Corporate Social Responsibility: The Ethics of Legitimacy

Abstract

Organizations are consistently optimizing their opportunities to advance their goals, advantages, and relevance in the global market landscape; among the options utilized in the advancement of such strategic intent are the tool of corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a strategy in social-economic engagement. Notwithstanding the universal applicability of CSR and its benefits to organizations, its engagement still raises subtle curiosity as to the ethics of gaining legitimacy from stakeholders. Hence, this chapter seeks to qualitatively (narrative literature review methodology) explore the dynamics of ethics in legitimacy quest through CSR and makes postulation on the prospect of CSR in sustaining business engagement. The study postulates that the prospect of CSR in its ethical navigation to legitimacy is one in which the government will eventually exercise some level of control and regulations; this is because the organizational quest for legitimacy will no longer be linked to the exclusive consolidation of their economic interest, but may intermediate with other mediating agendas that are of interest to the government and national sovereignty. Hence, an evolving conceptualization of CSR engagements, as organizations begins to explore the avalanche of opportunities they can influence as non-primary actors in sectors that are beyond their economic interest.

1. Introduction

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a critical tool for stakeholder integration and connotes organizational engagements that span beyond operational and legal necessity to express environmental and social concerns [1, 2]. Its nature is enshrined in the quest to portray an organization as a viable partner for societal progress and impresses the organization as a strategic player with a long-term interest in the business and social landscape. The objective of CSR is triggered as a strategic intent of the managerial cadre that fosters their interest of strategic relevance in the host or operating society; hence, relatively influences the perception of the active and passive players in their stakeholders’ environment.

Organizations are factually profit-oriented enterprises; irrespective of this vested economic quest, CSR is deployed as a pro-social goal engagement that aligns a balance between organizations’ economic, legal, environmental, and social objectives. The essence of CSR is captured in its topical discourse as a global organizational practice that has gained significance in academia and industry. This is evident in its correlation to the development, advancement, and sustainability of organizational immediate and strategic interests which gains them acceptance amongst stakeholders [3, 4].

Heath and Palenchar [5] note that the quest for CSR as a renowned organizational construct was initiated when stakeholders questioned organizations’ legitimacy. Hence, stakeholders questioned the sustainability of organizations’ practices and their influence on labour, society, and the environment; they likewise pressured stricter legislative policy and control. In response to these pressures, the engagement of CSR was initiated by organizations to deflect the pressure from aggrieved stakeholders, and also as a recurrent proactive practice to deter future pressures [5, 6]; hence, CSR as a passive and active strategy relatively gained organizations some legitimacy.

In topical times, CSR is progressively been enshrined in organizational strategy; regardless of its generalized impression on an organization’s connectedness to its society, Michael Jensen and Milton Friedman amongst others have questioned CSR motive [7]. The unresolved curiosity is anchored on the rationale for the utilization of CSR [8, 9], and the price to which organizations are willing to offer in attaining legitimacy from their host or operating society. How ethical is this price for legitimacy and the impression organization is aiming to achieve? Organizations are consistently optimizing their opportunities to advance their goals, advantages, and relevance in the global market landscape; amongst the options utilized in the advancement of such strategic intent is the tool of CSR as a passive or active strategy in social engagement. Notwithstanding the universal applicability of CSR and its explicit benefits to organizations, its engagement still raises subtle curiosity as to the ethics of gaining legitimacy from organizational stakeholders.

This paper aims to explore the dynamics of the ethics in legitimacy quest through CSR and makes postulation on the prospect of CSR in sustaining business engagement. The study contribution is anchored on making a narrative exposition on the dynamics of ethics in legitimacy by organizations’ CSR engagement, exploring the study objective in the context of the dynamic capability theory, and postulating the prospects of CSR in its ethical navigation to legitimacy.

The articulation of the study objective will be ideologically discussed with the following headings; progression of CSR, legitimacy for organizations, CSR critic analogy, CSR and legitimacy, implication of legitimacy gap, “loss/abandonment phase” of legitimation, dynamic capability theory perspective on CSR, empirical review, conclusion and prospect. The study utilized a narrative literature review methodology; it offers more potential opportunities and insight for systematic comprehension and speculation than other quantitative review approaches and enables a theoretical structure and context for a study.

2. Progression of CSR

Howard Bowen in 1953 made a proposition titled “Social Responsibilities of the Businessman,” which became an explicit initiation into the articulation of social responsibility [10]. Articles on CSR in the 1950’s mostly focused on conceptualizing the manager’s function as a trustee for the society, balancing resource allocation amongst rivalries, and organizational philanthropy [11]. Irrespective of these concepts, scholars also argued that organizations’ engagement should be narrowed to the exclusive optimization of shareholders’ interest, hence being strategically prudent in allocating, utilizing, and optimizing resources [12].

The 1960s experienced an increased recognition of CSR relevance; this was evident via industrial, civil, and academic interest that questioned organizational practices in line with equality, legality, sustainability, and social norms. The focus on CSR interest in this era was streamlined to the social responsibilities of an organization. The interrelation between organization and society especially as it concerns resources (land, capital, manpower, etc.) is inseparable; hence, organizations relatively owe society certain responsibility that goes beyond organizations’ economic interest [13, 14]. Organizations should be socially responsive to the interest of their host society, and the influencing consequence of their operations in society.

In responding to societal interest and influence, organizations need to conceptualize the theme of CSR and the rationale, techniques, and benefits inherent in its engagement; hence, this became the focus of CSR in the 1970s. A relative shift was also conceptualized from CSR to CSP (Corporate Social Performance); hence the 1970s explores themes on organizational social responsibility, responsiveness, and performance in considering the social environment [15, 16, 17, 18], and recalibrating organizational effort to align to beneficial social expectations and obligations.

The 1980s experienced the articulation of CSR structures, techniques, and models streamlined for assessing operational CSR perspectives for decision making [19, 20, 21].

The global appeal to comprehending CSR and ensuring sustainable development of its engagement was established in the 1990s’ [22, 23]. As organizations cross national boundaries for their economic interest, globalization of CSR engagement and standardization or relative flexibility in its engagement becomes relevant in addressing the unique social dynamic of their social environment irrespective of the potency of the policy directive and regulatory framework of the host society.

The 2000s’ witnessed the exploration of strategic insight into comprehending the influence of CSR on the various dimensions of the organization’s environment. Hence diverse studies explored the influencing roles of CSR on organizations’ internal and external variables and mediating factors [23, 24].

3. Legitimacy for organizations

Organization legitimacy connotes congruence’s between an organization’s policy and operational value system and the host or operational society value system [25, 26, 27]. Legitimacy is established on the value proposition and establishment of a society in which organizations operate, hence, any actual or perceived discrepancy between the value system of an organization and the society it operates in, results in a proportionate or escalated threat to organizational legitimacy. Hence organizational legitimacy establishes the practical assumption that the activities of an organization are suitably aligned to its operating or host society’s value orientations and establishments. Legitimacy is anchored on the collective societal value system and not individual value orientation.

The quest for legitimacy is propelled by the perception of it being a strategic resource that enables the smooth operation of organizational activities and productive engagement with stakeholders. Legitimacy as an indispensable resource can be optimized with regard to the quality, relevance, capacity, and sensitivity of its engagement; nonetheless, the prerogative for confirming organizational legitimacy is bestowed by society. This denotes that regardless of the strategies deployed by an organization in influencing their perception, the actual confirmation of legitimacy is enshrined in the host or operating society’s perception and interpretation of organizations’ activities and interests. Hence, organizations are deliberate in effecting strategic consultation and collaboration on areas of mutual benefits and visibility to promote the chances of being accepted by the host society.

Organizations’ legitimacy may be confirmed by the host or operation society even though its operations and CSR activities are incongruent with the societal value system; this occurs when the society fails to accurately perceive and interpret the organizations’ activities [26]. The confirmation of acceptance is a recurrent process, howbeit a mostly informal activity; hence, the quest for organizational legitimacy is mostly activated and sustained through a continuously deliberate organizational engagement with its stakeholders, and majorly on the consent of the stakeholders in the host or operating society.

Having established the re-current protocol for sustaining a confirmed legitimacy, organizations’ management is questionably creative in engaging juxtaposed strategies that question the ethics of legitimacy [27, 28]. This is reinforced by the intangible nature of legitimacy; hence management may explore relative manipulative or impactful strategies to create a CSR organizational profile to further its explicit interest.

Deegan [27] posits that the host or operating society’s disapproval or withdrawal of legitimacy for an organizations’ operation is subtly evident in the boycotting of the organizational value propositions (i.e. products), withdrawal of access to some factors of production (i.e. land, labour, etc.), lobbying for more stringent government tax and regulation, etc.

4. CSR critic analogy

Organizations from the purview of the institutional economic theory are constitutionally legal entities, hence not actual personalities; therefore as artificial personalities, they possess artificial responsibilities which are streamlined to the economic interest of their shareholders [7]. This questions the activities of organizations in engaging in CSR which is not purely an economic activity that directly optimizes shareholders’ economic benefits in the organization; better put it begs the question of the rationale for engaging a legal construct (i.e., organization) to execute social responsibilities not captured in the contract that establishes its legality [2].

Friedman [2] in addressing the acclaimed influence of CSR on the host or operating society questioned the competence of organizations’ management in choosing which societal issues to advocate and the techniques of promoting such advocacy. This further questions the ethics of appropriating organizations’ economic resources belonging to the principals/shareholders/owners (via lowering profits), employees (via reduced wages), and customers (via increased prices) for advancing societal issues. Nonetheless, the practitioners of CSR do not articulate it as a cost but as the activation and deployment of valuable competence and resources that enhance and sustain the performance of an organizations’ posterity in the environment they function [8].

Friedman’s [2] postulations are anchored on the differentiation between the role of an agent (organization management) and the principal (owner); hence, the role of the agent is the optimization of the principals’ explicit interest in a manner that observes legal and ethical protocol; except explicitly stated by the principal, CSR should not be engaged with exception to the point where its engagement is directly correlated to the optimization of the principals’ objectives. Alternatively, Jensen [29] contends that ultimately organizations’ long-term social responsibility is the optimization of organizational value; hence, stakeholders’ interests are considered to the extent they align to the maximization of organizations’ core shareholders’ objectives (i.e. profitability). Conclusively, Friedman and Jenson are projecting that in situations where there is no explicit inclusion of CSR to the organizations’ objectives by the shareholders, managements’ engagement in CSR activities is only necessary and legitimized to the extent that such engagement is anchored on optimizing shareholders’ interest. Ultimately, the contention for the validity of engaging in CSR activities is established on answering the extent to which such activities positively enhance an organization’s goal attainment and viable posterity; empirically, studies on this correlation have resulted in contradictory findings [21, 30, 31, 32, 33].

4.1 CSR and legitimacy

The advancement of organizations in the achievement of their core objectives eventually gives them visibility beyond their economic scope; they eventually gain political and social visibility as they optimize their value proposition, gain market share, and become significant in their industry. The above gives them relatively high bargaining and lobbying pressures to address social and political issues by leveraging on their advanced economic advantage. The quest for organizations to be socially and politically relevant is rationalized by the need to consolidate their economic advantage, and the need to relatively predict and control their environment especially as it concerns their goals. Social, environmental, and political visibility does not necessarily result in economic power but is capable of influencing economic issues [7].

This visibility by organizations are relatively checked and regulated by policy enacted by the government, but this process in most cases is limited by bureaucratic protocols, hence another viable and much organic check on the gained visibility of organizations is their host and operating society, and in today’s business world, the global society.

The regulation of the continuous visibility of organization by government policy is relatively effective, and in most cases without a valid political will by the elected, the lobbying pressure of these organizations dilutes the enactment of potent policies and laws that accurately checks the excesses of organizational visibility. In the situation where these policies and laws are highly potent, an effective implementation may become an issue; hence, organizations yield unregulated influence that defines the political, social, environmental, and economic scope of the society they operate and define the engagement of these variables according to the organizations’ interest. This is made worst when the organizations that have gained these visibilities are foreign organizations, whose interests will be defined by their home society. The question then is to what extent is an organization ethically and socially responsible in a host society without explicit or weak policy and regulation. Arguably, host or operating societies without explicit or weak policy and regulation may not effectively determine nor confirm the legitimacy of such organizations in their environment. Hence, such societies are mostly in the survival mode of nation-building.

Alternatively, the organic structure of a society is capable of being much more potent in handling and addressing social, environmental, and economic issues than the apparatus set up by the government. This is mostly seen in societies where resources (i.e. natural) are obtained in crude forms. This is triggered mostly because the host or operating society is directly affected by the neglect of such organizations to be socially and environmentally responsible for the consequences of their economic engagement in such society. Hence such host society actively and consciously articulates the defaults of such organization and the possible remedies that could re-align the organization to gain legitimacy. Where such organizations fail to negotiate and reach a consensus as to the valid remedies that addressed their neglect, such host society may reinforce their disapproval via boycotting of the organizational value propositions (i.e. products), withdrawal of access to some factors of production (i.e. land, labour, etc.), lobbying for more stringent government tax and regulation, address press conferences, etc. [27].

Organizations that are intentional about their gaining legitimacy are strategically deliberate about their collaboration and involvement with stakeholders, and Gray et al. [30] observe that such organizations may deplore the following strategies in advancing, sustaining or repairing the acceptance of their legitimacy by the host society, and they include; full disclosure on changes in organizations engagement and performance (i.e. effective in addressing legitimacy gap that arose from performance failure in the organization), influence organizations’ perception by the society without altering organizations engagement and performance (i.e. effective in addressing legitimacy gap that arose from societal misconception of organizational engagement), deflect society’s focus on conflicting issues via the promotion of related positive activities (i.e. effective in addressing legitimacy gap that arose from manipulations), and influence via educating the society on having a realistic expectation about the organizational performance (i.e. effective in addressing legitimacy gap that arose from unrealistic societal expectation from the organization).

4.2 Implication of legitimacy gap

Studies have revealed that a legitimacy gap connotes a misalignment between the societal expectation of organizations’ engagement and the actual organizations’ engagement. Hence, the operation of an organization in its host community is non-compliant with the presiding societal value establishment [25, 27, 34, 35, 36]. The misalignment that generates the legitimacy gap is mainly categorized into two.

First, societal values evolve, and this evolution is mainly enshrined in having a value system that is relevant and sustainable in addressing topical issues, and also establishing values that close explicit or implied loopholes. Consequently, when the value systems of societies evolve, organizations’ engagement should reflect those realities in their engagement; hence, when organizations are not streamlining their engagements to reflect the current societal value system, and insist on observing the old societal value system, a legitimacy gap arises. The implication of an evolved value system denotes that society evaluates and calibrates organizational engagements by different parameters that reflect the priority of such society and the roles those organization engagements play in influencing such priorities, hence organizations face a considerate legitimacy gap when there is a misalignment between societal value system expectation and actual organizational value system. Organizational responsiveness to evolved societal value systems should also be time-sensitive; when organizations’ response is slower to the dynamics of the evolving society value system, there arises a gap in legitimacy. The legitimacy gap also occurs when an organization does nothing in complying with society’s value system. Organizations also experience a legitimacy gap when they fail to fully disclose their engagement activities and their synchronization with the present societal value systems; hence, the host society operates with the notion that there is no compliance because such disclosure was not effected by the organization. Organizations should disclose relevant stakeholders’ information to promote the principle of cooperation and collaboration, hence, getting society informed of its alignment to their value system and ultimately closing the legitimacy gaps.

Secondly, some organizations’ management may have been involved in certain engagement whose practices are not disclosed but has the potential to negatively affect the organization’s reputation and legitimacy. When such organizational engagement (i.e. organization shadows; potential disruptive organizational engagement that is not known to the public) are disclosed, it presents a threat to the legitimacy of the organization to its host or operating society. The possibility of such disclosure may be triggered by the activities of media personnel, disgruntled employees or management staff, corporate espionage, activities of competitors, whistleblowers, activities of pressure groups, independent audit operations, etc. the disclosure of organizational shadows has a significant potential to generate a legitimacy gap.

Organizations are advised to ensure commensurate compliance with societal social values, and ensure their activities are ethical and consistent with social and legal considerations. Hence, organizations who have encountered a legitimacy gap may deplore the following strategies in addressing a legitimacy gap; Ashforth and Gibbs [37] posit that organizational strategies for handling legitimacy are typified into substantive management techniques (denotes a tangible change in organizational goals, procedures, structure, and protocol for societal engagement), and symbolic management techniques (denotes portrayal of organizational behavior to impress a position aligned to societal expectation and values). These strategies have been stratified with regard to the demands of the organization in its quest for legitimacy [26, 27, 28, 37, 38]. As organizations are in different phases of the quest for legitimacy, the strategies they deplore to achieving this quest could be stratified into gaining, maintaining, or repairing its legitimacy.

In gaining legitimacy, the organization usually operates in new territory or are the first movers in their industry, hence the need to consciously navigate their social compass in aligning to the societal value system and relevantly engaging stakeholders to promote goodwill and acceptance. In gaining legitimacy, organizations deliberately position themselves as partners in social progress and long-term players in the social affairs of the host or operating societies; hence, by engaging in areas of mutual benefits they invariably promote their economic interest. Gaining legitimacy requires organizational pro-activeness, strategic involvement, and collaboration with relevant stakeholders.

In maintaining legitimacy, organizations need to consolidate previous efforts and strategically pioneer new techniques of remaining relevant to their stakeholders. Maintaining legitimacy demands that organizations are strategically conscious of their environment and its influence on their operations, this enables them to proactively address issues as they arise, hence ensuring that society’s perception of their activities is favorable. Organizations whose value proposition in the market is largely accepted in line with their high investment in legitimacy alignment will need to invest more in maintaining their legitimacy, compared with organizations whose value propositions are not vested in their legitimacy status.

In repairing legitimacy, organizations deplore reactive measures in responding to the legitimacy gap between the organization and societal social systems. Repairing legitimacy demands a high level of disclosure and accountability from the organization, and a willingness to widely consult with stakeholders on ways to redeem their legitimacy status in society.

4.3 “Loss/abandonment phase” of legitimation

Organizations in their quest for legitimacy, and having deplored strategies to gain, maintain or repair legitimacy may get to a point where they analyze their engagement protocol and their interaction with society in line with a benefit analysis and may conclude that there is no value inherent in their continuous involvement in establishing legitimacy for their business activities and engagement, and hence, decides to not engage in legitimacy activities; this is known as a “loss/abandonment phase.” Hence, when a “loss/abandonment phase” occurs, it connotes that an organizations’ management has not discerned any advantage or value for continuous engagement of legitimacy practices, and therefore terminates their legitimation activities [27, 39].

The cause of a “loss/abandonment phase” amongst other things may be triggered by misalignment with societal value systems and organizations’ value propositions, continuous disagreement with relevant stakeholders, and unrealistic cost of gaining, maintaining, or retaining legitimacy.

Irrespective of the cause for a “loss/abandonment phase,” such organizations face the challenge of increased government taxes and operating costs, high cost of attracting and retaining quality employees, reduced consumer demand, tougher regulations, high interest on capital, and higher marketing coast, as a result of the society not giving its legitimacy status to the organization [27, 38].

4.4 Dynamic capability theory perspective on CSR

Dynamic capability connotes an organizations’ capacity to incorporate, create, and restructure internal and external resources/competence/advantages to tackle environmental dynamics [40]. Hence, “dynamic” denotes the competence to use tangible and intangible resources (i.e. CSR) to actualize congruence with the dynamic organizational environment (i.e. society). “Capabilities” denotes the organizations’ ability to strategically align organizational resources and strategies (i.e. CSR) to changing organizational environment. Zollo and Winter [41] posit that dynamic capability is a structured and learned pattern of integrating advantageous resources by which organizations methodically create and modifies processes and culture to actualize the effectiveness of operations in its environment.

The dynamic capability is anchored on the postulation that organizational competence in dispensing its resource (i.e. CSR) to strategically align (i.e. in a manner that is unique and distinct from competitors) to its environment (i.e. societal values), will gain market acceptance and competitive advantage (i.e. legitimacy) [40, 42]. Hence, an organization’s ability to incorporate and be at par with the dynamics of societal values, creates organizational culture that is proactive in advocating the evolving demands of societal value, and restructure organizational norms to conform with societal value creates, gains, and sustain objective legitimacy for their operation in the host society, and subsequently ensure acceptance in the market landscape; nonetheless, organizations inability to subscribe to the above assertions may deny them legitimacy.

Teece et al., [40]; Zollo and Winter [41]; Mahoney [43] further assert the following; first, that the dynamic capability is continuously relevant in organizational life, and not just in responding or reacting to the organizations’ environmental dynamics; hence, aligning to positive societal norm should not be on a need basis. Also, that focus should be on the organizational procedural routine and not just competence; hence, an organization in advancing CSR activities should ensure their processes or operating routine conform to societal values, and not just on the values offered or competence possessed. Finally, developing strategic dynamic capability is a learning process that organizations can acquire and optimize in social processes to gain legitimacy.

5. Empirical review

While CSR has been studied in relation to other variables that influence organizational affairs and goals, there is a paucity of studies that directly link CSR with legitimacy, and some studies are reviewed below;

Stratling [7] conducted a study on “the legitimacy of corporate social responsibility.” The study sought to analyze how energy organizations legitimize their CSR engagement in their annual and CSR reports. The study deployed a qualitative methodology and concludes that managers agree that CSR can result in a positive benefit to an organization‘s long-term financial performance and that organizations should engage in CSR for legitimizing their existence, processes, and relevance. This study aligns with the position of this paper, which establishes that the motives for organizations’ engagement in CSR activities amongst other things must be factors that advance their objectives (i.e. financial and non-financial).

Mahmud [44] examined “legitimacy theory and its relationship to CSR disclosures: A literature review.” The study provides a literature review-based analysis in achieving its objective of establishing a relationship between legitimacy and CSR disclosure. The study discovered most organizations pursue legitimacy via symbolic management and engage CSR to legitimize their presence to continue advancing the organizational interest. This further connotes that most organizations only optimize CSR in areas that advance their strategic interest, hence, relatively aligns with the position of the present study.

Nielsen and Thomsen [45] investigated “Reviewing corporate social responsibility communication: A legitimacy perspective.” The study sought to investigate the function of legitimacy in CSR communication. Literature and directed content methodology/analysis were deployed for the study. The study found that CSR activities aligned with stakeholders’ values build and maintain legitimacy. This also is in line with the position of this paper.

Lock and Schulz-Knappe [46] examined “Credible corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication predicts legitimacy: Evidence from an experimental study.” The study aimed to investigate the CSR credibility in establishing legitimacy. The study utilized an online experimental approach methodology and found that credible CSR websites produce legitimacy. This study also aligns with the position of this paper.

Rendtorff [47] examined “The concept of business legitimacy: Corporate social responsibility, corporate citizenship, corporate governance as essential elements of ethical business legitimacy.” The study aimed to examine corporate social responsibility, corporate governance, and corporate citizenship in relation to business legitimacy. The study was qualitative and found that corporations align their values with their stakeholders to ensure legitimacy. This position also aligns with the postulation of this paper.

Bachmann and Ingenhoff [48] in their study titled “Legitimacy through CSR disclosures? The advantage outweighs the disadvantages.” The study aimed to ascertain the extent to which CSR disclosure possesses an effect on corporate legitimacy. The study discovered that CSR disclosure had a positive effect on corporate legitimacy. This position also aligns with the postulation of this present study.

6. Conclusion and prospect

Organizations express their intentions explicitly through their goals, visions, mission, values, etc.; these organizational intentions (goals, visions, mission, values, etc.) are enriched with value propositions that seek to provide solutions in exchange for economic benefits. In actualizing these organizational intentions, organizations utilize strategies that avail them the opportunity to continually be relevant in their competitive landscape, enlarge their market share, and possibly lead their industry in optimizing the actualization of their intent.

Over time, the essence of profit optimization for the exclusive benefit of shareholders has been reviewed by third-party actors (stakeholders) who hold organizations to a higher standard that seeks to redefine organizations’ intention to include elements that promote the interest of stakeholders (i.e. especially host society) interest, with a ripple effect of positively influencing the organizations’ impression before its stakeholders, which translate to an approved legitimacy status and eventually favorable operational terms offered to those organization from their stakeholders.

Irrespective of the argument for or against the involvement of organizations engaging in CSR, organizations are entities with the capacity to independently take actions. Organizations naturally seek resources from their host society and are expected to reciprocate via the engagement of beneficial and sustainable practices that aligns with the societal value system, as well as promote the positive advancement of the society. Alternatively, organizations may possess an advanced or superior value system and independently initiate CSR as a strategic path-finder and responsible partner in promoting social issues; hence, such organizations are proactive in generally advancing fairness, progress, and social development. Irrespective of the motive for the engagement of CSR by organizations, organizations primarily as legal entities anchored on economic interest usually establish how their involvement in CSR will eventually advance their primary economic interest to ensure the sustainability of such CSR engagement.

Theoretically, this study advances a detailed theoretical discourse and knowledge enrichment for a direct association between CSR and the ethics of legitimacy. The paucity of studies that have established this direct link makes this study a beneficial tool for advancing the knowledge base on the topic and also raises the curiosity for further discourse on the research theme. Also, its exploration within the purview of the dynamic capability theory further draws a niche for the study and fortifies the study’s relevance in offering strategic insight into the association between CSR and the ethics of legitimacy.

The study’s practical implication is anchored on the strategic and applicable understanding it offers to organizations’ management, whose adoption of its precepts provides sufficient potential for advancing organizational strategic intent which aligns with societal values and promotes their legitimacy.

The prospect of CSR in its ethical navigation to legitimacy is one in which the government will eventually exercise some level of control and regulations; this is because the organizational quest for legitimacy will no longer be linked to the exclusive consolidation of their economic interest, but may intermediate with other mediating agendas that are of interest to the government and national sovereignty. Hence, an evolving conceptualization of CSR engagements, as organizations begin to explore the avalanche of opportunities they can influence as non-primary actors in sectors that are beyond their economic interest.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.