Users’ legitimacy perceptions about standard-setting processes

Standard-setting institutions require legitimacy to survive. Prior research infers their legitimacy mainly from the characteristics of standard-setting processes rather than from the legitimacy judgments of important constituencies. Using a survey of financial analysts, we quantitatively assess users’ perceptions about the characteristics of standard-setting processes, the relationships between these characteristics and legitimacy perceptions, and users’ legitimacy perceptions. Our first contribution is to use a sample of sophisticated financial statement users to empirically examine the theoretical proposition that users’ legitimacy perceptions could be a function of the perceived characteristics of standard-setting processes. We find that users’ perceptions about the characteristics of standard-setting processes affect the legitimacy they attribute to these processes. A combination of pragmatic, moral and cognitive legitimacies are at play in such legitimacy assessments. Our second contribution is to point out the importance of separately investigating various types of legitimacy, as users’ perceptions about them vary. Lastly, our third contribution is to highlight that the distinction between users’ perceptions of the characteristics of standard-setting processes and their legitimacy perceptions is not always clear-cut and that there are multiple interrelations among these concepts.