The edge of legitimacy

Emerald - Tập 23 Số 1 - Trang 55-81 - 2010
Matthew V. Tilling1, Carol A. Tilt2
1School of Business, The University of Notre Dame, Fremantle, Australia
2Flinders Business School, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia

Tóm tắt

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the voluntary social and environmental disclosures made in the annual reports of Rothmans Ltd between the years of 1955 and 1999. The first part of the paper focuses on defining legitimacy theory as it has been used in accounting research, extending the current model of legitimacy that predominates, and discussing the potential of a resource‐based approach to testing the theory.Design/methodology/approachA qualitative and quantitative approach to analysing annual report disclosures is presented, and this is one of the few studies to operationalise the variables under study as measures of resource flows.FindingsThe paper considers legitimacy theory in light of disclosures made by Rothmans. An initial analysis provides qualitative examples of expected attempts to legitimatise the corporation given the threat posed by the smoking and health debate. Further analysis conducted using a quantitative measure of resource flows controlled by one stakeholder group, contradicts those expected when compared with previous studies, and as a result of this an alternative conceptualisation of legitimacy theory is proposed.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper considers one company in one industry and provides evidence from limited stakeholders groups. The results have implications for further research on social and environmental reporting that use a legitimacy framework.Originality/valueThe paper provides one of the few studies to attempt to measure resource flows in order to proxy stakeholder influence on reporting. This therefore provides an alternative to the more common measures of legitimacy used in previous studies. These have predominantly been based on researcher judgement of the categorised text to determine whether they fit certain “legitimacy” criteria.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Abrahamson, E. and Park, C. (1994), “Concealment of negative organizational outcomes: an agency theory perspective”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 1302‐34. Ader, C.R. (1995), “A longitudinal study of agenda setting for the issue of environmental pollution”, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 300‐11. Amit, R. and Shoemaker, P.J.H. (1993), “Strategic assets and organizational rent”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 33‐46. Ashford, B.E. and Gibbs, B.W. (1990), “The double‐edge of organizational legitimation”, Organization Science, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 177‐94. Bansal, P. and Roth, K. (2000), “Why companies go green: a model of ecological responsiveness”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 717‐36. Barney, J.B. (1991), “Firms resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17, pp. 99‐120. Brown, N. and Deegan, C. (1998), “The public disclosure of environmental performance information – a dual test of media agenda setting theory and legitimacy theory”, Accounting & Business Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 21‐41. Buhr, N. (1998), “Environmental performance, legislation and annual report disclosure: the case of acid rain and Falconbridge”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 163‐90. Burton, B. and Rowell, A. (2002), “Smoke gets in your eyes”, The New Internationalist, Vol. 342, pp. 6‐7. Campbell, D., Craven, B. and Shrives, P. (2003), “Voluntary social reporting in three FTSE sectors: a comment on perception and legitimacy”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 558‐81. Caudill, E. (1997), Darwinian Myths: The Legends and Misuses of a Theory, University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN. Cooper, S.M. and Owen, D.L. (2007), “Corporate social reporting and stakeholder accountability: the missing link”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 32, pp. 649‐67. Cormier, D. and Gordon, I.M. (2001), “An examination of social and environmental reporting strategies”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 587‐617. Cowen, S.S., Ferreri, L.B. and Parker, L.D. (1987), “The impact of corporate characteristics on social responsibility disclosure: a typology and frequency‐based analysis”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 111‐22. Davidson, D.K. (1991), “Legitimacy: how important is it for tobacco strategies”, Business & The Contemporary World, Autumn, pp. 49‐58. Deegan, C. and Rankin, M. (1997), “The materiality of environmental information to users of annual reports”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 562‐83. Deegan, C., Rankin, M. and Tobin, J. (2002), “An examination of the corporate social and environmental disclosures of BHP from 1983‐1997: a test of legitimacy theory”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 312‐43. Deegan, C., Rankin, M. and Voght, P. (2000), “Firms' disclosure reactions to major social incidents: Australian evidence”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 101‐30. de Villiers, C. and van Staden, C. (2006), “Can less environmental disclosure have a legitimsing effect? Evidence from Africa”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 31 No. 8, pp. 763‐81. Dowling, J. and Pfeffer, J. (1975), “Organizational legitimacy: social values and organizational behavior”, Pacific Sociological Review, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 122‐36. Driscoll, C. and Crombie, A. (2001), “Stakeholder legitimacy management and the qualified good neighbour: the case of Nova Nada and JDI”, Business and Society, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 442‐71. Gately, I. (2001), Tobacco: A Cultural History of How an Exotic Plant Seduced Civilization, Grove Press, New York, NY. Gray, R., Kouhy, R. and Lavers, S. (1995), “Methodological themes: constructing a research database of social and environmental reporting by UK companies”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 78‐101. Guthrie, J. and Mathews, M.R. (1985), “Corporate social accounting in Australasia”, Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, Vol. 7, pp. 251‐77. Guthrie, J. and Parker, L.D. (1989), “Corporate social reporting: a rebuttal of legitimacy theory”, Accounting & Business Research, Vol. 19 No. 76, pp. 343‐52. Guthrie, J. and Parker, L.D. (1990), “Corporate social disclosure practice: a comparative international analysis”, Advances in Public Interest Accounting, Vol. 3, pp. 159‐75. Hackston, D. and Milne, M.J. (1996), “Some determinants of social and environmental disclosures in New Zealand companies”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 77‐108. Harte, G. and Owen, D. (1991), “Environmental disclosure in the annual reports of British companies a research note”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 51‐61. Hearit, K.M. (1995), “‘Mistakes were made’: organizations, apologia, and crises of social legitimacy”, Communication Studies, Vol. 46 Nos 1/2, pp. 1‐17. Henningfield, J.E. (1985), Nicotine: An Old Fashioned Addiction, Burke Publishing, London. Holsti, O.R. (1969), Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities, Addison Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, MA. Hoopes, D.G., Madsen, T.L. and Walker, G. (2003), “Guest editors' introduction to the special issue: why is there a resource‐based view? Toward a theory of competitive heterogeneity”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 10, pp. 889‐992. Hybels, R.C. (1995), “On legitimacy, legitimation, and organizations: a critical review and integrative theoretical model”, Academy of Management Journal, pp. 241‐5 (special issue). Kaplan, S.E. and Ruland, R.G. (1991), “Positive theory, rationality and accounting regulation”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 361‐74. Krippendorff, K. (1980), Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. Lindblom, C.K. (1994), “The implications of organizational legitimacy for corporate social performance and disclosure”, paper presented at Critical Perspectives on Accounting Conference, New York, NY. Mangos, N.C. and Lewis, N.R. (1995), “A socio‐economic paradigm for analysing managers' accounting choice behaviour”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 38‐62. Miles, R.H. (1982), Coffin Nails and Corporate Strategies, Prentice‐Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Milne, M.J. and Patten, D.M. (2002), “Securing organizational legitimacy: an experimental decision case examining the impact of environmental disclosures”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 372‐405. Moerman, L. and Van der Laan, S. (2005), “Social reporting in the tobacco industry: all smoke and mirrors? Accounting”, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 374‐89. Neu, D., Warsame, H. and Pedwell, K. (1998), “Managing public impressions: environmental disclosures in annual reports”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 265‐82. O'Donovan, G. (2002), “Environmental disclosures in the annual report: extending the applicability and predictive power of legitimacy theory”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 344‐71. Owusu‐Ansah, S. (1998), “The impact of corporate attributes on the extent of mandatory disclosure and reporting by listed companies in Zimbabwe”, The International Journal of Accounting, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 605‐31. Patten, D.M. (1992), “Intra‐industry disclosure in response to the Alaskan oil spill: a note on legitimacy theory”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 471‐5. Patten, D.M. (2002), “Media exposure, public policy pressure, and environmental disclosure: an examination of the impact of tri data availability”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 152‐71. Pringle, P. (1998), Dirty Business: Big Tobacco at the Bar of Justice, Aurum Press, London. Quit (1995), Tobacco in Australia: Facts and Issues, Quit Victoria, Melbourne. Riffe, D., Lacy, S. and Fico, F. (2005), Analyzing Media Messages: Using Content Analysis in Research, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Robertson, D.C. and Nicholson, N. (1996), “Expressions of corporate social responsibility in UK firms”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 15 No. 10, pp. 1095‐106. Stanton, P. and Stanton, J. (2002), “Corporate annual reports: research perspectives used”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 478‐500. Suchman, M.C. (1995), “Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 571‐610. Taylor, P. (1984), Smoke Ring: The Politics of Tobacco, The Bodley Press, London. Tilling, M.V., Tilt, C.A. and Ackerman, F. (2008), “The theory of legitimacy and the preservation of organisations in the struggle for resources: the role of stakeholders”, paper presented at Critical Perspectives on Accounting Conference, New York, NY, 23‐27 April. Wernerfelt, B. (1984), “A resource‐based view of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 171‐80. Zeghal, D. and Ahmed, S.A. (1990), “Comparison of social responsibility information disclosure media used by Canadian firms”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 38‐53.