This article investigates the link between corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices and the reasons for which legitimacy is ascribed or denied. It fills a gap in the literature on CSR and legitimacy that lacks empirical studies regarding the question whether CSR contributes to organisational legitimacy. The problem is discussed by referring to the case of De Beers's diamond mining partnership with the Government of Namibia. A total of 42 interviews were conducted-41 with stakeholders and one with the focal organisation Namdeb. The 41 stakeholder interviews are analysed with regard to cognitive, pragmatic and moral legitimacy as defined by Suchman (Acad Manage Rev 20(3):571-610, 1995). The main finding is that the majority of statements on organisational legitimacy refer to moral legitimacy and most issues raised in this context challenge the company's legitimacy despite its comprehensive CSR engagement. The study demonstrates that legitimacy gaps can be a result of communication practices that raise unrealistic stakeholder expectations and that the legitimacy gained by CSR engagement in one area cannot substitute legitimacy losses caused by failures in another.

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose This paper aims to analyze concealment and deception in self-defeating organizational crisis response strategies and the possible consequences of their adoption on a company’s reputation. It represents an example of where every guideline to address stakeholders after a crisis was dismissed. Design/methodology/approach This paper investigates a major environmental incident that took place in Colombia in 2013 and studies how the responsible company responded to the incident through the examination of company reports, media statements and national and international newspaper articles. Findings The analysis shows that in addition to environmental damage, the company’s reputation was affected by the way the company responded during this crisis. Research limitations/implications The outcomes highlight the importance of the manner in which a crisis response is managed, as these types of mistakes often aggravate reputational damage. Practical implications This paper is an invitation for companies to be quick, consistent and transparent with their responses when facing their stakeholders in moments of crisis. Not doing so may aggravate not only social but also economic and environmental impacts. Originality/value Contrary to other contributions on the subject, this study implies that a misleading crisis response, including concealment and deception, can be an even greater challenge to a company’s reputation than the crisis itself.

Drawing on the legitimacy theory framework, this study introduces an alternative means to spot “fuzzy reporting” signals as a way to detect greenwashing at the firm level. Its approach is based on the way the sustainability reporting process can mislead stakeholders after critical incidents take place. In order to do so, a single environmental incident, which took place in Colombia, is analyzed in light of what happened before, during and afterwards, with special emphasis on the corporate disclosure process performed by the company involved. Results obtained give support to the assumption that fuzzy reporting can be objectively detected not only through the analysis of annual sustainability reports, but also by tracking other forms of corporate messages when a specific concern is carefully followed. This study’s contribution is two-fold. First, it builds on the theoretical notions of greenwashing and fuzzy reporting by illustrating a practical and objective way to identify some deceiving corporate practices. Second, it empirically evaluates this approach in a sensitive context in order to obtain better illustration and prepare the groundwork for further studies.