Global environmental assessments assume an increasingly central role in international policymaking. Among them, the IPCC stands out as the authoritative voice of climate science. According to...Show moreGlobal environmental assessments assume an increasingly central role in international policymaking. Among them, the IPCC stands out as the authoritative voice of climate science. According to reputation theory, the maintenance of such a positive reputation requires the communication of organizational strengths to its audiences. The theory predicts patterns of emphasis and change over time, but has yet to be tested in this institutional setting. This thesis contributes to reputational theory through testing and extending its theoretical expectations to the case of the IPCC based on GEA literature. It quantitatively analyses the IPCC outputs and communication material over the course of 1994-2022, and qualitatively investigates the experience of IPCC leadership during that time. The results suggest that the IPCC becomes more reputationally aware over time, but does not diversify its legitimization strategies along hypothesized dimensions to the public - despite leadership commitment to those dimensions – but rather reinforces its technical image.Show less
Today, reputation management is of great importance to public regulators. As a positive reputation can be a stepping stone for regulatory legitimacy, public regulators increasingly attempt to...Show moreToday, reputation management is of great importance to public regulators. As a positive reputation can be a stepping stone for regulatory legitimacy, public regulators increasingly attempt to cultivate a positive reputational image in the eyes of their audiences. However, while an abundance of research has been conducted on the reputational dimensions emphasized by EU agencies, little investigation has been done on what reputational dimensions its audiences consider when they assess the reputation of these bodies. Therefore, with the use of Carpenter’s (2010) multidimensional reputational framework, this work examined what reputational dimensions are valued by different audiences of EU regulatory agencies, specifically that of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). It tested two competing expectations. One expectation supposed that different audiences value different reputational dimensions, while the other regarded that different audiences value the same dimension. To inform these two expectations, fourteen semi-structured interviews were performed with representatives of NGOs, businesses and industry associations, academic organizations, and national regulatory authorities (NRAs). In addition, a qualitative content analysis of the audiences’ policy reports directed towards EFSA was performed. From this, this work found that different audiences valued different reputational dimensions, which also lead to several contradictory demands among the audiences. In addition, it found that several causal mechanisms played a role in explaining these different emphases on reputational domains, such as the resources and the structure of the audiences’ organizations and their professional interests and roles. Finally, this work provides several theoretical, methodological, and policy-relevant implications that are of relevance to both researchers in the bureaucratic reputation literature as well as practitioners of reputation management working in regulatory settings.Show less
