文档介绍：外文翻译
原文:
Corporate social reporting and reputation risk management
5. Integrating legitimacy, stakeholder theory and reputation
Legitimacy theory proposes that there are four ways in which anization can obtain, repair or maintain legitimacy should the social contract between itself and society (and/or selected powerful stakeholders) breakdown. Lindblom (1993)[13] seminally described four legitimating strategies, namely:
(1) “Corporate social disclosure may be used municate changes in the corporation’s output, methods, and goals which have been made in response to shifts in the relevant publics’ expectations”(p. 13).
(2) “anization attempts to demonstrate the appropriateness of the output, methods, and goals to the public through education and information. This alternative does not require a change in business performance or in societal expectation but, rather, requires only a change in perception”(p. 14).
(3) “anizational output, methods, and goals with the popular perception of what is appropriate without any attempt at actual conformity. Under this alternative business performance does not change, nor do societal expectations. Instead the corporation attempts to associate itself with symbols having high legitimate status”(p. 15).
(4) “anization attempts to bring popular views into conformity anizational output, methods, and goals. Here the emphasis is on education and information. Under this alternative the corporation is not making and internal adjustment to close the legitimacy gap but, rather, seeks an adjustment in societal expectation”(p. 16).
Each of these approaches to obtaining, repairing or maintaining legitimacy find parallels in Benoit’s framework with the possible exception of the strategy of mortification. If, however, one would expect to see appeals for forgiveness as part of educating and informing relevant publics about actual changes in performance then
mortification could also be seen to fit the legitimacy framework. Linking the legit