Evaluating the temporal dimension of legitimisation strategies

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine how social disclosures by one of the world’s largest producers of Platinum Group Metals are used to maintain and repair legitimacy in the context of South Africa’s prevailing socio-economic conditions and in response to the immediate challenge to legitimacy posed by violent worker demonstrations taking place at its operations in Marikana during August 2012. This is done to highlight how legitimacy strategies take account of the temporal characteristics of a threat to legitimacy and how these, in turn, may constrain the need for far-reaching organisational change. Design/methodology/approach Suchman’s (1995) outline of legitimacy theory and Laughlin’s (1991) model of organisational change provide a frame of reference for a detailed thematic content analysis which identifies the use of different strategies by an organization to respond to threats to its credibility and how these impact, resulting changes to business philosophies, policies and systems. Findings The study highlights the temporal dimension of legitimisation strategies. Social-related disclosures provided by the case entity in response to labour unrest are aimed at addressing both the episodic and continual threat to legitimacy resulting from the unfavourable event. These also have the effect of limiting the extent of internal changes to select business policies and sub-systems. Carefully managing legitimacy allows the case entity to avoid the need to reformulate its business ethos. Research limitations/implications The study deals only with a single case organisation. Although the emphasis is on highlighting themes and principles, results are not necessarily applicable in different contexts. Related to this, although the study deals with a major South African mining company, it does not prove the relevance of local cultural differences to the legitimisation process. Originality/value The study dispenses with the use of proxies, such as frequencies of disclosures, to demonstrate how organisations use non-financial reporting to secure legitimacy. Instead, it offers a detailed account of how different sub-sets of legitimacy are being mobilised in corporate reports response to long-term and episodic legitimacy considerations. In addition, the study offers one of the first interpretive accounts of how strategies used to manage legitimacy may constrain the potential of a material external shock resulting in internal organisational change. Finally, the study offers one of the first examples of the operation of legitimacy and organisational change theory from the African Continent.

Readdressing accountability for occupational health and safety in a pandemic era

“…In setting the context for evaluating OHS accountability in the Covid-19 era, it is also instructive to briefly reflect on what prior research literature has revealed about motivations for CSR disclosure in general. Generally, studies have suggested that firms engage in CSR for improved financial outcomes (Aguilera et al , 2007; Mackey et al , 2007; Margolis et al , 2009; Pava and Krausz, 1996); altruistic reasons (Parker, 2014) or philanthropic reasons (Acharyya and Agarwala, 2020); reputation and competitive advantage (Zhang et al , 2019; Albinger and Freeman, 2000; Falkenberg and Brunsæl, 2011; Lii and Lee, 2012; McWilliams and Siegel, 2001), based on intrinsic and/or extrinsic motivations (Grimstad et al , 2020) or for legitimation purposes (Maroun, 2018). The literature examining the link between financial performance and social performance has a history of more than three decades (Margolis et al , 2009).…”

Bridging the Understanding of Sustainability Accounting and Organizational Change

“…However, most studies draw on case studies (Contrafatto & Burns, 2013; Le Breton & Aggeri, 2019; Leong & Hazelton, 2019; Li & Belal, 2018) or qualitative interviewing (Albelda-Pérez et al, 2007; Rodríguez-Gutiérrez et al, 2019; Stubbs & Higgins, 2014) as their empirical methods. Methods where the researcher has a less interventionist role, such as questionnaires (Arjaliès & Mundy, 2013), discourse analysis (Tregidga et al, 2014), or thematic content analysis (Maroun, 2018), are also applied.…”

“…The findings in most of those studies suggest that SAR practices informing internal decision-making have the potential to foster organizational change. This finding might be explained because the incorporation of SAR in internal decision-making could be indicative of an authentic organizational commitment, with a concomitant reflection in core beliefs and values that are inscribed in the organization (i.e., their DNA ), while changing these schemes through external SAR (i.e., sustainability reporting) has generally proved to be difficult (Larrinaga and Bebbington, 2001; Maroun, 2018; Stubbs & Higgins, 2014). However, different studies have argued that sustainability reporting could also drive sustainable organizational change when it is mandatorily required (Leong & Hazelton, 2019), or when it is associated with integrated reporting (Cerbone & Maroun, 2020; Le Roux & Pretorius, 2019; McNally & Maroun, 2018), as integrated thinking aims to broaden the value perspective of organizations to align value creation with broader sustainability concerns.…”

“…The distinction between different organizational structures and orders of change allow various studies to observe that SAR can change organizations’ design archetypes (i.e., the structures and practices that provide coherence to organizations) but not their interpretative schemes (i.e., the DNA or the core beliefs and values that are imprinted in the organization; see Larrinaga & Bebbington, 2001; Maroun, 2018; Stubbs & Higgins, 2014). Indeed, SAR can be conceived as an emergent design archetype, a set of new practices embodying the values and beliefs of alternative interpretative schemes (Narayanan & Adams, 2017; Rodríguez-Gutiérrez et al, 2019) and, consequently, its implementation generates some change.…”

How do public companies respond to national challenges through sustainability reporting? – The case of Sri Lanka

“…Companies are facing increased pressure from shareholders and regulatory authorities to respond to social and environmental concerns, and consider them as part of their business models (Maroun, 2018). As business entities continue to increase their level of operations across international borders, their conduct on the sustainable development front instigates even greater concern.…”