Full Length Article
Organizational legitimacy for high-risk facilities: Examining the case of NBAF

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102087Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Legitimacy building in community for high-risk biological research facility NBAF.

  • Perceived transparent and consistent communication increases legitimacy perceptions.

  • The mediation role of perceived legitimacy between communication and trust.

  • Legitimacy perceptions decreases risk perceptions and increases preparedness.

Abstract

Through an online survey of community residents living nearby the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF), this study examined how high-risk organizations can communicate organizational legitimacy, and how legitimacy perception may affect public trust and risk perceptions. Results illustrated the importance of transparent and consistent communication in organizational legitimacy-building, as well as the role of legitimacy, especially for high-risk organizations, to garner public trust, to ease public uncertainty, and to increase public preparedness.

Introduction

Organizations rely on their surrounding environment for survival. For many organizations, their existence requires the approval and support of the community in which they operate. Without the “reservoir of support” from community members, they may not function properly, and the absence of support may eventually lead to public or community opposition (Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975; Tost, 2011, p. 686).

The kind of social support and approval from a community that allows the organization to gain access to resources and operate successfully has been defined as organizational legitimacy (Suchman, 1995). An organization establishes legitimacy when its existence and actions are congruent with accepted social norms and values (Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975; Suchman, 1995). Publics evaluate the organization based on pre-existing norms and values constructed within the community (Boyd, 2000). While ample research has examined the establishment of organizational legitimacy in the context of corporate social responsibility and sustainability (Panwar et al., 2014; Thomas & Lamm, 2012; Yang & Ji, 2019), very few studies have focused on legitimacy building among communities in the context of high-risk or potentially hazardous facilities (Heath & Lee, 2016; Melé & Armengou, 2016).

Hazardous events such as the Three Mile Island accident in the U.S. raise the question of how hazardous industries and high-risk facilities can coexist with and garner support from local communities (Heath & Lee, 2016). Locating high-risk or potentially hazardous facilities such as nuclear waste repositories, prisons, landfills and powerplants in or near communities are often associated with the NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) phenomenon, where community members recognize that the facility is needed, but may oppose to the facility’s operation in their own neighborhood (Aoki, 2018; Jenkins-Smith & Kunreuther 2001; Jenkins-Smith et al. 2011). On the one hand, these facilities and industries bring economic and other opportunities to the community. On the other, they pose potential risks for community residents. While extant research in organizational legitimacy tends to focus on reactive responses to crises that arise as a result of the legitimacy gap, little research examines how high-risk facilities can continuously build and maintain legitimacy among communities in the long run (Boyd, 2000; Reast et al., 2013). Furthermore, in the case of high-risk or potentially hazardous organizations such as a biological research facility, relatively little is known in terms of if and how organizational legitimacy could also influence risk and preparedness perceptions (Heath & Lee, 2016).

Therefore, the purpose of this research is to examine the role of communications in building and maintaining organizational legitimacy, as well as the role of this legitimacy in gaining community trust and in affecting community risk perception, preparedness, and behavioral intentions. These relationships were examined in the context of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF). Classified as a biosafety level 4 facility (the highest level of biosafety risk), NBAF is a biological research facility first commissioned by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security intended for research on highly contagious foreign animal pathogens (“National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility”, 2020).

NBAF is currently under construction in a small town in Kansas with a population of around 53,000 and will be in full operation in December 2022 (“National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility”, 2020). The community was selected through a competitive process among four other communities in Mississippi, New York, North Carolina and Texas, and was chosen based on proximity to research capabilities, acquisition construction and operations, proximity to the workforce, and community acceptance (Bouri, 2009). According to the Department of Homeland Security (2009), NBAF will have a secure, modern and integrated high containment facility with laboratories with an estimated 250–350 scientists and support staff to address the accidental and intentional introduction into the U.S. or animal diseases of high consequence.

A Congress-mandated risk assessment evaluated the public health concerns, specifically the potential accident events and scenarios that might release pathogens from the facility to the community, surveillance and mitigation plans, as well as the cost-benefit analysis of NBAF. Part of this assessment included the use of computational models for epidemic forecasting, which to some extent were criticized by the scientific community (National Research Council, 2012). For example, the National Research Council (NRC) noted the possibility that experiments would involve large animals for hemorrhagic fever agents, variant influenza viruses, or poxviruses, and work on these pathogens will pose risks, but it was also impossible to model the risks associated with unknown agents (NRC, 2010, 2012). The Government Accountability Office also concluded that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) lacked evidence that foot-and-mouth disease research, for example, can be conducted safely on the U.S. mainland in the middle of Tornado Alley, a region of the country known for severe weather conditions, and in the heart of cattle country (Government Accountability Office, 2008).

A mandated economic analysis assessed the economic impact of accidental release of the viruses from NBAF and the subsequent consequences of such release (Government Accountability Office, 2008). Follow up research (Pendell et al., 2015) examined the economic consequences associated with unintentional, hypothetical releases of foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDv), specifically the economic consequences to agricultural firms and consumers, quantify costs and disruptions to non-agricultural activities in the epidemiologically impacted region, and assess costs of response to the government. They found potential significant economic impact with the agricultural firms and consumers bearing most of it.

Prior to construction, the site selection process incited heated debate within the local community (Binder et al., 2011), which was based on the risk assessment on one hand and the economic benefits of NBAF on the other. Despite the potential risks, NBAF (and the chamber of commerce) highlighted the economic benefits include job creation, stimulating the state’s economy and heightening the state’s position as global food systems and bioscience leader.

Through an online survey, this study examined the community members’ perception of NBAF’s communication with them, their perceived legitimacy of the organization, trust, risk perception, preparedness, and negative behavioral intentions.

Section snippets

High-risk facility and NIMBY

The concept of NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) dates back to the 1980s and generally refers to community opposition to “socially beneficial but locally undesirable land uses” (Krause et al., 2014, p. 530). NIMBY often occurs in communities regarding the establishment or operation of controversial, high-risk or potentially hazardous projects or facilities such as nuclear waste disposal facilities, illicit drug use facilities, landfills or prisons in or near the community (Aoki, 2018; Jenkins-Smith &

Method

An online survey was conducted among community members to test the hypotheses. Respondent recruitment and data collection were conducted in June and July of 2019. NBAF was planned and constructed over the course of ten years and won’t be in full operation until 2022. To understand the facility’s long-term relationship with the publics it most likely will influence, community members in this study refer to long-term residents of the town who live within three miles from the site of NBAF. As the

Analysis

Linear regressions were used to analyze H1–H4. H1 predicted communication transparency’s relationship with perceived legitimacy. Results indicated that transparency was positively associated with perceived legitimacy (β = .62, t = 12.83, p < .001) (R2 = .39, F (1, 264) = 164.55, p < .001). Therefore, H1 was supported. H2 proposed that the more consistent the communication is, the higher the perceived legitimacy. Linear regression results suggested that consistency was positively associated with

Discussion

By surveying public perceptions of a high-risk biological research facility in their community, this study examined the mediating role of organizational legitimacy in securing crucial community support and perceptions of relative risk/preparedness, as well as the importance of transparent and consistent communication in creating and maintaining legitimacy perception. Based on conceptualizations from extant research on organizational legitimacy (e.g., Derakhashan et al., 2019; Suchman, 1995),

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this manuscript.

References (52)

  • C. Claasen et al.

    The link between responsibility and legitimacy: The case of de beers in Namibia

    Journal of Business Ethics

    (2012)
  • A.B. Costello et al.

    Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis

    Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation

    (2005)
  • C. Deegan

    The legitimating effect of social and environmental disclosures: A theoretical foundation

    Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal

    (2002)
  • Department of Homeland Security

    Record of decision for the national bio and agro-defense facility environmental impact statement

    (2009)
  • R. Derakhashan et al.

    Community’s evaluation of organizational legitimacy: Formation and reconsideration

    International Journal of Project Management

    (2019)
  • J. Dowling et al.

    Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior

    The Pacific Sociological Review

    (1975)
  • Government Accountability Office

    High-containment biosafety laboratories: DHS lacks evidence to conclude that foot-and-mouth disease research can be done safely on the U.S. mainland

    (2008)
  • J. Grunig et al.

    From organizational effectiveness to relationship indicators: Antecedents of relationships, public relations strategies, and relationship outcomes

    Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations

    (2000)
  • J.F. Hair et al.

    Multivariate data analysis

    (2010)
  • R. Heath et al.

    Chemical manufacturing and refining industry legitimacy: Reflective management, trust, precrisis communication to achieve community efficacy

    Risk Analysis

    (2016)
  • R. Heath et al.

    Effects of perceived economic harms and benefits on issue involvement, use of information sources, and actions: A study in risk communication

    Journal of Public Relations Research

    (1995)
  • H. Jenkins-Smith et al.

    Mitigation and benefits measures as policy tools for siting potentially hazardous facilities: Determinants of effectiveness and appropriateness

    Risk Analysis

    (2001)
  • H. Jenkins-Smith et al.

    Reversing nuclear opposition: Evolving public acceptance of a permanent nuclear waste disposal facility

    Risk Analysis

    (2011)
  • S. Kim et al.

    Dimensions of effective CSR communication based on public expectations

    Journal of Marketing Communications

    (2017)
  • H.K. Kim et al.

    The role of emotional response during an H1N1 influenza pandemic on a college campus

    Journal of Public Relations Research

    (2013)
  • S. Kim et al.

    Revisiting the effectiveness of base crisis response strategies in comparison of reputation management crisis responses

    Journal of Public Relations Research

    (2014)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text