An Integrational Framework of Organizational Moral Development,Legitimacy, and Corporate Responsibility: A Longitudinal,Intersectoral Analysis of Citizenship Reports

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.     

Modeling the Audit Opinions Issued to Bankrupt Companies: A Two‐stage Empirical Analysis*

Many observers are dissatisfied with the accounting profession's ability to warn the public of upcoming bankruptcy filings. Since regulators and users tend to treat an unmodified audit opinion as a “clean bill of health,” they do not expect the business to fail in the near future. Research has shown that more often than not, auditors end up letting users down when it comes to predicting bankruptcy filings with audit opinions. Although auditors assert they are not responsible for predicting future events, it is very clear that their opinion decision is evaluated, at least in part, based on events that occur after the audit report date. The interesting and logical next step is to find out how companies exit bankruptcy. Do they liquidate or reorganize? Successful reorganization may, in the end, exonerate auditors and preserve their role as an early warning device. The opinion prediction model developed in the paper introduces a new bankruptcy resolution variable that proxies for the auditor's prognosis of the ultimate disposition of the soon‐to‐be‐bankrupt company. Using a sample of bankruptcy filings between 1982 and 1992, we find that auditors do not seem to be able to predict filings or resolution. Our tests of bankruptcy resolution support what auditors have been arguing for years: that they are not clairvoyant with respect to a client's future.