Purpose – This paper aims to critically analyse the provisions of legitimacy theory and assess its relevance in the context of transitioning from voluntary sustainability disclosure to mandatory reporting under defined international and European standards.
Design/methodology/approach – The research employs a theoretical analysis of legitimacy theory concepts and their application to sustainability reporting practices. The study examines the implications of the adoption of European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS S1, S2) for organizations’ legitimation strategies. The methodological basis of the study is a dialectical approach and a systematic method of studying the issues of additional disclosure of sustainability-related information. The study uses the method of analytical research and generalisation of the content of scientific publications in the field of legitimacy theory, sustainability reporting and related areas (stakeholder theory, institutional theory). Such interdependent methods of cognition as analysis and synthesis, combined with logical analysis, are used to critically examine the provisions of the legitimacy theory, highlight its problematic aspects and relevance in the context of changing regulatory environment.
Findings – The research confirms that legitimacy theory remains a relevant analytical framework for explaining sustainability disclosure practices despite the shift to mandatory reporting. The standardization of sustainability reporting formalizes societal expectations regarding ESG transparency and significantly enhances the importance of such reporting as a tool for ensuring business legitimacy. However, legitimacy theory has certain limitations in the new regulatory paradigm, including insufficient attention to internal organizational processes necessary for compliance with new standards.
Practical implications – Companies use public disclosure of sustainability-related information in annual or other publicly available reports (such as sustainability reports) as a tool of legitimation in order to gain, maintain, or repair their legitimacy. Changes in social expectations and regulatory environment in which companies operate necessitate a review of legitimation strategies. This involves a shift from the symbolic strategies that have been widely used to substantive strategies that provide for changes in companies’ actual operating policies and increase their contribution to the achievement of sustainable development goals. Ukrainian companies preparing for mandatory sustainability reporting would benefit from an understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of such disclosure in order to develop effective legitimisation methods.
Originality/value – The paper provides a unique perspective on the application of legitimacy theory in the context of the evolving sustainability reporting landscape, particularly the transition from voluntary to mandatory disclosure regimes. It contributes to the theoretical understanding of corporate motivations for sustainability disclosure and offers insights into how legitimation strategies are changing in response to new regulatory requirements.
1. EUR-Lex. (2023). Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2772 of 31 July 2023 supplementing Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards sustainability reporting standards. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32023R2772.
2. Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. (2024). Stratehija zaprovadzhennia pidpryiemstvamy zvitnosti iz staloho rozvytku. 1015-r. [The Strategy for the implementation of sustainability reporting by the enterprises. 1015-r.]. Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1015-2024-%D1%80#Text (in Ukrainian).
3. Tyvonchuk, O., & Titov, D. (2024). Standartyzatsiia rozkryttia informatsii zi staloho rozvytku – pidkhid Fondu IFRS. Tsyfrova ekonomika ta ekonomichna bezpeka. [Standardisation of sustainability-related information disclosure - the ifrs foundation’s approach. Digital Есоnоmу and Economic Security], (2 (11), 190-197. DOI https://doi.org/10.32782/dees.11-30 (in Ukrainian).
4. Tyvonchuk, O., & Titov, D. (2025). [Osoblyvosti rozkryttia informatsii zi staloho rozvytku za standartamy IFRS S1, IFRS S2. Stalyi rozvytok ekonomiky]. Peculiarities of sustainability disclosures under IFRS S1, IFRS S2. Sustainable Development of Economy, (4(51), 334–341. DOI https://doi.org/10.32782/2308-1988/2024-51-47 (in Ukrainian).
5. Ashforth, B., & Gibbs, B. (1990). The double edge of legitimization. Organization Science, 1, 177–194.
6. Gray, R., Owen, D., & Adams, C. (2009). Some theories for social accounting?: A review essay and a tentative pedagogic categorisation of theorisations around social accounting. Advances in Environmental Accounting & Management, 4, 1–54.
7. Lindblom, C. K. (1993). The implications of organisational legitimacy for corporate social performance and disclosure. In Critical Perspectives on Accounting Conference. New York.
8. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.
9. Woodward, D. G., Edwards, P., & Birkin, F. (1996). Organizational legitimacy and stakeholder information provision. British Journal of Management, 7, 239–347.
10. Gray, R., Owen, D., & Adams, C. (1996). Accounting and accountability: Changes and challenges in corporate social and environmental reporting. Prentice Hall.
11. O'Donovan, G. (2002). Environmental disclosures in the annual report: Extending the applicability and predictive power of legitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 15(3), 344–371.
12. Deegan, C. М. (2014). Financial accounting theory (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
13. Deegan, C. M. (2019). Legitimacy theory: Despite its enduring popularity and contribution, time is right for a necessary makeover. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 32(8), 2307–2329.
14. Bachmann, P., & Ingenhoff, D. (2016). Legitimacy through CSR disclosures? The advantage outweighs the disadvantages. Public Relations Review, 42(3), 386–394.
15. Díez-de-Castro, E., Peris-Ortiz, M., & Díez-Martín, F. (2018). Criteria for evaluating the organizational legitimacy: A typology for legitimacy. In E. Díez-De-Castro & M. Peris-Ortiz (Eds.), Organizational legitimacy: Challenges and opportunities for businesses and institutions. Springer International Publishing AG.
16. Lehenchuk, S., & Serpeninova, Y. (2024). Lehitymatsiina teoriia dodatkovoho rozkryttia oblikovoi informatsii pro sotsialnu ta ekolohichnu diialnist pidpryiemstva. Ekonomika, upravlinnia ta administruvannia. [Legitimation theory of accounting information additional disclosure about the social and environmental activities of the enterprise. Economics, Management and Administration], 1(107), 103–110. DOI https://doi.org/10.26642/ema-2024-1(107)-103-110 (in Ukrainian).
17. Mysaka, H.V., & Derun, I.A. (2021). Teoriia lehitymnosti v formuvanni instytutsiino-pravovykh zasad systemy nefinansovoi zvitnosti pidpryiemstv. Sotsialna ekonomika. [Legitimacy theory in the formation of the institutional and legal basis of the companies’ non-financial reporting system. Social Economics], 61, 60–71. DOI https://doi.org/10.26565/2524-2547-2021-61-06 (in Ukrainian).
18. Nasi, J., Nasi, S., Phillips, N., & Zyglidopoulos, S. (1997). The evolution of corporate social respon-siveness–an exploratory study of Finnish and Canadian forestry companies. Business and Society, 38(3), 296–321.
19. European Commission. (2021). Screening of websites for “greenwashing”: Half of green claims lack evidence. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_269.
20. Mahmud, M. T. (2020). Quest for a single theory to explain managerial motivations for sustainability disclosures: Legitimacy theory, stakeholder theory or institutional theory. Bulletin of Japanese Association for International Accounting Studies, 7, 135–159. Retrieved from https://jaias.org/content/files/pdf/academic_records/2019bulletin/12.pdf.