Purpose -This paper seeks to clarify the various aspects of legitimacy in public relations in order to establish a better understanding of the limits of professionalization. Legitimacy has always been a central concept in public relations. In order to ensure a license to operate, the conduct of organizations needs to be perceived as legitimate by their stakeholders and the public in general. Public relations has since its conception as a modern profession been confronted with several issues concerning the profession's own legitimacy. The overall cause for these legitimacy problems is often ascribed to the immaturity of the profession and professionalization is generally regarded as an appropriate cure. Design/methodology/approach -Through theorization of the connection between legitimacy, power and professionalization the paper points to two important challenges to the professionalization of public relations: the conflicts of legitimizing the potentially disputed role of public relations as an intermediary function between client and public interests; and the dilemma of legitimizing a profession that has legitimacy as its own object and therefore is dependent on discretion in order to be successful. Findings -The paper identifies four axes of legitimacy in public relations, each constituting different relationships with specific and often conflicting legitimacy claims: client-public, profession-client, profession-public, and profession-academia. Originality/value -As a consequence of these distinct legitimacy claims the paper stresses some important limits of the professionalization project in public relations.

No abstract

No abstract

The overall objective of this study is to examine how the institutional context of food safety affects and is affected by concerns for legitimacy and reputation. The paper employs a neo-institutional approach to analyzing the institutional field of food safety in a case study of a multinational food service provider where a tension between conflicting institutional logics implied a reputational challenge. The study shows how food safety as a well-defined operational risk is transformed into a high-priority reputational risk and how actors in the field of food safety are caught in a state of mutual distrust, partly as a consequence of an intense politicization of food risk over the past years and partly as a result of their respective concerns for legitimacy. The study points to how the field of food safety is colonized by a reputational logic that is paradoxically reproduced by actors at all organizational levels even though they strongly oppose to this logic.

The present case study seeks to explain the conditions for experts' rational risk perception by analyzing the institutional contexts that constitute a field of food safety expertise in Denmark. The study highlights the role of risk reporting and how contextual factors affect risk reporting from the lowest organizational level, where concrete risks occur, to the highest organizational level, where the body of professional risk expertise is situated. The article emphasizes the role of knowledge, responsibility, loyalty, and trust as risk-attenuation factors and concludes by suggesting that the preconditions for the expert's rationality may rather be a lack of risk-specific knowledge due to poor risk reporting than a superior level of risk knowledge.