The DOI matches its Crossref record; 73 of the 73 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Wall Street vs. Main Street: Firm Strategies for Defending Legitimacy and Their Impact on Different Stakeholders
Abstract
We assess the effect of firm strategies to defend legitimacy on two different stakeholder groups—the public (“Main Street”) and the investment community (“Wall Street”). We identify four types of firm strategies in response to challenges to their legitimacy—denial, defiance, decoupling, and accommodation— drawing from theory and from case studies of international outsourcing. We then develop and test hypotheses on the effectiveness of these strategies in defending legitimacy across these two stakeholder groups, using data from media reports and press releases on all 126 distinct accusations of the use of international sweatshops by U.S. firms from 1990 through 2002. We find that denial and defiance responses hinder the recovery of legitimacy on Main Street, and none of the responses has a positive effect on public perception, whereas Wall Street is unaffected by denial and defiance but views decoupling favorably. Main Street and Wall Street thus perceive firm actions to defend its legitimacy quite differently, suggesting that these worlds operate by separate moralities in which Main Street appears to privilege fairness as a core value, whereas Wall Street privileges profit.
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
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2095101 · Cited by 38,435
Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/226550 · Cited by 28,308
(2001) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 27,577
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (2004) · Advances in Strategic Management · doi:10.1016/s0742-3322(00)17011-1 · Cited by 25,802
Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches
Suchman, M. C. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258788 · Cited by 19,903
Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment
Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611 · Cited by 9,953
Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes
Oliver, C. (1991) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1991.4279002 · Cited by 8,950
Capitalism and Freedom: Fortieth Anniversary Edition
Friedman, M. (2002) · University of Chicago Press eBooks · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226264189.001.0001 · Cited by 8,225
Institutions and organizations
(1995) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.33-1848 · Cited by 8,003
The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258887 · Cited by 5,846
Cited by
Suddaby, R., Bitektine, A., & Haack, P. (2017) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2015.0101 · Cited by 1,082
How Media Coverage of Corporate Social Irresponsibility Increases Financial Risk
Kölbel, J. F., Busch, T., & Jancso, L. M. (2017) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2647 · Cited by 682
Berrone, P., Fosfuri, A., & Gelabert, L. (2017) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2816-9 · Cited by 592
A Burden of Responsibility: The Role of Social Approval at the Onset of a Crisis
Bundy, J., & Pfarrer, M. D. (2015) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2013.0027 · Cited by 461
Managing for Political Corporate Social Responsibility: New Challenges and Directions for PCSR 2.0
Scherer, A. G., Rasche, A., Palazzo, G., & Spicer, A. (2016) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/joms.12203 · Cited by 441
Metadata
- Authors
- Lamin, A., & Zaheer, S.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2012-02
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 47-66
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2153070359
- Cited by
- 320
- References
- 73
- FWCI
- 30.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Wall Street vs. Main Street: Firm Strategies for Defending Legitimacy and Their Impact on Different Stakeholders. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/orsc.1100.0631
- The paper
- Lamin, A., & Zaheer, S. (2012). Wall Street vs. Main Street: Firm Strategies for Defending Legitimacy and Their Impact on Different Stakeholders. Organization Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0631
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.