In this article, we outline a unique conceptual framework connecting legitimacy types (Suchman, 1995), theories of corporate responsibility (Brummer, 1991), and levels of organizational moral development based on Kohlberg's (1971) moral development stages. In addition, based on Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) categories, we found empirical support for our framework, by content analyzing Fortune 500 corporate citizenship reports from four different industries (i.e., chemicals, motor vehicle/auto parts, pharmaceutical, and utilities), at three data points (i.e., 2002, 2007, and 2012). Our analysis indicates (...) that motor vehicle/auto parts and chemicals industries are at a higher developmental level, and portray moral legitimacy along with social demandingness corporate responsibility in recent years; while the pharmaceutical and utilities sectors are at a lower developmental level, showing signs of pragmatic legitimacy, alongside classical and stakeholder corporate responsibility strategies. This article contributes to the current organizational moral development literature by developing and finding empirical support of a conceptual framework of organizational moral development, legitimacy, and corporate responsibility. In particular, our findings provide a deeper understanding of the differences in moral development levels across four focal industries over a 10‐year timespan. (shrink)

The business case for corporate social responsibility (CSR) suggests that by doing good (i.e., engaging in CSR) a firm will do well (i.e., be profitable), and this notion has permeated the linguistic sensemaking of firm actors. But how are firms that articulate business‐case justifications evaluated by various stakeholders? We hypothesize that the way firms communicate their CSR engagement (i.e., accompanied by business‐case justifications or not) differentially impacts stakeholders’ perceived integrity, benevolence and ability trustworthiness of the firm. Conducting the same online (...) experiment with two separate samples from the United States, we replicate three results; business‐case justification for CSR reduces benevolence trustworthiness among employees, increases ability trustworthiness among investors, and has no effect on perceived trustworthiness among consumers. We discuss the implications of our findings for the CSR literature and encourage future researchers to more carefully scrutinize the implications of justifying CSR with the business case. (shrink)