The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Social disclosure, legitimacy theory and the role of the state
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: The principal objective of this paper is to expand the scope of legitimacy theory (LT) through a detailed analysis of the links that exist between the legitimising strategies of firms and the characteristics of the political environment in which they are developed. Designs/methodology/approach: A discourse analysis was performed on the social and environmental disclosure (SED) of a multinational in the automotive sector with an established presence in Spain, in the context of the relational dynamics between the firm/society/state. Different channels of information were compared to capture both the official discourse as represented in the annual reports of the multinational and the discourse of employees and the State as represented in the media. Findings: The results of the research show that the firm under study used SED strategically to legitimise a new production process through the manipulation of social perceptions, and that this strategy was supported implicitly and explicitly through ideological alignment with the State. Research limitations/implications: Despite a widely‐held assumption of a pluralist political context, the State is presented here as aligning itself with corporate management as opposed to the welfare concerns of employees. Thus, future research calling for regulation of SED should preface such calls with consideration of the orientation of the State. Originality/value: In contrast with the dominant approach to LT that considers the relationship of the firm with its stakeholders, the present study widens the scope of LT to consider the interplay between firm legitimating strategies and state support for such strategies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches
Suchman, M. C. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258788 · Cited by 19,903
Fee, D., & Fairclough, N. (1993) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2074659 · Cited by 11,611
The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy: A research note
Cho, C. H., & Patten, D. M. (2007) · Accounting, Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/j.aos.2006.09.009 · Cited by 2,069
Cited by
Organized hypocrisy, organizational façades, and sustainability reporting
Cho, C. H., Laine, M., Roberts, R. W., & Rodrigue, M. (2015) · Accounting, Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/j.aos.2014.12.003 · Cited by 1,066
Sustainability accounting and reporting: fad or trend?
Burritt, R. L., & Schaltegger, S. (2010) · Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal · doi:10.1108/09513571011080144 · Cited by 773
Deegan, C. M. (2019) · Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal · doi:10.1108/aaaj-08-2018-3638 · Cited by 328
ESG and Industry 5.0: The role of technologies in enhancing ESG disclosure
Asif, M., Searcy, C., & Castka, P. (2023) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122806 · Cited by 325
Pellegrino, C., & Lodhia, S. (2012) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.02.022 · Cited by 207
Metadata
- Authors
- Archel, P., Husillos, J., Larrinaga, C., & Spence, C.
- Venue
- Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2009-10-23
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1284-1307
- ISSN
- 0951-3574 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2115363218
- Cited by
- 338
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 21.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Social disclosure, legitimacy theory and the role of the state. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/09513570910999319
- The paper
- Archel, P., Husillos, J., Larrinaga, C., & Spence, C. (2009). Social disclosure, legitimacy theory and the role of the state. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570910999319
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.