adopt impression management strategies aimed at managing media coverage, especially in the aftermath of wrongdoing or an accident that poses a serious threat to their legitimacy (Desai, 2011; Zavyalova et al., 2012). Nevertheless, while we have some understanding of the impact of opponent rhetoric on firms, both directly and through media coverage, and of the direct impact of media rhetoric on firm strategy, we still know little about how the firms' own rhetoric affects tangible strategic outcomes. The current study begins to fill this gap by showing which impression management strategies can lead to gaining (or not gaining) regulatory approval when firms seek to establish a foothold in an industry and adverse social conditions are present. The seemingly surprising impact of rhetoric on regulatory approval can best be understood in terms of the threats to the regulatory process itself and the combination of contextual conditions present. As Linda Godfrey (a community activist) has pointed out: “My impression is that FERC is primarily interested in representing the developers and the industry, and the role that citizens have in this process is unconscionable in a democracy.” This anecdotal evidence suggests that when adverse social conditions (community opposition and adverse political climate) remain unchecked, they can become a threat not only to the specific proposal under consideration but to the entire regulatory process. Impression management strategies can counter this threat by establishing legitimacy in the broader regulatory arena, where even the actions of regulatory agencies themselves are socially evaluated. For the regulatory agency, it is much easier to approve a project and still be viewed as fair if the proposal gains regulatory legitimacy.

4.1.3. Exuberance strategy The inverse of the Evasive strategy, in which none of the rhetorical types are employed, the Exuberance strategy involves extensive use of all three types of rhetoric. I find that the use of this strategy is associated with an outcome of regulatory approval, but not lack of regulatory approval. Interestingly, when we compare S1 (in which the Evasive strategy is employed) and S3 (in which the Exuberance strategy is employed), it is evident that the contextual conditions are practically opposites of one another. For S3, the project faces multiple obstacles: sustained community opposition, an adverse political climate, and lack of community need. On the other hand, like S1, S3 involves firms with higher resources and capabilities, indicating that when faced with seemingly insurmountable obstacles, such firms can extensively employ every type of rhetoric in their repertoire to ultimately prevail in the regulatory process. However, the cost of the Exuberance strategy is slow regulatory approval speed (Table 8); in a highly competitive environment, slow regulatory approval speed all but ensures that the new venture will lose out to others who seek to establish a foothold in the market. 4.1.4. Defensive strategy The key difference between the Exuberance strategy and the Defensive strategy is that the firm opts to not engage in detractor dissuasive rhetoric, thus avoiding an all-out attack. Yet playing it safe may not pay off, as the Defensive strategy appears to be associated only with lack of regulatory approval (F2). In F2, there is sustained community opposition that is compounded by an adverse political climate as well as

5.2. Impression management as a deliberate and emergent strategy Impression management is often cast as a strategy deliberately 147

Journal of Business Research 105 (2019) 136–153

C.D. Srikant

adopted by a firm to shape perceptions of it. However, the findings concerning the Evasive strategy appear to indicate that impression management can be an emergent strategy as well (Mintzberg & Waters, 1985). This is especially relevant here because of the oversized role the media plays in this influence mechanism. Firms cannot always control the overall media narrative and attention focused on their actions; although they can issue press releases, those constitute only one part of the overall dialogue that occurs within the public space. While the Evasive strategy was associated with regulatory approval when a combination of very favorable contextual conditions was present, it was also associated with the lack of regulatory approval under two other combinations of contextual conditions, which had at least one unfavorable condition. The mass media tends to focus on negative aspects and unfavorable conditions should have typically led to this negative attention. Though it is very likely that, in each of these instances, firms did abstain from using rhetoric deliberately, the accidental lack of media attention likely played a role as well in the final outcome. This suggests that impression management strategies should not be thought of only as deliberate strategies, but should also be considered as emergent strategies, with the media playing an important role in how they emerge.

exist. Yet while this methodological approach has the distinct advantage of allowing complex configurations, equifinality, and asymmetrical impacts, it also has certain limitations that future research in this area can overcome. For instance, I could not capture how events unfolded sequentially over time, and in particular, how community opposition and firm rhetoric influenced one another. The term ‘causal,’ while prevalent in FSQCA methodology, must be employed cautiously; I prefer to interpret these findings as indicative of associations and complex interactions rather than causations. Nevertheless, these patterns of occurrence (and non-occurrence) create a theoretical framework that other researchers can utilize in conjunction with other widely accepted methodologies, such as experimentation and econometric analysis, to determine specific causal relationships. Indeed, each of the configurations I've considered can spawn a research design to further explore causation, with the research context and sample chosen according to the combination of contextual conditions to be explored. Such projects can build on the key insight from this research: Rather than let the complex configuration of contextual conditions alone determine the outcome of the regulatory approval process, firms can actively shape the outcome by using impression management strategies. However, the effectiveness of these impression management strategies, which are based on various combinations of different rhetorical responses, is highly contingent on the specific circumstances in which they are employed.

6. Conclusion, limitations, and future research While the LNG industry context may limit the generalizability of the findings in this paper it does represent an appropriate setting for observing a variety of contextual conditions and impression management strategies, and for assessing the impact of these conditions and strategies on regulatory outcomes. Tracking the impact of words in a macro social setting is difficult, as there are a multitude of factors that can intervene between the expression of a statement and the impression it creates. The research design of this study has two advantages in this respect. First, since these terminals are only in the proposal stage and have not yet been built, there have been no material interactions between the communities and the terminals; this setting enables actors to undergo “interpretive processes whereby choices are imagined, evaluated, and contingently reconstructed by actors in ongoing dialogue with unfolding situations” (emphasis added, Emirbayer & Mische, 1998: 966). When a terminal has only been proposed, rhetoric becomes an essential tool both for shaping the imagination of the terminal's significance and for engaging with the “unfolding situation.” Second, FSQCA allows us to focus on all conditions that are of theoretical importance and to use the cases, as bundles of these conditions, to act as “controls” for each other, instead of having to resort to a long list of control variables. The FSQCA results suggest that there are exciting opportunities for future research to examine impression management strategies in different industry settings, where different types of regulatory barriers

Declaration of competing interest None. Funding source declaration Neither grants nor other funding sources were used for this research. Funding This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Acknowledgement I am grateful for the extremely constructive comments and support from the two anonymous reviewers and the associate editor Jean McGuire. This paper greatly benefited from the unrelenting support and encouragement by Deepthi Murthy. Since this paper was derived from my Phd thesis work at Ivey Business School, I also acknowledge the many helpful comments I had received for my thesis from multiple people including Tima Bansal, Andrew Hoffman, Mark Zbaracki, and Claus Rerup.

Appendix A. Coding protocol for the firm's rhetorical responses A detailed protocol was prepared for manual coding of the rhetoric-related causal conditions. The coding protocol was updated multiple times during the initial iterations and it was applied repeatedly to a set of claim segments until the protocol was largely stabilized. Any further updating that occurred to the protocol was restricted to particular word markers that could potentially indicate which of the three rhetorical tactics was used. After the completion of coding, these markers were rechecked for false negatives—segments that might not have been coded for a particular type but should have been. The final coding protocol with instructions was given to a graduate research assistant, who coded 100 randomly selected claim segments to generate an inter-coder reliability rating. Initial interrater reliability was only satisfactory, with a Cohen's kappa of 0.76. After discussions with the coder, I realized that many of the differences occurred because of lack of deep knowledge of context. For instance, in one case the coder thought the firm was referring to a city as a stakeholder but the actual reference was to a rival proposal in another city. The revised Cohen's kappa after correcting for only those instances involving knowledge of the context was 0.85, a very satisfactory level. Summary of Instructions provided to the coder Coding guidelines 1. Persuasive response will clearly bring out positive attributes of the firm, the particular proposed project, or LNG in general. It can also be a combination of the three. Typical themes used by the firm for highlighting the positives are: a. Economic and industrial benefits: Jobs, tax revenues, higher supply of natural gas, alternative supply to traditional sources, and lower natural 148

Journal of Business Research 105 (2019) 136–153

C.D. Srikant

gas prices. b. Environmental: Touting the safety and reliability of the terminal. Indicating the environmental benefits of natural gas as a cleaner burning fuel with lesser emissions when compared with traditional fossil fuels. c. Geographic: Locational advantages of a particular terminal in terms of access to natural gas pipeline infrastructure, re-use of a brownfield site (previous industrial use), and distance from populated area. d. Technological/Technical Benefits: These would typical be used in conjunction with the other positive attributes. So the firm will not just share the factual information about the tech used but also the benefits from that tech.

Themes

Example

Economic and industrial benefits Environmental

Henry pointed out that “the LNG plant would be a financial boon to the town, whose annual budget is $200,000”. “The Freeport LNG terminal, if it becomes operational, would provide the town with fees of more than five times that amount”, Henry said. “Safe Harbor Energy is designed with security, safety and environmental features a priority, including meeting a 200-year storm design standard, self-sufficient systems for water supply, wastewater management, energy, fire and safety, and using ‘best available technology’ consistent with the requirements of the Deepwater Port Act.” “The fact that it happens to be only 1.2 miles from a [natural gas] hub line, has deepwater access, would only need a 300-foot jetty and very little dredging, made us think was a very neat site that we needed to bring to the attention of state officials,” he added. Rob Bryngelson, Excelerate vice president, said “a version of the company's ‘Energy Bridge’ technology has been used safely for years in the North Sea to unload petroleum from oil tankers”. “The Excelerate mooring systems can withstand severe storms, and unloading operations can be shut down within 15 min in an emergency”, Bryngelson said.

Geographic Technological/technical benefits

2. Issue dissuasive responses are difficult to recognize if the issues are implicit because of the context. In instances where the stakeholder issue and the alternative suggested by the firm is clear, it is easier to recognize this. There are some marker words and phrases that are helpful in recognizing that the firm's representative is trying to counter an issue. a. A negation or polarity switch: not true; don't think; don't agree; don't believe; don't see; does not/doesn't; no reason b. Contrasting conjunctions: But; although; though; however; whereas; unless; if only; even if; even though; rather than; while; contrary. These conjunctions need to contrast the implicit/explicit stakeholder issue with what the firm is forwarding. c. Certain marker words are not in the actual statement of the firm rep but in the way the media report qualifies the statement. Examples: Denied; disagreed; countered; questioned; rejected; downplayed; dismissed; insists; argued; retorted; pointed; unfazed; despite; puzzled; refuted, etc. Some of these can also be within the statement. For instance, take the word ‘question’ and its derivatives. The media can characterize it as ‘Firm rep questioned the validity of the issue’ or the firm rep may be quoted as saying ‘We question the validity of the issue.’ d. Certain marker words are completely dismissive of the issue, in a similar vein as the ‘Dismiss’ sub-category for Negative Personal claims above (point 3b). Typical words used: inaccurate; incorrect; misstated; misrepresented; irrelevant; false. etc. Be careful to distinguish what the subject is. Consider the general structure—X is incorrect. If X is an issue then it is a negative topical claim but if X is a person then it is negative personal claim. e. Some words project the firm's belief or opinion. Look for marker words/phrases such as: In our opinion; we believe.

Identifying markers

Examples (emphasis added to point the markers)

A negation or polarity switch Contrasting conjunctions

“We don't agree that it is industrialization, nor is there any indication that having this facility will lead to having other such facilities in this region,” he said.

Media report descriptive Dismissive

“Contrary to many of the claims made in public meetings and correspondence, our studies indicate that the off-shore dredging we have proposed will not harm the health of the Chesapeake Bay in either the long or short term. In effect, AES is proposing to clean up an existing environmental condition—one that we did not cause—without the need for government funding.” Bradwood Landing spokesman Chuck Deister disagreed with the group's premise, saying “now is the time to introduce LNG to the region, because renewable energy sources are gaining traction but can't yet supply all of society's needs”. Hritcko said “some of the ‘facts’ Blumenthal and Johnson recited were ‘absolutely false,’ including Blumenthal's contention that every town along the coast would have to spend money for new boats so fire departments could be ready for emergencies”.

3. Detractor dissuasive responses will have a clear target for the rhetoric, a particular stakeholder. It will be typical of the form X is Y, where X is a stakeholder and Y is something negative about the stakeholder. So the grammatical structure will typically have stakeholder as the subject and something negative about the stakeholder as the object of a sentence. In some instances these two aspects may be split between sentences but you will have a pronoun linking the two. The following sub-types of negative personal claims can be recognized: f. Discredit i. Accused of wrongdoing or not playing by rules ii. Attack motive or stance iii. Accused of misinformation, misrepresentation or distorting facts iv. Opponent is considered ignorant v. Question competence or ability vi. Accused of not carrying out their obligation, role or duty vii. Undermine position, authority or status g. Dismiss i. Marginalize opponents; downplay their importance; or circumvent them in the process ii. Accused of behaving inconsistently with their status, identity or authority iii. Dismiss, trivialize or belittle them

149

Journal of Business Research 105 (2019) 136–153

C.D. Srikant

Types of disapproval

Example

Attack motive or stance

“Organizations critical of the approval of the Gulf Landing LNG terminal apparently fail to recognize the strict and enforceable conditions of environmental performance imposed to protect marine life,” the statement said. BHP's Chip Goodyear says “environmentalists are living in ‘dreamland’ if they think conservation will meet the state's growing energy needs”. “You can say that, but it doesn't really work,” he says. “Fishing Families for Harpswell represents a very small group of fishermen,” Micciche said Friday. “The majority of fishermen I've spoken to are in favor of this project.” “We're disappointed that this would be something being sponsored by the selectmen. The film that selectmen plan to show about the dangers of liquefied natural gas terminals is a scaremongering-type film that's not based in reality,” said a top official for the company that wants to build such a project near Hull. “I don't think it's based in science or anything else,” said Aaron Samson, the managing director of LNG projects for energy company AES Corp.

Opponent is considered ignorant Marginalize opponents; downplay their importance; or circumvent them in the process Accuse opponents of behaving inconsistently with their status, identity, or authority

Appendix B. Inductive categorization of detractor dissuasive response sub-types Detractor dissuasive response is a relatively novel concept, but there are some anecdotal evidence of its usage outside the context of this paper.

Electronic Cigarettes faced intense opposition over its classification as a type of cigarette (along with its harmful effects) or as a type of cigarette alternative such as nicotine patch. The online retailer www.ecigaretteschoice.com issued a series of press releases in 2010 directly attacking the stakeholders contesting the industry claims. Following is an excerpt from one such press release: “So why are e-cigarettes in the bull's-eye of politicians when public health organizations are declaring them lifesavers? Either the politicians don't understand the ramifications of the legislation they seek to pass or they have a total disregard for the health of the American people. Allowing cancer causing tobacco cigarettes to remain on the market while opposing and or banning e-cigarette sales as a viable alternative is the equivalent to Genocide. Smoking touches almost every family in this country. Playing political games with millions of lives will play out in the court of public opinion and surely unseat some shady politicians in November.” (The E-cigarette in a life and death struggle, 2010) In 2010, Raphael Pirker's video of the liberty statue taken from a drone went viral and that gave him an idea to start the company TBA Avionics, which manufactures and sells commercial drones for taking aerial videos and pictures. However, in 2011 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of the US fined him an amount of $10,000 for flying too close to buildings in shooting a promotional video for University of Virginia. Instead of paying this relatively small amount, Pirker chose to attack the FAA. He argued that FAA had no legal authority to regulate the drone because it's a model and not an actual aircraft with a person inside. He further challenged the legitimacy of FAA by pointing out that it relied “on internal orders and its 2007 Policy Statement, rather than on any validly issued regulations” (MacPherson, 2014). In the early years of Voice-over-Internet-Protocol (VOIP) or internet telephony, Vonage CEO and founder, Jeffrey Citron publicly started challenging attempts to control his company's growth; he described it as “regulatory alarmist … jumping the gun a little bit” and wanted market forces to play out (Squeo, 2003). When it was rumored that the state of California was considering an appeal of Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) order exempting VoIP from state public utility regulation, Citron stated “If California should proceed with litigation, I would fight that. How many victories do I need before people know this is the way it's going to be?” (Haley, 2014). Opposition by taxi companies and regulators in Europe, Canada and the US against app-based car services such as Uber, Lyft or Sidecar represent an interesting example since it was met by the kind of disapproval examined in this research. Instead of trying to appease hostile stakeholders, Uber's CEO has publicly called the taxi industry “a protectionist scheme”, declared the California government “unaccountable”, and said his “opponent [was] an a–hole named taxi” (Brown, 2018).

Using data from my context I employed an inductive method to categorize the sub-types. Once I recognized the rhetorical segment as containing a Detractor dissuasive response, using the coding protocol detailed above, I also recorded the first order categories for the type of Detractor dissuasive response. Each instance of the rhetoric segment was coded in a matrix form (rows for the rhetoric segment and columns for the first order type). I then used the hierarchical cluster analysis provided by SPSS to derive linkages between the first order categories and club them into second order categories. The Dendrogram plot was used to identify linkages between sub types. The second order categories are based on proximity scores (x-axis), which is an indicator of an underlying latent dimension that is driving these first order categories to occur together in a rhetorical segment. I further categorized the second order Detractor dissuasive rhetoric by potential motivations of the firm to employ them. This resulted in the following categorization of the sub-types a. Discredit iv. Intentions Targeted 1. Accused of wrongdoing or not playing by rules 2. Attack motive or stance 3. Accused of misinformation, misrepresentation or distorting facts v. Capability/ability target 1. Opponent is considered ignorant 2. Question competence or ability 3. Accused of not carrying out their obligation, role or duty vi. Undermine 1. Undermine position, authority or status b. Dismiss i. Marginalize 2. Marginalize opponents; downplay their importance; or circumvent them in the process ii. Inconsistency 3. Accused of behaving inconsistently with their status, identity or authority iii. Trivialize 4. Dismiss, trivialize or belittle them Appendix C. Coding of community opposition I measure opposition by aggregating unique incidents as reported by the media. An incident reported by the media was identified as an

150

Journal of Business Research 105 (2019) 136–153

C.D. Srikant

opposition event if they it three criteria: reflected a negative social evaluation of the firm or its proposal, provided a clearly identifiable date for the incident, and identified a specific community member (e.g., a resident or an elected official residing in the same county or a local NGO). Using the associated rhetoric of the stakeholders and the media characterization, I identified the following types of opposition events: Protest Rally; Petition/ Campaign (letter writing, membership, or signature campaign); Community Meetings; Stakeholder's Regulatory Actions (meeting federal officials, formal intervenor status); Official Forum (Regulator- or Company-sponsored forum); Radio/TV/Online/Ad Campaign; Legal; Release of Report or Study sponsored by stakeholders; Legislative/Executive/Political action (Legislature Proceedings, Task Force, Resolution, Vote, Referendum, Bill, Hearings); Press Conference (as a collective); and Press Statement (Press Release, Individual Interviews). Examples of Opposition Events:

Types of events

Media reporting of the incident

Protest rally

“The Mothers March Against LNG (liquefied natural gas), to protest the possible arrival of LNG terminals on the Columbia River, took place Sunday afternoon in a heavy downpour, which didn't dampen the enthusiasm of the participants one bit. A large crowd of children and adults carrying NO LNG placards passed out NO LNG fliers as they marched from the Blue Scorcher Cafe to the Bradwood Landing office on the corner Ninth and Commercial streets to issue a proclamation and to put up an ‘eviction’ notice on the door.” “Dundalk-area residents - less than pleased by a global power company's plan to build a liquefied natural gas plant at Sparrows Point - were openly hostile last night during an open house meeting with company officials. ‘This thing is more dangerous than you all are painting,’ Dundalk resident Jerome Hancock said of the terminal proposed for a former shipyard site.” “Notice of the opposition group's formation was distributed through e-mail by the staff of the Hull Life-saving Museum. Lory Newmyer, the museum's executive director, said Save Outer Brewster consists of museum staff members but is not technically affiliated with the institution. Museum officials said yesterday that the response to the petition has been positive. Newmyer said several hundred have signed it since it began circulating a week ago.” “Lauderdale-by-the-Sea Mayor Roseann Minnet said she will submit a resolution opposing the gas plant at the town's May 27 commission meeting, saying, ‘if there's an accident, the entire town could be obliterated.’” “Save The Bay is poised to begin a high-profile campaign to rally Rhode Islanders against a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal proposed for Mount Hope Bay. The $12,000-effort will feature advertisements on radio, in Newport and Jamestown newspapers and on billboards on Routes 195 and 24.”

Official forum

Petition/campaign

Legislative/executive/political Radio/TV/online/ad campaign

Less than 20% of the events were press conferences or statements on their own but in most instances the press conferences and statements occurred in conjunction with another event. I decided to aggregate the opposition events across multiple categories for the following reasons: A. These incidents represent issues for firms to the extent that the press reports them, and measuring how much media coverage each incident receives provides a way to make them comparable. B. Media reports are valid indicators in this context because the facility is not yet built; it is only proposed. So protests and boycotts will not cause any operational disruption since the proposal hasn't reached the operational stage. For the purpose of this study, it is the rhetoric associated with the protest that becomes important. C. Previous research has also shown that media reporting is the crucial factor even in cases where the firm's ongoing operations are targeted. For instance, King (2008:395) considers boycott events and finds that “corporate targets of boycotts were more likely to concede when the boycott received a great deal of media attention”.

49(6), 1209–1228. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.23478676. Boone, C., & Ozcan, S. (2014). Why do cooperatives emerge in a world dominated by corporations? The diffusion of cooperatives in the U.S. bio-ethanol industry, 1978–2013. Academy of Management Journal, 57(4), 990–1012. https://doi.org/10. 5465/amj.2012.0194. Boudet, H. S. (2011). From NIMBY to NIABY: Regional mobilization against liquefied natural gas in the United States. Environmental Politics, 20(6), 786–806. https://doi. org/10.1080/09644016.2011.617166. Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production. New York: Columbia University Press. Briscoe, F., & Murphy, C. (2012). Sleight of hand? Practice opacity, third-party responses, and the interorganizational diffusion of controversial practices. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57(2), 181–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839212465077. Brown, K. (2018). Vonage faces hangup in Minnesota. Mulitchannel News. Retrieved from https://www.multichannel.com/news/vonage-faces-hangup-minnesota-151622. Chen, S., & Lin, N. (2018). The effect of inter- and intra-organizational distances on success of offshored outsourced innovation: A configurational approach. Journal of Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.03.023 (Article in-press). Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2007). Regulatory agencies—The challenges of balancing agency autonomy and political control. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 20(3), 499–520. Cress, D. M., & Snow, D. A. (2000). The outcomes of homeless mobilization: The influence of organization, disruption, political mediation, and framing. American Journal of Sociology, 105(4), 1063–1104. https://doi.org/10.1086/210399. Crilly, D., Zollo, M., & Hansen, M. (2012). Faking it or muddling through? Understanding decoupling in response to stakeholder pressures. Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1429–1449. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0697. Crook, T. R., Ketchen, D. J., Combs, J. G., & Todd, S. Y. (2008). Strategic resources and performance: A meta-analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 29(11), 1141–1154. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.703. Deephouse, D. L. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: An integration of mass communication and resource-based theories. Journal of Management, 26(6), 1091–1112. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600602. Deephouse, D. L., & Heugens, P. P. M. A. R. (2009). Linking social issues to organizational impact: The role of infomediaries and the infomediary process. Journal of Business Ethics, 86(4), 541–553. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9864-3. Delios, A., & Henisz, W. J. (2003). Political hazards, experience, and sequential entry strategies: The international expansion of Japanese firms, 1980–1998. Strategic

References Ageeva, E., Melewar, T. C., Foroudi, P., Dennis, C., & Jin, Z. (2018). Examining the influence of corporate website favorability on corporate image and corporate reputation: Findings from fsQCA. Journal of Business Research, 89, 287–304. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.036. Aldrich, H. E., & Fiol, C. M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 645–670. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 258740. Andreu, L., Casado-Díaz, A. B., & Mattila, A. S. (2015). Effects of message appeal and service type in CSR communication strategies. Journal of Business Research, 68(7), 1488–1495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.039. Armanios, D. E., Eesley, C. E., Li, J., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2017). How entrepreneurs leverage institutional intermediaries in emerging economies to acquire public resources. Strategic Management Journal, 38(7), 1373–1390. https://doi.org/10.1002/ smj.2575. Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science, 1(2), 177–194. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108. Barney, J. B., Ketchen, D. J., & Wright, M. (2011). The future of resource-based theory: Revitalization or decline? Journal of Management, 37(5), 1299–1315. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0149206310391805. Bartley, T., & Child, C. (2014). Shaming the corporation: The social production of targets and the anti-sweatshop movement. American Sociological Review, 79(4), 653–679. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122414540653. Bell, R. G., Filatotchev, I., & Aguilera, R. V. (2014). Corporate governance and investors’ perceptions of foreign IPO value: An institutional perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 57(1), 301–320. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0146. Birch, D. L. (1987). Job creation in America: How our smallest companies put the most people to work. New York: Free Press. Bolino, M. C., Kacmar, M. K., Turnley, W. H., & Gilstrap, B. J. (2008). A multi-level review of impression management motives and behaviors. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1080–1109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308324325. Bonardi, J. P., Holburn, G. L. F., & Vanden Bergh, R. G. (2006). Nonmarket strategy performance: Evidence from U.S. electric utilities. Academy of Management Journal,

151

Journal of Business Research 105 (2019) 136–153

C.D. Srikant

Jensen, J. T. (2003). The LNG revolution. Energy Journal, 24(2), 1–45. https://doi.org/10. 5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol24-No2-1. Jensen, J. T. (2004). The development of a global LNG market: Is it likely? If so, when? Oxford, UK: Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. Joskow, P. L. (2011). Restructuring, competition and regulatory reform in the U.S. electricity sector. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11(3), 119–138. https://doi.org/ 10.1257/jep.11.3.119. Kabakova, O., & Plaksenkov, E. (2018). Analysis of factors affecting financial inclusion: Ecosystem view. Journal of Business Research, 89(June 2017), 198–205. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.066. Kennedy, M. T. (2008). Getting counted: Markets, media, and reality. American Sociological Review, 73(2), 270–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 000312240807300205. Khaire, M., & Wadhwani, R. D. (2010). Changing landscapes: The construction of meaning and value in a new market category - modern Indian art. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1281–1304. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010. 57317861. King, B. G. (2008). A political mediation model of corporate response to social movement activism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(3), 395–421. https://doi.org/10.2189/ asqu.53.3.395. Laffont, J.-J., & Tirole, J. (1991). The politics of government decision-making: A theory of regulatory capture. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1089–1127. https:// doi.org/10.2307/2937958. Lamin, A., & Zaheer, S. (2012). Wall street vs. main street: Firm strategies for defending legitimacy and their impact on different stakeholders. Organization Science, 23(1), 47–66. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0631. Lawler, R. (2012). Mr. Kalanick goes to Washington: How Uber won in DC. Tech Crunch. Retrieved from https://techcrunch.com/2012/12/04/mr-kalanick-goes-towashington-how-uber-won-in-dc/. Lee, B. H., Hiatt, S. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2017). Market mediators and the trade-offs of legitimacy-seeking behaviors in a nascent category. Organization Science, 28(3), 447–470. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1126. Lee, M. P., & Lounsbury, M. (2015). Filtering institutional logics: Community logic variation and differential responses to the institutional complexity of toxic waste. Organization Science, 26(3), 847–866. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0959. Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. (2001). Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 545–564. https:// doi.org/10.1002/smj.188. MacPherson, R. (2014). The passive regulator: How the FAA's failure to act affects the development of drone technology. Retrieved from Jones Day website https://www. jonesday.com/The-Passive-Regulator-How-the-FAAs-Failure-to-Act-Affects-theDevelopment-of-Drone-Technology-04-02-2014/?RSS=true. Maguire, S., & Hardy, C. (2009). Discourse and deinstitutionalization: The decline of DDT. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 148–178. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009. 36461993. Marcus, A. A., & Goodman, R. S. (1991). Victims and shareholders: The dilemmas of presenting corporate policy during a crisis. Academy of Management Journal, 34(2), 281–305. https://doi.org/10.2307/256443. Marquis, C., & Lounsbury, M. (2007). Vive la résistance: Competing logics and the consolidation of US community banking. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 799–820. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.26279172. Mazighi, A. E. H. (2003). An examination of the international natural gas trade. OPEC Review, 27(4), 313–329. McAdam, D., & Boudet, H. S. (2012). Putting social movements in their place: Explaining opposition to energy projects in the United States, 2000–2005 (Kindle Edi). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McAdam, D., McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1996). Comparative perspectives on social movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings. Cambridge University Press. McDonnell, M., & King, B. G. (2013). Keeping up appearances: Reputational threat and impression management after social movement boycotts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839213500032. Mendel, J. M., & Korjani, M. M. (2013). Theoretical aspects of fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA). Information Sciences, 237, 137–161. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ins.2013.02.048. Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. (1985). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal, 6(3), 257–272. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250060306. Misangyi, V., & Acharya, A. (2014). Substitutes or complements? A configurational examination of corporate governance mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1681–1705. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0728. Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179. Retrieved from http://amr.aom.org/content/16/1/145. short. Patriotta, G., Gond, J.-P. P., & Schultz, F. (2011). Maintaining legitimacy: Controversies, orders of worth, and public justifications. Journal of Management Studies, 48(8), 1804–1836. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00990.x. Perks, K. J., Farache, F., Shukla, P., & Berry, A. (2013). Communicating responsibilitypracticing irresponsibility in CSR advertisements. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1881–1888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.009. Pirog, R. (2004). Natural gas prices and market fundamentals. CRS Report for Congress. Washington, DC: The Library of Congress. Polidoro, F. (2013). The competitive implications of certifications: The effects of scientific and regulatory certifications on entries into new technical fields. Academy of Management Journal, 56(2), 597–627. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0459. Ragin, C. C. (2008a). Measurement versus calibration: A set-theoretic approach. The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/

Management Journal, 24, 1153–1164. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.355. Desai, V. M. (2011). Mass media and massive failures: Determining organizational efforts to defend field legitimacy following crises. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 263–278. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2011.60263082. Doh, J. P., Lawton, T. C., & Rajwani, T. (2012). Advancing nonmarket strategy research: Institutional perspectives in a changing world. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(3), 22–39. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0041. Elsbach, K. D. (1994). Managing organizational legitimacy in the California cattle industry: The construction and effectiveness of verbal accounts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(1), 57–88. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2393494. Elsbach, K. D., & Sutton, R. I. (1992). Acquiring organizational legitimacy through illegitimate actions: A marriage of institutional and impression management theories. Academy of Management Journal, 35(4), 699–738. https://doi.org/10.2307/256313. Elsbach, K. D., Sutton, R. I., & Principe, K. E. (1998). Averting expected challenges through anticipatory impression management: A study of hospital billing. Organization Science, 9(1), 68–86. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.1.68. Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023. Energy Information Administration (2003). The global liquefied natural gas market: Status & outlook. Vol. 0637. Energy Information Administration [EIA] (1998). Impacts of the Kyoto Protocol on US energy markets and economic activity. Washington, DC: Energy Information Administration. Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393–420. https://doi. org/10.5465/AMJ.2011.60263120. Fiss, P. C., & Hirsch, P. M. (2005). The discourse of globalization: Framing and sensemaking of an emerging concept. American Sociological Review, 70, 29–52. https://doi. org/10.1177/000312240507000103. Fligstein, N. (2001). Social skill and the theory of fields. Sociological Theory, 19(2), 105–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/0735-2751.00132. Garcia-Castro, R., & Francoeur, C. (2016). When more is not better: Complementarities, costs and contingencies in stakeholder management. Strategic Management Journal, 37(2), 406–424. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2341. Garud, R., Schildt, H. A., & Lant, T. K. (2014). Entrepreneurial storytelling, future expectations, and the paradox of legitimacy. Organization Science, 25(5), 1479–1492. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0915. Gopal, J., Alvarado, A., Griffin, K., Maul, D., O’Brien, T., & Therkelsen, R. L. (2003). Natural gas market assessment. Electricity and natural gas report. California Energy Commission. Grant, D., Trautner, M. N., Downey, L., & Thiebaud, L. (2010). Bringing the polluters back in: Environmental inequality and the organization of chemical production. American Sociological Review, 75(4), 479–504. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122410374822. Greckhamer, T. (2016). CEO compensation in relation to worker compensation across countries the configurational impact of country-level institutions. Strategic Management Journal, 37(1), 116–132. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj. Greve, H. R., & Kim, J. J. (2014). Panics running for the exit: Community cohesion and bank panics. Organization Science, 25(1), 204–221. Greve, H. R., Pozner, J. J.-E. J. J., & Rao, H. (2006). Vox populi: Resource partitioning, organizational proliferation, and the cultural impact of the insurgent microradio movement. American Journal of Sociology, 112(3), 802–837. https://doi.org/10. 1086/507853. Grougiou, V., Dedoulis, E., & Leventis, S. (2016). Corporate social responsibility reporting and organizational stigma: The case of “sin” industries. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 905–914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.06.041. Gurses, K., & Ozcan, P. (2015). Entrepreneurship in regulated markets: Framing contests and collective action to introduce pay TV in the US. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6), 1709–1739. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0775. Haley, C. C. (2014). Vonage says it's ready for fight over VoIP. Enterprise Networking Planet. Retrieved from http://www.enterprisenetworkingplanet.com/unified_ communications/Vonage-Says-Its-Ready-for-Fight-Over-VoIP-3453281.htm. Harmon, D. J., Green, S., & Goodnight, G. (2015). A theory of rhetorical legitimation: The communicative and cognitive structure of institutional maintenance and change. Academy of Management Review, 40(1), 76–95. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013. 0310. Hiatt, S. R., & Park, S. (2013). Lords of the harvest: Third-party influence and regulatory approval of genetically modified organisms. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 923–944. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0128. Hiatt, S. R., Sine, W. D., & Tolbert, P. S. (2009). From Pabst to Pepsi: The deinstitutionalization of social practices and the creation of entrepreneurial opportunities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(4), 635–667. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu. 2009.54.4.635. Hoffman, A. J. (1999). Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 351–371. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/257008. Hoffman, A. J., & Ocasio, W. (2001). Not all events are attended equally: Toward a middle-range theory of industry attention to external events. Organization Science, 12(4), 414–434. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.4.414.10639. Holburn, G. L. F., Bergh, R. G. V., & Vanden Bergh, R. G. (2008). Making friends in hostile environments: Political strategy in industries regulated. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 521–540. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159411. Humphries, M. (2005). Outer continental shelf: Debate over oil and gas leasing and revenue sharing. CRS issue brief for congress. James, E. H., & Wooten, L. P. (2006). Diversity crises: How firms manage discrimination lawsuits. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1103–1118. https://doi.org/10. 5465/AMJ.2006.23478091.

152

Journal of Business Research 105 (2019) 136–153

C.D. Srikant

Annals, 11(1), 451–478. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0101. Sutton, R. I., & Callahan, A. L. (1987). The stigma of bankruptcy: Spoiled organizational image and its management. Academy of Management Journal, 30(3), 405–436. https://doi.org/10.2307/256007. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj. The E-cigarette in a life and death struggle. Drug Week. Retrieved from http://link. galegroup.com/apps/doc/A222085481/AONE?u=lond95336&sid=AONE&xid= efdd6ea4. Upson, J. W., Ketchen, D. J., Connelly, B. L., & Ranft, A. L. (2012). Competitor analysis and foothold moves. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 93–110. https://doi.org/ 10.5465/amj.2008.0330. Weber, K., Heinze, K. K. L., & DeSoucey, M. (2008). Forage for thought: Mobilizing codes in the movement for grass-fed meat and dairy products. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(3), 529–567. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.53.3.529. World Gas Intelligence (2006). New LNG shipping dynamics. World gas intelligence (New York). Wright, R. A., & Schaffer Boudet, H. (2012). To act or not to act: Context, capability, and community response to environmental risk. American Journal of Sociology, 118(3), 728–777. https://doi.org/10.1086/667719. Zavyalova, A., Pfarrer, M. D., Reger, R. K., & Shapiro, D. L. (2012). Managing the message: The effects of firm actions and industry spillovers on media coverage following wrongdoing. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1079–1101. https://doi.org/10. 5465/amj.2010.0608. Zimmerman, M., & Zeitz, G. J. G. J. (2002). Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 27(3), 414–431. https://doi.org/10.2307/4134387.

9780199286546.003.0008. Ragin, C. C. (2008b). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. https://doi.org/10. 1002/j.1662-6370.2009.tb00140.x. Roig-Tierno, N., Huarng, K. H., & Ribeiro-Soriano, D. (2016). Qualitative comparative analysis: Crisp and fuzzy sets in business and management. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1261–1264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.089. Santos, F. M., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2009). Constructing markets and shaping boundaries: Entrepreneurial power in nascent fields. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 643–671. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2009.43669892. Schively, C. (2007). Understanding the NIMBY and LULU phenomena: Reassessing our knowledge base and informing future research. Journal of Planning Literature, 21(3), 255–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412206295845. Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2012). In C. Elman, J. Gerring, & J. Mahoney (Eds.). Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press. Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. London: Sage. Sine, W. D., David, R. J., & Mitsuhashi, H. (2007). From plan to plant: Effects of certification on operational start-up in the emergent independent power sector. Organization Science, 18(4), 578–594. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0300. Squeo, A. M. (2003). Online calls scare phone firms, test regulators. The Wall Street Journal Europe. Stevenson, W. B., & Greenberg, D. (2000). Agency and social networks: Strategies of action in a social structure of position, opposition, and opportunity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(4), 651–678. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667015. Stinchcombe, A. (1965). Organizations and social structure. In J. G. March (Ed.). Handbook of organizations (pp. 142–193). Chicago: Rand McNally. Stryker, R. (1994). Rules, resources, and legitimacy processes: Some inplications for social conflict, order, and change. American Journal of Sociology, 99(4), 847–910. https:// doi.org/10.1086/230366. Suddaby, R., Bitektine, A., & Haack, P. (2017). Legitimacy. Academy of Management

153