ABSTRACT

This paper examines whether value congruent framing in firm disclosures, and firm credibility, help to repair or restore legitimacy following a legitimacy-threatening event. The methodology consists of two experiments. First, a pretest assesses whether participants judge negative information in a news article about a firm as a legitimacy-threatening event. Second, a main study determines whether participants’ legitimacy judgements and intention to oppose the firm are influenced by firm credibility and value congruent disclosures. Our findings demonstrate that firm credibility, in the form of past performance, partially repairs judgements of legitimacy and fully mitigates intention to oppose the firm. However, value congruent disclosures, in the form of firm messages that align with values strongly held by individuals making the legitimacy judgement, do not influence legitimacy judgements or behavioural intentions after a legitimacy-threating event, even when firm credibility is high. Taking both value congruence and firm credibility into consideration, this research indicates something rather challenging – value congruent disclosures do not matter but firm credibility does. The study contributes to the debate on the relative importance of what firms say compared with what they do by demonstrating the inefficacy of disclosures (what firms say) and, instead, the importance of firm credibility (what firms do) in legitimacy.

摘要

本文研究了公司披露中的价值一致框架和公司信誉是否有助于在合法性威胁事件后修复或恢复合法性。该方法包括两个实验。首先，预测试评估参与者是否将有关公司的新闻文章中的负面信息判断为威胁合法性的事件。其次，一项主要研究确定了参与者的合法性判断和反对公司的意图是否受到公司信誉和价值一致披露的影响。我们的研究结果表明，公司的可信度，以过去的业绩形式，部分地修复了合法性判断，并完全减轻了反对公司的意图。然而，价值一致的披露，以与做出合法性判断的个人强烈持有的价值观一致的坚定信息的形式，即使在公司可信度很高的情况下，也不会影响合法性判断或合法性威胁事件后的行为意图。考虑到价值一致性和公司可信度，这项研究表明了一些相当具有挑战性的事情–价值一致的披露无关紧要，但可靠的可信度却很重要。该研究通过证明披露的无效性（公司所说的）以及公司可信度（公司所做的）在合法性中的重要性，促进了关于公司所说与所做的相对重要性的辩论。