Strategic silence or regulatory talk? Regulatory agency responses to public allegations amidst the glyphosate controversy

How do regulatory agencies manoeuvre to diffuse potential risk endangering their organisational reputation in the eyes of relevant stakeholders and what explains the substantial variation in the reputational repertoire on which agencies draw to legitimise their conduct? This study relies on a bureaucratic reputation account to enhance our understanding of the strategic behaviour of regulatory agencies and their endeavours to justify their outputs and processes vis-à-vis public allegations. We focus on the glyphosate case to examine whether diverse reputational vulnerabilities encourage agencies to opt for strategic silence or, on the contrary, issue a public response justifying their technical, performative, legal-procedural, and/or moral conduct. Interviews with agency officials and primary document analysis suggest that to respond to stakeholder allegations agencies with an evolving reputation engage in extensive communication activities to warrant their outputs and processes, whereas agencies with a strong reputation tend to be less responsive and opt for strategic silence.