Assessing corporate social performance: Strategies of legitimation and conflicting ideologies

Our study started with an action research project carried out within an organization specialized in the assessment of corporate social performance (CSP), in a French context: we were asked to achieve a critical analysis of the rating grid used by this organization for the domain of corporate governance. Assessing CSP has become in France an issue around which an organizational field has emerged in the mid 90s. The quest for legitimacy appears as a powerful driver for all the organizations in this field, but the strategies that social analysis and rating organizations deploy to achieve this aim differ significantly. Using a Weberian methodology, we have identified two ideal types of strategy: conservative (perpetuating the societal status quo) and activist (trying to impel change). We argue that these differences in strategies reflect ideological oppositions. Here also we have typified two opposite ideologies: utilitarian and non-utilitarian. Conservative strategies appear to be embedded in a utilitarian ideology; in the short term, they may seem more successful than activist strategies, but in the long term, their future appears more uncertain.