Advertisement

The Legitimacy Theory and the Legitimacy Gap

  • Tankiso Moloi
  • Tshilidzi Marwala
Chapter
  • 51 Downloads
Part of the Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing book series (AI&KP)

Abstract

In this chapter, we discuss the legitimacy theory and the legitimacy gap. Organizations seek to be perceived by stakeholders as legitimate. Because legitimacy is a moving target, organizations have to be pragmatic. The legitimacy gap will be formed due to the concept of time, which informs the movement of expectations. As time progresses, the environment in which organizations operate will shift, which would create a shift in expectations. This change brings a shift to legitimacy, and this shift creates a “legitimacy gap”. On the basis of this, Lindblom (1994) defines the legitimacy gap as “the difference between the expectations of the relevant stakeholders relating to how an organization should act, and how the organization does act”. Essentially, two main sources of the legitimacy gap were outlined, namely, the changes in societal expectation and information asymmetry. We outlined the role of AI in moderating the legitimacy gap, specifically if the concept of information asymmetry is deemed the main driver of the gap. In the context of harvested and stored large data sets, we suggest that intelligent agents linked (connected) to the relevant data repositories would be updated on an ongoing basis as the new data is being captured or it becomes available through unstructured sources. This data would previously have been difficult to collate. We point out that social media and other sources would make it possible to harvest this data. We think that once harvested, AI-powered models will analyse it, which will assist organizations in predicting expectations. In cases where society is too weak, perhaps authorities could deploy the same technology on behalf of societies that are unable to, in order to reduce the information gap between the organization and the society.

References

  1. Abreu R (2015) From legitimacy to accounting and auditing for citizenship. Procedia Econ Finance 23:665–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Archel P, Husillos J, Larrinaga C, Spence C (2009) Social disclosure, legitimacy theory and the role of the state. Account Audit Account J 22(8):1284–1307Google Scholar
  3. Branco MC, Rodrigues LL (2006) Communication of corporate social responsibility by Portuguese banks: a legitimacy theory perspective. Corp Commun Int J 11(3):232–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burlea ŞA, Popa I (2013) Legitimacy theory. In: Idowu SO, Capaldi N, Zu L, das Gupta A (eds) Encyclopedia of corporate social responsibility. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 1579–1584Google Scholar
  5. Cormier D, Gordon I (2001) An examination of social and environmental reporting strategies. Account Audit Account J 14(5):587–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Das RC (2016) Handbook of research on global indicators of economic and political convergence. Katwa College, IndiaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Deegan C (2002) The legitimizing effect of social and environmental disclosures—a theoretical foundation. Account Audit Account J 15(3):282–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dowling J, Pfeffer J (1975) Organizational legitimacy: social values and organizational behaviour. Pac Sociol Rev 18:122–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fiedler T, Deegan C (2002) Environmental collaborations within the building and construction industry: a consideration of the motivations to collaborate. In: Proceedings of the critical perspectives on accounting conference, New York. http://aux.zicklin.baruch.cuny.edu/critical/html2/8036deegan.html
  10. Guthrie J, Cuganeson S, Ward L (2006) Legitimacy theory: a story of reporting social and environmental matters within the Australian food and beverage industry. The University of Sydney, 5th Asian Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting (APIRA) Conference, 8–10 July 2007, Auckland, New Zealand. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1360518. Accessed 13 Aug 2018
  11. Harari YN (2018) 21 Lessons for the 21st century. Jonathan Cape, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Islam MA (2017) CSR reporting and legitimacy theory: some thoughts on future research agenda. In: Aluchna M, Idowu SO (eds) The dynamics of corporate social responsibility: a critical approach to theory and practice, pp 323–339. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2947527
  13. Lindblom C (1994) The implications of organizational legitimacy for corporate social performance and disclosure. Critical Perspectives on Accounting Conference, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  14. Mohammed SD (2018) Mandatory social and environmental disclosure: a performance evaluation of listed Nigerian oil and gas companies pre- and post-mandatory disclosure requirements. J Finance Account 6(2):56–68MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mousa GA, Hassan NT (2015) Legitimacy theory and environmental practices: short notes. Int J Bus Stat Anal 2(1):41–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nasi T, Nasi S, Phillips N, Zyglidopoulos S (1997) The evolution of corporate social responsiveness: an exploratory study of finnish and Canadian forestry companies. Bus Soc 38(3):296–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. O’Donovan G (2000) Legitimacy theory as an explanation for corporate environmental disclosures. Thesis, Victoria University of Technology, Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  18. O’Donovan G (2002) Environmental disclosures in the annual report: extending the applicability and predictive power of legitimacy theory. Account Audit Account J 15(3):344–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Porter ME, Kramer MR (2011) How to reinvent capitalism and unleash a wave of innovation and growth. The big idea, creating shared value. http://www.coherence360.com/praxis/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Michael_Porter_Creating_Shared_Value.pdf. Accessed 23 Dec 2019
  20. Seckin-Celik T (2017) Sustainability reporting and sustainability in the Turkish business context: in ethics. https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/sustainability-reporting-and-sustainability-in-the-turkish-business-context/173942. Accessed 23 Dec 2019
  21. Shocker AD, Sethi SP (1973) An approach to developing societal preferences in developing corporate action strategies. Calif Manag Rev 14(4):97–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Suchman MC (1995) Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Acad Manag Rev 20(3):571–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales (2018) Artificial intelligence and the future of accountancy. ICAEW Thought Leadership, IT Faculty, UKGoogle Scholar
  24. Zyznarska-Dworczak B (2017) Legitimacy theory in management accounting research. Problemy ZarzÈdzania 16(1):195–203Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tankiso Moloi
    • 1
  • Tshilidzi Marwala
    • 2
  1. 1.School of AccountingUniversity of JohannesburgJohannesburgSouth Africa
  2. 2.University of JohannesburgJohannesburgSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations