IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/buetqu/v19y2009i03p403-432_01.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Private Security Companies and Institutional Legitimacy: Corporate and Stakeholder Responsibility

Author

Listed:
  • Elms, Heather
  • Phillips, Robert A.

Abstract

The private provision of security services has attracted a great deal of recent attention, both professional and popular. Much of that attention suggests the questioned moral legitimacy of the private vs. public provision of security. Linking the literature on moral legitimacy and responsibility from new institutional and stakeholder theories, we examine the relationship between moral legitimacy and responsible behavior by both private security companies (PSCs) and their stakeholders. We ask what the moral-legitimacy-enhancing responsibilities of both might be, and contribute to both literatures and their managerial implications by detailing the content of those responsibilities, emphasizing the reciprocal nature of moral obligations. We suggest that the moral legitimacy of the industry depends upon responsible behavior by both PSCs and their stakeholders.

Suggested Citation

  • Elms, Heather & Phillips, Robert A., 2009. "Private Security Companies and Institutional Legitimacy: Corporate and Stakeholder Responsibility," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(3), pages 403-432, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:19:y:2009:i:03:p:403-432_01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1052150X00010162/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yves Fassin, 2010. "A Dynamic Perspective in Freeman’s Stakeholder Model," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 96(1), pages 39-49, August.
    2. Yves Fassin, 2012. "Stakeholder Management, Reciprocity and Stakeholder Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 109(1), pages 83-96, August.
    3. Kévin André & Sylvain Bureau & Arthur Gautier & Olivier Rubel, 2017. "Beyond the Opposition Between Altruism and Self-interest: Reciprocal Giving in Reward-Based Crowdfunding," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 146(2), pages 313-332, December.
    4. Anselm Schneider & Andreas Scherer, 2015. "Corporate Governance in a Risk Society," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 126(2), pages 309-323, January.
    5. Judith Schrempf-Stirling, 2018. "State Power: Rethinking the Role of the State in Political Corporate Social Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 150(1), pages 1-14, June.
    6. Réka Saáry & Ágnes Csiszárik-Kocsir & János Varga, 2021. "Examination of the Consumers’ Expectations Regarding Company’s Contribution to Ontological Security," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-19, September.
    7. Sergiy D. Dmytriyev & R. Edward Freeman & Jacob Hörisch, 2021. "The Relationship between Stakeholder Theory and Corporate Social Responsibility: Differences, Similarities, and Implications for Social Issues in Management," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(6), pages 1441-1470, September.
    8. Kirsten Martin & Robert Phillips, 2022. "Stakeholder Friction," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 177(3), pages 519-531, May.
    9. Frances Bowen, 2019. "Marking Their Own Homework: The Pragmatic and Moral Legitimacy of Industry Self-Regulation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 156(1), pages 257-272, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:19:y:2009:i:03:p:403-432_01. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/beq .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.