Fixing the Game? Legitimacy, Morality Policy and Research in Gambling

Journal of Business Ethics 116 (3):601-614 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

It is a truism that some industries are controversial either because the processes employed or the resulting products, for instance, can potentially harm the well-being of people. The controversy that surrounds certain industries can sharply polarise public opinion and debate. In this article, we employ legitimacy theory and morality policy to show how one industry sector (the electronic gaming machine sector as part of the wider gambling industry) is subject to this reaction. We suggest that the difficulty in establishing legitimacy surrounding CSR practices in this sector is related to morality policy, whereby ideology and personal values play important roles in dividing opinion. Thus, gambling is often framed as an activity that is morally and ethically problematic. To show how this can manifest, we examine the veracity of two state-funded studies in Australia used in the development of gambling policy and their subsequent adoption in academic research. We highlight methodological, analytical and reporting issues in these studies that normally should be identified by those using such findings. The significance is that when morality policy and conflict surrounding legitimacy are involved, then it can explain why adherence to normative research standards is potentially lowered. Our theoretical posture leads us to further speculate that the adoption and communication of CSR in electronic gambling will be contested by opponents of the industry

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,323

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Gambling Maxims and their Universalizability.Lawrence Pasternack - 2003 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 17 (1):17-28.
Three Elements of Stakeholder Legitimacy.Adele Santana - 2012 - Journal of Business Ethics 105 (2):257-265.
When evolutionary game theory explains morality, what does it explain?Justin D'arms - 2000 - Journal of Consciousness Studies 7 (1-2):296-299.
Gambling.Lisa Newton - 1993 - Business Ethics Quarterly 3 (4):405-418.
Gambling: Some Afterthoughts.Lisa H. Newton - 2003 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 17 (1):29-31.
A Process Approach to the Utility for Gambling.Marc Le Menestrel - 2001 - Theory and Decision 50 (3):249-262.
Game theory and global environmental policy.Alfred Endres - 2004 - Poiesis and Praxis 3 (s 1-2):123-139.
Luck and decision.Will Barrett - 2006 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 23 (1):73–87.
Gambling and Character.David B. Fletcher - 2003 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 17 (1):1-15.

Analytics

Added to PP
2012-09-23

Downloads
57 (#282,823)

6 months
3 (#984,214)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

Stakeholder Legitimacy.Robert Phillips - 2003 - Business Ethics Quarterly 13 (1):25-41.
Doing Well While Doing Bad? CSR in Controversial Industry Sectors.Ye Cai, Hoje Jo & Carrie Pan - 2012 - Journal of Business Ethics 108 (4):467 - 480.
The "Ethics" of Ethical Investing.Mark S. Schwartz - 2003 - Journal of Business Ethics 43 (3):195 - 213.

View all 18 references / Add more references