IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/buseth/v35y2026i1p541-551.html

The Role of Organizational Motives in the Formation of Moral Legitimacy Judgments

Author

Listed:
  • Philipp Schreck
  • Nils Kruse
  • Gonzalo Conti

Abstract

This study explores how individual judgments of organizational legitimacy form. While prior research links moral evaluations to intent, the role of motives in legitimacy judgments remains underexplored. Using an experimental vignette study, we test whether identical positive organizational outcomes have a weaker effect on legitimacy when driven by self‐interest rather than prosocial motives. Our findings confirm that while evaluators consider outcomes, motives often play a greater role—prosocial motives enhance legitimacy benefits, while self‐interested motives diminish them. Further analysis suggests this effect stems from inferred intentionality: Organizations gain legitimacy when positive outcomes appear intentional rather than incidental. These insights help managers strengthen legitimacy and underscore the importance of considering both outcomes and motives in public policy discussions, especially amid concerns that profit‐driven actions harm public welfare.

Suggested Citation

  • Philipp Schreck & Nils Kruse & Gonzalo Conti, 2026. "The Role of Organizational Motives in the Formation of Moral Legitimacy Judgments," Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 35(1), pages 541-551, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:buseth:v:35:y:2026:i:1:p:541-551
    DOI: 10.1111/beer.12801
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12801
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/beer.12801?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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:wly:buseth:v:35:y:2026:i:1:p:541-551. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/26946424 .

    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.