Accounting for your actions: How stakeholders respond to the strategic communication of environmental activist organizations

This study examined how stakeholders perceive the legitimacy of impression management strategies potentially used by environmental activist organizations following their ''illegitimate'' actions. ''Illegitimate'' actions are those which are seen as undesirable or violate societal norms. A sample of 150 individuals (50 activist organization members, 50 government officials, and 50 college students) completed a questionnaire containing four hypothetical scenarios describing ''illegitimate'' actions. Each scenario was followed by eight message strategies. Respondents rated the perceived legitimacy of each message strategy. Stakeholder groups differed significantly in how legitimate they thought the strategies of Bolstering, Diffusion of Responsibility, Denouncement, Justification, Aesthetisizing, Necessitating, Transcendence, and Intimidation were in accounting for the questionable actions. A significant difference due to level of severity was found for the justification strategy. Implications for environmental advocates as well as researchers interested in extending the organizational-level impression management literature and institutional theory are discussed.