Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Legitimacy of CSR Actions of Publicly Traded Companies Versus Family-Owned Companies

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

Abstract

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is one of the ways through which companies gain legitimacy. However, CSR actions themselves are subject to public skepticism because of increased public awareness of greenwashing and scandalous corporate behavior. Legitimacy of CSR actions is indeed influenced by the actions of the company but also is rooted in the basic cultural values of a society and in the ideologies of evaluators. This study examines the legitimacy of CSR actions of publicly traded forest products companies as compared to family-owned forest products companies. Results indicate a lower legitimacy for CSR actions of publicly traded companies than for family-owned companies. The study also examines the effect of social responsibility orientation (SRO) of evaluators on the legitimacy accorded to companies' CSR actions. We found that SRO was negatively associated with legitimacy, especially for women. Perceived profitability of companies was negatively associated with legitimacy of CSR actions for publicly traded but not for family-owned companies.

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

Notes

  1. Viewable at the website http://geert-hofstede.com/research.html.

  2. Viewable at the website http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org.

References

  • Adams, J. E., Highhouse, S., & Zickar, M. J. (2010). Understanding general distrust of corporations. Corporate Reputation Review, 13(1), 38–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adamy, J., & Thurwo, R. 2007. Ethiopia battles starbucks over rights to coffee names, The Wall Street Journal (March 5), A1, A15.

  • Aghion, P., Algan, Y., Cahuc, P., & Shleifer, A. (2010). Regulation and distrust. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(3), 1015–1049.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about CSR: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932–968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, H., & Fiol, C. M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 645–670.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amato, C. H., & Amato, L. H. (2011). Corporate commitment to global quality of life issues: Do slack resources, industry affiliation, and multinational headquarters matter? Business and Society, 50(2), 388–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anglund, S. M. (1998). How American core values influence public policy: Lessons from federal aid to small business, 1953–1993. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 11(1), 23–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating non-response bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arregle, J. L., Hitt, M. A., Sirmon, D. G., & Very, P. (2007). The development of organization social capital: Attributes of family firms. Journal of Management Studies, 44(1), 73–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science, 1(2), 177–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P., & Clelland, I. (2004). Talking trash: Legitimacy, impression management, and unsystematic risk in the context of the natural environment. The Academy of Management Journal, 47(1), 93–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basu, K., & Palazzo, G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: A process model of sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 122–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker-Olson, K. L., Cudmore, B. A., & Hill, R. P. (2006). The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59(1), 46–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beder, S. (1997). Global spin: The corporate assault on environmentalism. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P., & Luckman, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. New York, NY: Doubleday.

  • Berrone, P., Cruz, C., Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Larraza-Kintana, M. (2010). Socioemotional wealth and corporate responses to institutional pressures: Do family-controlled firms pollute less?. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 82–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2004). Doing better at doing good: When, why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 47(1), 9–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bitketine, A. (2011). Toward a theory of social judgments of organizations: The case of legitimacy, reputation, and status. Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 151–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobo, L. (1991). Social responsibility, individualism, and redistributive policies. Sociological Forum, 6(1), 71–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinkerhoff, D. W. 2005. Organisational legitimacy, capacity and capacity development (Discussion Papers, 58A). Maastricht: European Centre for Development Policy Management.

  • Bromley, D. B. (2001). Relationships between personal and corporate reputations. European Journal of Marketing, 35, 316–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A. D. Cramer. 2001, Quantitative data analysis. A guide for social scientists. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor and Francis.

  • Bubolz, M. M. (2001). Family as source, user, and builder of social capital. Journal of Socio-Economics, 30(2), 129–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchholtz, A. K., Amason, A. C., & Rutherford, M. A. (1999). Beyond resources: The mediating effect of top management discretion and values on corporate philanthropy. Business & Society, 38(2), 167–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, B. K., & Hegarty, W. H. (1999). Some determinants of students: Corporate social responsibility orientation. Business & Society, 38(2), 188–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, M. C., & Kirmani, A. (2000). Consumer’s use of persuasion knowledge: The effects of accessibility and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influence agent. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(1), 69–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castello, I., & Lozano, J. M. (2011). Searching for new forms of legitimacy through corporate responsibility rhetoric. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(1), 11–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin, M. K., Hambrick, D. C., & Trevino, L. K. (2013). Political ideologies of CEOs: The influence of executives’ values on corporate social responsibility. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(2), 197–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, S., & Sharfman, M. (2011). Legitimacy, visibility, and the antecedents of corporate social performance: An investigation of the instrumental perspective. Journal of Management, 37(6), 1558–1585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clement, C. W. (2006). Just how unethical is American business. Business Horizons, 49(4), 313–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conley, J. M., & Williams, C. A. (2005). Engage, embed, and embellish: Theory versus practice in the corporate social responsibility movement. Journal of Corporate Law, 31(1), 13–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conover, P. J., & Feldman, S. (1981). The origins and meaning of liberal/conservative self-identifications. American Journal of Political Science, 25(4), 617–645.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Blasio, G. G. (2007). Coffee as a medium for ethical social, and political messages: Organizational legitimacy and communication. Journal of Business Ethics, 72(1), 47–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deephouse, D. L., & Jaskiewicz, P. (2013). Do family firms have better reputations than non-family firms? An integration of socioemotional wealth and social identity theories. Journal of Management Studies, 50(3), 337–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B. B., Sinkovics, R. R., & Bohlen, G. M. (2003). Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 56(6), 465–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doh, J. P., Howton, S. D., Howton, S. W., & Siegel, D. S. (2010). Does the market respond to an endorsement of social responsibility? The role of institutions, information, and legitimacy. Journal of Management, 36(6), 1461–1485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of corporation: Concepts evidence and implication. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowling, J. B., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. Pacific Sociological Review, 18(1), 122–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2007). Reaping relational rewards from corporate social responsibility: The role of competitive positioning. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24(3), 224–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 8–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and competitive advantage: Overcoming the trust barrier. Management Science, 57(9), 1528–1545.

    Google Scholar 

  • Du, S., & Vieira, E. T., Jr. (2012). Striving for legitimacy through corporate social responsibility: Insights from oil companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(4), 413–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellen, P. S., Mohr, L. A., & Webb, D. J. (2000). Charitable programs and the retailer: Do they mix? Journal of Retailing, 76(3), 393–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, S., & Steenbergen, M. R. (2001). The humanitarian foundation of public support for social welfare. American Journal of Political Science, 45(3), 658–677.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, H., Lueger, M., Nosé, L., & Suchy, D. (2010). The concept of “Familiness”: Literature review and system theory-based reflections. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1(3), 119–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. 1970 (September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits, New York Times Magazine, p. 32–33.

  • Gibson, J. L. (2004). Overcoming apartheid: Can truth reconcile a divided nation. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gollant, B. D., & Sillince, J. A. A. (2007). The constitution of organizational legitimacy: A narrative perspective. Organization Studies, 28(8), 1149–1167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greening, D. W., & Turban, D. B. (2000). Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business & Society, 39(3), 254–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 27–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handy, C. (2002). What’s a business for? Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 49–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, M. T., & Carroll, G. R. (1992). Dynamics of organizational populations: Density, legitimation and competition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, R. P., Ainscough, T., Shank, T., & Manullang, D. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and socially responsible investing: A global perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 70(2), 165–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, H., & Kostovetsky, L. (2011). Red and blue investing: Political values and finance. Journal of Financial Economics, 103(1), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutton, I., Jiang, D., & Kumar, A. (2011). Do Republican Managers Adopt Conservative Corporate Policies? Paper presented at the annual conference, The American Finance Association.

  • Hybels, R. C. (1995). On legitimacy, legitimation and organizations: A critical review and integrative theoretical model. Best Paper Proceedings of the Academy of Management, pp. 241–245.

  • Johnson, J., & Holub, M. J. (2003). Questioning organizational legitimacy: The case of U.S. expatriates. Journal of Business Ethics, 47(3), 269–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T. (2006). The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61(7), 651–670.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, I., & Hass, G. R. (1988). Racial ambivalence and American value conflict: Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(6), 893–905.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kluegel, J. R., & Smith, E. R. (1986). Beliefs about inequality: Americans’ views of what is and what ought to be. New York, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kostova, T., & 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 

  • KPMG. (2011). KPMG international survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2011. http://www.kpmg.com/PT/pt/IssuesAndInsights/Documents/corporate-responsibility2011.pdf. Accessed October 25th, 2012.

  • Lipset, S. M., & W. Schneider, W. (1978). The Bakke case: How would it be decided at the bar of public opinion? Public Opinion (March/April), pp. 38–48.

  • Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and marketing: An integrative framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(1), 3–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 166–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D., Crane, A., & Chapple, W. (2003). Behind the mask: Revealing the true face of corporate citizenship. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(1/2), 109–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, H., & Zaller, J. (1984). The American ethos. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A., & Schneeweis, T. (1988). Corporate social responsibility and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 854–872.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J., & Scott, R. (1983). Centralization and the legitimacy problems of local government. In J. Meyer & R. Scott (Eds.), Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality (pp. 199–215). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., Le Breton-Miller, I., & Scholnick, B. (2008). Stewardship vs. stagnation: An empirical comparison of small family and non-family business. Journal of Management Studies, 45(1), 51–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millon, D. (2011). Two models of corporate social responsibility. Wake Forest Law Review, 46, 523–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minkov, M. (2012). World values survey. In Encyclopedia of Globalization. Wiley-Blackwell, New York.

  • Mohr, L. A., Webb, D. J., & Harris, K. E. (2001). Do consumers expect companies to be socially responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(1), 45–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murtha, T., & S. Lenway. (1994). Country capabilities and the strategic state: How national political institutions affect multinational corporations’ strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 15(issue supplement S2), 113–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nasi, J., Nasi, S., & Zyglidopoulos, S. (1997). The evolution of corporate social responsiveness: An exploratory study of finnish and canadian forestry companies. Business and Society, 36(3), 296–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neville, B. A., & Higgins C. (2009). Knowing left from right: The dynamic, ideological embeddedness of the contest for CSR, paper presented at the European Group for Organization Studies Conference, Barcelona, Spain, July 2–4.

  • Newton, T., & George, H. (1997). Green business: Technicist Kitsch? Journal of Management Studies, 34(1), 75–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nidumolu, R., Pralahad, C. K., & Ramaswami, M. R. (2009). Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation. Harvard Business Review, 87(9), 57–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • North, D. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M., & Benjamin, J. D. (2001). Corporate social performance and firm risk: A meta-analytic review. Business & Society, 40, 369–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orth, U. R., & Green, M. T. (2009). Consumer loyalty to family vs. non-family business: The roles of store image, trust and satisfaction. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 16(4), 248–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G. (2006). Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 71–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panwar, R., & Hansen, E. (2009). A process for identifying social and environmental issues: A case of the U.S. forest products manufacturing industry. Journal of Public Affairs, 9(4), 323–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panwar, R., Hansen, E., & Kozak, R. (2012). Evaluating social and environmental issues by integrating the legitimacy gap with expectational gaps: An empirical assessment of the forest industry. Business and Society. http://bas.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/03/26/0007650312438884.full.pdf+html. Accessed on June 26, 2012.

  • Parsons, T. (1960). Structure and process in modern societies. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peloza, J., & Shang, J. (2011). How can corporate social responsibility activities create value for stakeholders? A systematic view. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 117–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, R. A., Albaum, G., & Kozmetsky, G. (1986). The public’s definition of small business. Journal of Small Business Management, 24(3), 63–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, T. G., & Rindova, V. P. (2003). Media legitimation effect effects in the market for initial public offerings. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 631–642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W., & DiMaggio, P. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qauzi, A. M. (2003). Identifying the determinants of corporate managers’ perceived social obligations. Management Decision, 41(9), 822–831.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramus, C. A., & Montiel, I. (2005). When are corporate environmental policies a form of greenwashing? Business and Society, 44(4), 377–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, R. W. (1992). Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: An application of stakeholder theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(6), 595–612.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roper, J. (2005). Symmetrical communication: Excellent public relations or a strategy for hegemony? Journal of Public Relations Research, 16(1), 69–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saha, M., & Darnton, G. (2005). Green companies or green companies: Are companies really green, or are they pretending to be? Business and Society Review, 110(2), 117–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salant, P., & Dillman, D. A. (1994). How to conduct your own survey. New York, NY: Wiley.

  • Scott, W. R. (1994). Institutional analysis: Variance and process theory approaches. In W. R. Scott, J. W. Meyer & Associates (Eds.), Institutional environments and organizations: Structural complexity and individualism (pp. 81–99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

  • Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Korschun, D. (2006). The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 158–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sethi, S. P. (1975). Dimensions of corporate social performance: An analytical framework. California Management Review, 17(3), 58–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sethi, S. P. (1979). A conceptual framework for environmental analysis of social issues and evaluation of business response patterns. Academy of Management Review, 4(1), 63–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sethi, S. P. (2002). Standards for corporate conduct in the international arena: Challenges and opportunities for multinational corporations. Business and Society Review, 107(1), 20–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sims, R. R., & Brinkmann, J. (2003). Enron ethics (Or: culture matters more than codes). Journal of Business Ethics, 45(3), 243–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A., & Rogers, V. (2000). Ethics related responses to specific situation vignettes: Evidence of gender-based differences and occupational socialization. Journal of Business Ethics, 28(1), 73–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonpar, K., Pazzaglia, F., & Kornijenko, J. (2010). The paradox and constraints of legitimacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(1), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Speed, R., & Thompson, P. (2000). Determinants of sports sponsorship response. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 226–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Streek, W., & P. Schmitter. (1985). Community, market, state and associations? The Prospective Contribution of Interest Governance to Social Order, pp. 1–29. In W. Streek & P. Schmitter (Eds.), Private interest government: Beyond market and state. Sage: Beverly Hills, CA.

  • Suchman, M. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. (2005). Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1), 35–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tetlock, P. E. (2000). Cognitive biases and organizational correctives: Do both disease and cure depend on the politics of the beholder? Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(2), 293–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, T. E., & Lamm, E. (2012). Legitimacy and organizational sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(2), 191–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tokarczyk, J., Hansen, E., Green, M., & Down, J. (2007). A resource-based view and market orientation theory examination of the role of “familiness” in family business success. Family Business Review, 20(1), 17–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tost, L. P. (2011). An interactive model of legitimacy judgments. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 686–710.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ullmann, A. A. (1985). Data in search of a theory: A critical examination of the relationships among social performance, social disclosure, and economic performance of U.S. firms. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 540–557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unnever, J. D., Benson, M. L., & Cullen, F. T. (2008). Public support for getting tough on corporate crime: Racial and political divides. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 45(2), 163–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Liere, K. D., & Dunlap, R. E. (1980). The social bases of environmental concern: A review of hypotheses, explanations and empirical evidence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44(2), 181–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance–financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, T., Lutz, R. J., & Weitz, B. A. (2009). Corporate hypocrisy: Overcoming the threat of inconsistent corporate social responsibility perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 77–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters, K. D. (1977). Corporate social responsibility and political ideology. California Management Review, 19(3), 40–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1922, 1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

  • Williams, R. M., Jr. (1979). Change and stability in values and value systems: A sociological perspective. In M. Rokeach (Ed.), Understanding human values: Individual and societal (pp. 15–46). New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolfson, C., & Beck, M. (2005). Corporate social responsibility failures in the oil industry. New York: Baywood Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, Y., Gurhan-Canli, Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006). The effect of corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities on companies with bad reputations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), 377–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zellweger, T. M., Nason, R. S., Nordqvist, M., & Brush, C. G. (2013). Why do family firms strive for nonfinancial goals? An organizational identity perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(2), 229–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, M. A., & Zeitz, G. J. (2002). Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 27(3), 414–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, L. (1983). Organizations as institutions. In S. Bacharach (Ed.), Research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 2, pp. 1–47). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, Northland College, 1411, Ellis Avenue, Ashland, WI, 54806, USA

    Rajat Panwar

  2. Department of Management & International Business, College of Business Administration, Florida International University, 11200 S.W. 8th St, RB 310, Miami, FL, 33199, USA

    Karen Paul

  3. Forest Technology and Economics, Norwegian Forest and Landscape Institute, Postbox 115, 1431, Ås, Norway

    Erlend Nybakk

  4. Forest Products Marketing, College of Forestry, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 97330, USA

    Eric Hansen

  5. College of Forestry, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 97330, USA

    Derek Thompson

Authors
  1. Rajat Panwar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karen Paul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Erlend Nybakk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eric Hansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Derek Thompson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rajat Panwar.

Appendix: Sample Survey Questionnaire and Format

Appendix: Sample Survey Questionnaire and Format

Perceived Profitability

IN YOUR OPINION what has been the degree of the US forest products industry’s general profitability (1 = very low profitability to 5 = very high profitability) in recent years. Please respond separately for corporations (publicly traded company) and family-owned companies.

Perceptions Concerning CSR Actions

Indicate the level at which forest sector industry is currently performing (1 = very low level to 5 = very high). Please provide YOUR OPINION separately for corporations (publicly traded companies) and family-owned companies.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Panwar, R., Paul, K., Nybakk, E. et al. The Legitimacy of CSR Actions of Publicly Traded Companies Versus Family-Owned Companies. J Bus Ethics 125, 481–496 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1933-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1933-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation