Abstract
This study contributes to the legitimacy literature by investigating the perceived appropriateness of legitimation strategies used by controversial organizations. Through a mixed‐method approach comprising interviews and conjoint experiments, we shed light on how evaluators perceive the appropriateness of five legitimation strategies used by the foie gras industry in France and how evaluators' environmentalism and media skepticism influence their perceptions. Some strategies favored by the industry are perceived as inappropriate by evaluators and thus may obstruct or, worse, counter the intended goal of legitimacy enhancement. Moreover, we observe that evaluators' high environmentalism and high media skepticism affect the perceived appropriateness of the strategies, albeit not of all five. Evaluators with high media skepticism favor explanation discourses and strategies that establish a common identity of the industry. Evaluators with high environmentalism favor the use of recognizable quality standards and labels, yet they are wary of high levels of organization through structured representation of industry interests.