Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Searching for New Forms of Legitimacy Through Corporate Responsibility Rhetoric

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article looks into the process of searching for new forms of legitimacy among firms through corporate discourse. Through the analysis of annual sustainability reports, we have determined the existence of three types of rhetoric: (1) strategic (embedded in the scientific-economic paradigm); (2) institutional (based on the fundamental constructs of Corporate Social Responsibility theories); and (3) dialectic (which aims at improving the discursive quality between the corporations and their stakeholders). Each one of these refers to a different form of legitimacy and is based on distinct theories of the firm analyzed in this article. We claim that dialectic rhetoric seems to signal a new understanding of the firm’s role in society and a search for moral legitimation. However, this new form of rhetoric is still fairly uncommon although its use is growing. Combining theory and business examples, this article may help managers and researchers in the conceptualization of how firms make sense of their role in society and what forms of differentiation they strive for through their rhetoric strategies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrahamson, E. and Amir, E.: 1996, ‘The Information Content of the President’s Letter to Shareholders’, Journal of Business Finance & Accounting 23 (8), 1157-81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, H. E. and Fiol, C. M.: 1994, ‘Fools Rush in? The Institutional Context of Industry Creation’, Academy of Management Review 19, 645-70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M.: 1993, ‘Organization as Rhetoric: Knowledge-intensive Firms and the Struggle with Ambiguity’, Journal of Management Studies 30, 997-1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M. and Karreman, D.: 2000, ‘Taking the Linguistic Turn in Organizational Research: Challenges, Responses, Consequences’, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 36, 136-58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argandoña, A.: 1998, ‘The Stakeholder Theory and the Common Good’, Journal of Business Ethics 17 (9/10), 1093-102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrington and Puxty: 1991, ‘Accounting Interest and Rationality: A Communicative Relation’, Critical Perspectives on Accounting 2, 31-58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asforth, B. and Gibbs, B.: 1990, ‘The Double-edge of Organizational Legitimation’, Organization Science 1, 177-94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Attarca, M. and T. Jacquot: 2005, ‘La representation de la Responsabilite Sociale des Entrepreses: une Confrontation entre les Approches Theoriques et les Visions Manageriales’, Working Paper submitted to XIV Conference Internationale de Management Strategique, Pays de la Loire, Angers.

  • Bacharrach, S.: 1989, ‘Organizational Theories: Some Criteria for Evaluation’, Academy of Management Review 14, 496-515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barley, S.R.: 1983, ‘Semiotics and the Study of Occupational and Organizational Cultures’, Administrative Science Quarterly 28, 393-413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basu, K. and Palazzo, G.: 2008, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: A Process Model of Sensemaking’, Academy of Management Review 33 (1), 122-36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, C. and J. Paradis: 1991, Textual Dynamics of the Professions: Historical and Contemporary Studies of Writing in Professional Communities (University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI).

  • Beck, U.: 1992, What is globalization?, (Polity Press, Cambridge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck-Gernsheim, E. and Beck, U.: 2002, Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism and its Social and Political Consequences, (Sage, London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg, B.: 2004, Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Science, (Allyn and Bacon, Toronto).

    Google Scholar 

  • Boje, D.M.: 1995, ‘Stories of the Storytelling Organization: A Postmodern Analysis of Disney as Tamaraland’, Academy of Management Journal 38, 997-1034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonini, S., L. Mendonca and J. Oppenheim: 2006, ‘When Social Issues Become Strategic’, McKinsey Quarterly, December 2006.

  • Boyatzis, R. E.: 1998, Transforming Qualitative Information, Thematic Analysis and Code Development, (SAGE Publications, Inc.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruning, J. and Kintz, B.: 1977, Computational Handbook of Statistics, 2nd edition, (Scott, Foresman, Glenview, IL).

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, K.: 1969, A Grammar of Motives, (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Calton, J. and Kurland, N.: 1996, ‘A Theory of Stakeholder Enabling: Giving Voice to an Emerging Postmodern Praxis of Organizational Discourse’, in R. P. Gephart and T. J. Thatchenkery D. M. Borje (eds.), Postmodern Management and Organization Theory (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage), pp. 154-80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A.B.: 1979, ‘A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance’, Academy of Management Review 4(4), 497-505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castelló, I. and Lozano, J.M.: 2009, ‘From Risk Management to Citizenship Corporate Social Responsibility: Analysis of Strategic Drivers of Change ‘, Corporate Governance 9 (4), 374-85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheney, G., et al.: 2004, ‘Corporate Rhetoric as Organizational Discourse’, in C. Hardy D. Grant, C. Oswick, N. Phillips, & L.L. Putnam (eds.), Handbook of Organizational Discourse, (London: Sage), pp. 79-103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Covaleski, M., Dirsmith, M.W., & Rittenberg, L.: 2003, ‘Jurisdictional Disputes over Professional Work: The Institutionalization of the Global Knowledge Expert’, Accounting, Organizations and Society 28, 325-355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C.: 2002, ‘The Legitimizing Effect of Social and Environmental Disclosures: A Theoretical Foundation’, Accounting, Auditing, & Accountability Journal 15 (3), 282-312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deetz, S.: 1995, Transforming Communication, Transforming Business: Building Responsive and Responsible Workplaces, (Hampton Press, Creskill, NJ.).

    Google Scholar 

  • den Hond, F. and de Bakker, F.: 2007, ‘Ideologically Motivated Activism: How Activist Groups Influence Corporate Social Change Activities’, Academy of Management Review 32, 901-24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. and Powell, W.: 1983, ‘The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields’, American Sociological Review 48, 147-60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T.: 1996, For Positivist Organizational Theory, (Sage, London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T. and Preston, L.E.: 1995, ‘The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence and Implications’, Academy of Management Review 20 (1), 65-91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowling, J. and J. Pfeffer: 1975, ‘Organizational Legitimacy: Social Values and Organizational Behavior’, Pacific Sociological Review 18, 122–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emrich, C., et al.: 2001, ‘Images in Worlds: Presidential Rhetoric, Charisma, and Greatness’, Administrative Science Quarterly 46, 527-57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fergus, A., & Rowney, J.: 2005, ‘Sustainable Development: Lost Meaning and Opportunity?’ Journal of Business Ethics 60, 17-27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fine, G.: 1995, ‘Justifying Work: Occupational Rhetoric as Resources in Restaurants Kitchens’, Administrative Science Quarterly 41, 90-115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C.: 1996, Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image, (Harvard Business School Press, Boston).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C. and Shanley, M.: 1990, ‘What’s in a Name: Reputation Building and Corporate Strategy’, Academy of Management Journal 2, 233-358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, K.B., Ingram, R.W., Tennyson, B.M.: 1984, ‘A Methodology for the Analysis of Narrative Accounting Disclosures’, Journal of Accounting Research 22 (Spring), 318-31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R.E.: 1984, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs).

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R.E.: 1994a, ‘A Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation’, in Tom L. Beauchamp and Norman E. Bowie (ed.), Ethical Theory and Business, (Englewood Cliff, N.J.: Prentice-Hall), 66-76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M.: 1962, Capitalism and Freedom, (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M.: 1970, ‘The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits’, New York Times Magazine, 32–33, 122, 126.

  • Fung, A.: 2005, ‘Deliberation before the Revolution’, Political Theory 33, 397-419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Göbbels, M.: 2002, ‘Reframing Corporate Social Responsibility: The Contemporary Conception of a Fuzzy Notion’, (Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam).

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J.: 1984, The Theory of Communicative Action: Vol. 1. Reasons and the Rationalization of Society, (Bacon Press, Boston, MA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J.: 1990, ‘Discourse Ethics: Notes on a Program of Philosophical Justification’, in J. Habermas (ed.), Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action (The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA), p. 66

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, M. and Carroll, G. : 1992, Dynamics of Organizational Populations: Density, Legitimation and Competition (Oxford University Press, Oxford).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, C., Palmer, I., & Phillips, N.: 2000, ‘Discourse as a Strategic Resource’, Human Relations 53, 1227-48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heracleous, L.: 2006, ‘A Tale of Three Discourses: The Dominant, the Strategic and the Marginalized’, Journal of Management Studies 43 (5), 2322 - 2380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herremans, I., Herschovis, M., and Bertels, S.: 2008, ‘Leaders and Laggards: The Influence of Competing Logics on Corporate Environmental Action’, Journal of Business Ethics 89, 449-72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huntington, S.: 1998, Clash of Civilizations and the Remarking of World Order, (Simon & Schuster, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaptein, M.: 2004, ‘Business Codes of Multi-national Firms: What Do they Say?’ Journal of Business Ethics 50 (1), 13-31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, G. A. (1991) Aristotle on Rhetoric. A theory of Civic Discourse. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Kets de Vries, M. F. R. and D. Miller: 1987, `Interpreting Organizational Texts', Journal of Management Studies 24(3), 233–247

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilduff, M.: 1993, ‘Deconstructing Organizations’, Academy of Management Review 18, 13-31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, N.: 2000, No Logo, (Picador, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohut, G.F, & Segars, A.H.: 1992, ‘The President’s Letter to Stakeholders: An Examination of Corporate Communication Strategy’, Journal of Business Communication 29 (Winter), 7-21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostova, T. and Zaheer, S.: 1999, ‘Organizational Legitimacy under Conditions of Complexity: The Case of the Multinational Enterprise’, Academy of Management Review 24 (1), 64-81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. and Ashcraft, K.: 2003, ‘Corporate Scandal and the Theory of the Firm. Formulation the Contributions of Organizational Communication Studies’, Management Communication Quarterly 17, 20-57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kusyk, S. and J. M. Lozano: 2007, ‘Moving Beyond the Definitional Debate Towards a Common Ground for Multistakeholder Dialogue: Metaphors with Fuzzy Definitions in the Business and Society Field’ (Sage Publications) (under review).

  • Lozano, J.M.: 2005, ‘Towards the relational corporation: from managing stakeholder relationship to building stakeholder relationships (waiting for Copernicus)’, Corporate Governance 5 (2), 60-77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lozano, J. M.: 2006, ‘De la responsabilidad social de la empresa (RSE) a la empresa responsable y sostenible (ERS)’, Papeles de Economía Española nº 108 (ISSN: 0210-9107), pp. 40–62.

  • Maak, T.: 2009, ‘The Cosmopolitical Corporation’, Journal of Business Ethics 84, 361-72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J. and Walsh, J.: 2003, ‘Misery Loves Companies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by Business’, Administrative Science Quarterly 48, 268-305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D. and Crane, A.: 2005, ‘Corporate Citizenship: Toward an Extended Theoretical Conceptualization’, Academy of Management Review 30, 166-79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D. and Moon, J.: 2008, ‘Implicit and Explicit CSR: A Conceptual Framework for a Comparative Understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility’, Academy of Management Review 33 (2), 404-24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, D.: 1986, The Rhetoric of Economics, (Wheatsheaf Books, HarvesterPress Publishing Books).

    Google Scholar 

  • McKinnell, H.: 2005, A Call to Action, (Mc Graw Hill).

    Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A. & Siegel, D.: 2001, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective’, Academy of Management Review 26 (1), 117-27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. and Rowan, B.: 1977, ‘Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony’, American Journal of Sociology 83, 340-63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. and Scott, W.: 1983, ‘Centralization and the Legitimacy Problems of Local Government’, in J. Meyer and W. Scott (eds.), Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality, (Beberly Hills, CA: Sage), pp. 199-215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, C.: 1940, ‘Situated Actions and Vocabularies of Motive’, American Sociological Review 5, 904-13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, J.S., Mergill, A., & McCloskey, D.N.: 1987, The Rhetoric of the Human Sciences: Languages and Argument in Scholarship and Public Affairs, (University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI).

    Google Scholar 

  • Nike: 2005, ‘Corporate Responsibility Report, fy 04’.

  • Nike: 2007, ‘Nike Corporate Responsibility Report, Letter from Mark Parker, CEO’.

  • Nike: 2008, ‘Nike Corporate Responsibility Report 2008’, www.nikebiz.com/crreport/ (download, 20 April 2009).

  • Oliver, Ch.: 1991, ‘Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes’, Academy of Management Review 16 (1), 145-79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palazzo, G. and Richter, U.: 2005, ‘CSR Business as Usual? The Case of Tobacco Industry’, Journal of Business Ethics 61, 387-401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palazzo, G. and Scherer, A.: 2006, ‘Corporative Legitimacy as Deliberation: A Communicative Framework’, Journal of Business Ethics 66, 71-88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T.: 1960, Structure and Process in Modern Societies (Free Press, Glencoe, IL).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, A.: 1988, Longitudinal Field Research on Change Theory and Practice. National Science Foundation Conference on Longitudinal Research Methods in Organizations, Austin.

  • Phillips, N. and Brown, J.: 1993, ‘Analyzing Communications in and Around Organizations: A Critical Hermeneutic Approach’, Academy of Management Journal 36, 1547-76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, N. and Hardy, C.: 2002, Discourse Analysis: Investigating Processes of Social Construction, (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. and Di Maggio, P.: 1991, The New Institutionalization in Organizational Analysis, (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabobank: 2007, ‘Annual Sustainability Report 2007, A Sustainable Position in the Market: Rabobank’, http://www.rabobank.com/content/news/news_archive/037-AnnualReportsinanewonlineconcept.jsp.

  • Scandura, T. and Williams, E.: 2000, ‘Research Methodology in Management: Current Practices, Trends, and Implications for Future Research’, Academy of Management Journal 43 (6), 1248-64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A. and Palazzo, G.: 2007, ‘Toward a Political Conception of Corporate Responsibility: Business and Society Seen from a Habermasian Perspective’, Academy of Management Review 32 (4), 1096-120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schutz, A.: 1953, ‘Common-Sense and Scientific Interpretation of Human Action’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research XIV(N.1), 1–37.

  • Scott, W.R.: 1991, ‘Unpacking Institutional Arguments’, in W. W. Powel and P.J. DiMaggio (ed.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 164-82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J.: 1995, ‘The construction of social reality’. New York: Free Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Sethi, S.: 1975, ‘Dimensions of Corporate Social Performance: An Analytical Framework’, California Management Review 17 (3), 58-64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sethi, S.: 2002, ‘Standards for Corporate Conduct in the International Arena: Challenges and Opportunities for Multinational Corporations’’, Business and Society Review 107, 20-40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silberhorn, D. and Warren, R.: 2007, ‘Defining Corporate Social Responsibility: A View from Big Companies in Germany and the UK’, European Business Review 19 (5), 352-72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. W.: 1989, Rhetoric in the Human Sciences, (Sage, London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sim and Brinkmann: 2003, ‘Enron Ethics (Or: Culture Matters More than Codes)’, Journal of Business Ethics 45, 243-56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snider, J., Hill, R., and Martin, D.: 2003, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility in the 21st Century: A View from the World′s Most Successful Firms’, Journal of Business Ethics 48, 175-87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sony: 2007, ‘CSR Report 2007’, http://www.sony.net/csr/report.

  • Spar, D. and La Mure, L.: 2003, ‘The Power of Activism: Assessing the Impact of NGOs on Global Business’, California Management Review 45, 78-110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stead, W.E., & Stead, J.G.: 1994, ‘Can Humankind Change the Economic Myth? Paradigm Shifts Necessary for Ecologically Sustainable Business’, Journal of Organizational Change Management 7 (4), 15-31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. and J. Corbin: 1991, Basics of Qualitative Research, Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (Sage Publications)

  • Suchman, M. : 1995, ‘Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches’, Academy of Management Review 20, 21-571.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R.: 2005, ‘Rhetorical Strategies of Legitimacy’, Administrative Science Quarterly 50, 35-67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suez: 2007a, ‘Introduction’, http://www.suez.com/en/developpement-durable/major-challenge/presentation-challenges (from web, 22/05/2007).

  • Suez: 2007b, ‘Sustainable Development Cornerstone of our Strategy, Delivering the Essentials of Life’, Suez website, www.suez.com, download pdf.

  • Suez: 2009, ‘GDF Suez: At the Heart of Tomorrow’s Stakes’, http://www.gdfsuez.com/en/commitments/our-vision/gdf-suez-at-the-heart-of-tomorrow-s-stakes/ (from web, 08/06/2009).

  • Swales, G.S.: 1988, ‘Another Look at the President’s Letter to Shareholders’, Financial Analysis Journal 44 (March/April), 71-73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, D.L.: 1999, ‘Towards an Integrative Theory of Business and Society: A Research Strategy for Corporate Social Performance’, Academy of Management Review 24 (3), 506-21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Telus: 2006, ‘Telus 2006 Business Review’, Telus. http://about.telus.com/investors/annualreport2006/_pdf/en/TELUS_2006_business_review.pdf.

  • The Economist: 2008, ‘Just Good Business, A Special Report on Corporate Social Responsibility’, The Economist, January 19.

  • Trullen, J. and Stevenson, W.: 2006, ‘Strategy and Legitimacy: Pharmaceutical Companies’ Reaction to the HIV Crisis’, Business and Society 45 (2), 178-210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, D.: 2005, ‘Is there a Market for Virtue? The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility’, California Management Review 47 (Summer), 19-45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S.: 2004, ‘Creating Corporate Accountability: Foundational Principles to Make Corporate Citizenship Real’, Journal of Business Ethics 50 (4), 313-27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S., Graves, B.: 1997, ‘The Corporate Social Performance - Financial Performance Link’, Strategic Management Journal 18 (4), 303-19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, J., Weber, K., and Margolis, J.: 2003, ‘Social Issues and Management: Our Lost Cause Found’, Journal of Management 29, 859-81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wartick, S., & Cochran, P.: 1985, ‘The Evolution of the Corporate Social Performance Model’, Academy of Management Review 10 (4), 758-69.

    Google Scholar 

  • WCED, (World Commission on Environment and Development): 1987, ‘Brundtland Report’, Our Common future, (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wicks, A. and Freeman, E.: 1998, ‘Organization Studies and the New Pragmatism: Positivism, Anti-Positivism, and the Search for Ethics’, Organization Science 9, 123-49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D.: 1991, ‘Social Issues in Management: Theory and Research in Corporate Social Performance’, Journal of Management Studies 17 (2), 383-406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, I.: 2003, ‘From Guilt to Solidarity. Sweatshops and Political Responsibility’, Dissent 50 (2), 670-90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, L.: 1986, ‘Production of Trust: Institutional Sources of Economic Structure’, in B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings Staw (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, (8; Greenwich, CT: JAI Press).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CBS Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility (cbsCSR), Copenhagen Business School and Institute for Social Innovation, ESADE Business School, Universitat Ramon Llull, Porcelænshaven 18A, 2000, Frederiksberg, Denmark

    Itziar Castelló

  2. Institute for Social Innovation, ESADE Business School, Universitat Ramon Llull, Avda. Pedralbes 60-62, Barcelona, 08034, Spain

    Josep M. Lozano

Authors
  1. Itziar Castelló
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Josep M. Lozano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Itziar Castelló.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Castelló, I., Lozano, J.M. Searching for New Forms of Legitimacy Through Corporate Responsibility Rhetoric. J Bus Ethics 100, 11–29 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0770-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0770-8

Key words

Search

Navigation