Indicators of Social Performance: Between Efficiency and Legitimacy

  • Authors

    • Hamid Amifi
    • Abderrahim Benlakouiri
    2019-03-01
    https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v8i1.11.28100
  • CSP, legitimacy, neo-institutional, contingent

  • Abstract

    This communication studies the social performance (SP). We were able to build an explanatory model that identifies the determinants of the use of SP indicators and spot the real motivation of the company to use them as a control device and Management: Is it to meet a need for effectiveness and efficiency, or rather to have greater legitimacy? The first category of assumptions is related to the contingent theory. These assumptions explain the use of Social indicators for the company's willingness to be more effective and efficient. The second category of assumptions is related to neo-institutional theory. These assumptions explain the use of Social indicators by the willingness of the company to sit its legitimacy in its institutional environment and, above all, to have the confidence

     

     

  • References

    1. [1] Antheaume N. (2005), “is environmental accounting a form of organizational hypocrisy? The case of ecological performance indicators for a range of pesticidesâ€, Congress of the French accounting Association, Lille.

      [2] Baird L. (1986), Managing Performance, John Wiley, New York

      [3] Baret P. (2006), « The contingent assessment of the overall Performance of companies: A method to found a socially responsible management? », 2nd day of research of Ceros, pp. 1-24.

      [4] Bouquin H. (1986), Management control, French University Press

      [5] Bouquin H. (2004), Management control, presses University of France, Collection Gestion, 6th edition, Paris, 508 p.

      [6] Bourguignon A (1995), “Performance, definition essaysâ€, French Journal of Accountancy, n ° 269, July-August, p. 60-65

      [7] Carroll A. B. (1979), « A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance », Academy of Management Review, vol. 4, n°4, pp. 497-505.

      [8] Clarkson M. B. E. (1995), « A Stakeholder Framework for Analysing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance », Academy of Management Review, vol. 20, pp. 42-56.

      [9] DOHOU, A. and BERLAND, N. (2007), « Measuring overall business performance », Proceedings of the annual congress of the Association Francophone de accountancy, Poitiers, France, May 2007

      [10] Lebas M.J., McNair C.J. and Euske, K.J., (1993), “Performance Management in an International Settingâ€, Management Accounting Research, n°4, pp. 275-299.

      [11] Pesqueux Y. (2004), «The concept of global performance», fifth International Forum on «The overall Performance of the company, University Tunis Carthage, 1st-2nd December.

      [12] Reynaud E. (2003), « Sustainable development and enterprise: towards a symbiotic relationship », AIMS Day, Sustainable development workshop, ESSCA Angers, pp. 1-15.

      [13] Saulquin J.Y and Schier G. (2005), «CSR as an obligation/opportunity to revisit the concept of performance? », Proceedings of the Congress the social responsibility of the company: Reality, myth or hoax? March.

      [14] Suchman M.C. (1995), “Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approachesâ€, Academy of management Review, vol. 20, n°3, pp.571-610.

      [15] Wartick S. and Cochran P. (1985), “The evolution of the corporate social performance model†Academy of Management Review, vol.10, n°4, pp. 758-69

      [16] Wood D. (1991), “Corporate social performance revisitedâ€, Academy of Management Review, vol.16, n°4, pp. 691-718

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    Amifi, H., & Benlakouiri, A. (2019). Indicators of Social Performance: Between Efficiency and Legitimacy. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 8(1.11), 113-117. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v8i1.11.28100

    Received date: 2019-03-01

    Accepted date: 2019-03-01

    Published date: 2019-03-01