2.1. Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability
In the last two decades, the debate on the strategic potential of CSR and sustainability has intensified. A significant challenge for organisations has been aligning their sustainability policies with the SDGs and their associated administrative and managerial requirements [
11]. This alignment necessitates a firm commitment to adopting and integrating sustainable practices across all levels of operations [
12,
13,
14,
15]. The EU, through its main bodies (the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the European Council), has introduced various initiatives, both binding and advisory, aimed at promoting CSR and good governance. These efforts seek to enhance transparency and improve the reliability of evaluation and validation processes [
16].
In 2001, the European Commission’s Green Paper: Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility, defined CSR as “the voluntary integration by enterprises of social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their relations with their stakeholders” [
17] p. 3. This document initiated a debate within the Union on ways to promote and implement CSR in European and international enterprises through innovative practices.
In this regard, the European Alliance for CSR initiative established eight priority areas for action by the European Commission. These initiatives led to the development of a set of practical tools aimed at addressing gender equality, responsible management in supply chains, and improving dialogue with investors on the non-financial performance of companies [
17]. Additionally, the European Commission has published various communications on CSR to support these efforts further.
On the other hand, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) guidelines, last revised in 2011, include a section (Section V) dedicated to the environment. This section emphasises the need to protect the environment, public health, and safety and to conduct activities that contribute to the broader goal of sustainable development [
18].
CSR involves promoting excellence in companies, particularly in the areas of working conditions and production processes [
19,
20]. It encompasses three dimensions of sustainability: economic, social, and environmental development [
21,
22]. Additionally, it considers more recent aspects of sustainability and the roles of various stakeholders, focusing on their impact on citizenship, the environment, and competitiveness [
23,
24,
25,
26].
CSR began to be discussed in the last century, with Bowen [
27] indicating that companies should set their objectives and policies and make decisions based on societal values. Frederick [
28] p. 60 was the first to state that “social responsibility in the final analysis implies a public posture toward society’s economic and human resources and a willingness to see that those resources are utilized for broad social end and not simply for the narrowly circumscribed interests of private persons and forms”. More contemporary authors relate corporate governance to markets and stakeholders through the lens of CSR strategic policy, emphasizing ethical and responsible behaviour, as well as economic and business involvement in the implementation of the SDGs [
29,
30]. Academic discussions on CSR often emphasize its role as a strategic policy that enhances business performance, offers competitive advantages, and contributes to the developmental progress of countries [
31,
32].
Among the opportunities for new contributions in the field of CSR, authors such as Barrena-Martínez et al. [
33] highlight the institutional evolution that considers CSR a key factor in contributing to society. This perspective is grounded in institutional theory and stakeholder perspectives. Consequently, in public administration contexts, such as public safety, CSR is accompanied by measures that enhance its sustainability. Both public and private companies implement CSR and sustainability strategies across various dimensions [
34,
35].
2.2. Institutional Legitimacy
Legitimacy is a resource that institutions can use to improve their CSR performance, social acceptance, and objectives. It covers many activities, public, as a resource to gain credibility in foreign host countries [
36] or bonding in Transnational Norm-Building Networks (TNNs) [
37], or private, as in the tourism industry [
38], controversial industries such as oil companies [
39] or the tobacco industry [
40], rating agencies [
41] or accountancy firms [
42], or multinational gold mining industries in foreign countries [
43].
Legitimacy is a mighty tool to gain reputation in foreign host countries through political Corporate Social Responsibility (PCSR) measures [
36] or environmental management initiatives (EMIs) [
38] or to reduce default risk in international investments [
41] and to avoid reluctance in controversial industries [
39,
40].
The present work aims to extend the concept of legitimacy based on corporate responsibility to the public provision of security, and it drives sustainability in the economic, social, and environmental realms. If a police corps, like the Spanish police, lasted two centuries long, it proves its resilience and sustainability throughout history.
CSR is closely linked to sustainability: CSR strategies indeed bolster the environmental performance of a company and therefore its sustainability [
32]. The tool to achieve CSR and sustainability in organisations is legitimacy, which has been widely studied over many decades.
Suchman’s classic definition of legitimacy is perhaps the most common: “Legitimacy is a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions” [
10] p. 574. It refers to the obligation of a certain authority or institution beyond self-interest and in the pursuit of socially valuable goals [
44], making them socially responsible and sustainable. It is based on the stakeholders concept of Freeman [
45] and on ethical, responsible behaviour of the organisations [
46,
47].
Lindblom [
48] states that legitimacy is dynamic: the stakeholders continuously evaluate corporate output, methods, and goals against an ever-evolving expectation. The legitimacy gap will fluctuate, although a given corporation has not taken any voluntary action to promote change. Indeed, as expectations of the relevant publics change, the corporation must make changes accordingly, or the legitimacy gap will grow as the level of conflict increases and the levels of positive and passive support decrease.
Amos [
49] uses an organisational legitimacy theory (the strategic approach) as a theoretical lens for understanding and appreciating disclosure practices. Wang and Cardon [
50] highlight the role played by leaders and communication strategies in bolstering the value of organisational legitimacy. They state that leaders are encouraged to achieve high rates of social presence in order to link with stakeholders and employees. Also, managers with greater power and legitimate authority are urged to reach higher sustainability levels and enforce environmental responsibilities, justifying that achievements, rewards, or incentives for work performance are appropriate [
51].
Joutsewirta and Vaara [
52] emphasise that legitimacy is defined by rhetorical narratives and discourses constructed by the dominant ideology and power relations in a given society. In a globalised world, however, they become more important because they produce global advantages: increased access to the resources provided by stakeholders; product and brand differentiation; improved external and internal trust [
53]; increased environmental sensitivity and sustainability that, therefore, makes it easier to enforce external regulations [
38]; positive impact on public and stakeholder opinions [
53]; generation of corporate reputation; and potential advantage to expand in a multicultural environment [
54]. The last cited authors also present legitimacy as a developmental stage in a firm’s internationalisation process. Acuti et al. speak of the dynamic character of legitimacy because it must adapt to a changing environment [
55].
Pava and Krautz [
46] set the criteria to evaluate the legitimacy of CSR: (1) local knowledge, (2) level of responsibility, (3) shared consensus, and (4) relationship to financial performance. Afterwards, we should refer to these principles again when referring to social effectiveness.
As important as the application of the legitimacy principle is the public communication of its use. Acuti [
55] speaks of the active dimension or implementation of legitimacy policies and the presentation of these policies to the public. Adomako and Tran [
47] emphasise that their dissemination improves a company’s public image, increases stakeholder support, and allows access to more resources, but it is essential for the company to avoid unethical behaviour and to give an image of false legitimacy. Aligned with this, Acuti [
55] speaks of hypocrisy to describe the behaviour of institutions that intend to apply sincere legitimacy policies but otherwise manipulate public opinion and their stakeholders. The effect, when unmasked, is reputational failure. Hadani [
56] emphasises the previous trustworthiness of the company’s responsible or irresponsible behaviour, as they affect credibility and future development expectations.
Diez Martín et al. [
57] study strategies that enable legitimacy development in companies. In particular, an organisation can maintain its legitimacy by developing surveillance and/or protection strategies. To the traditional dimensions (regulatory, pragmatic, moral, and cultural
–cognitive), social
–sociopolitical legitimacy is added by the authors as the acceptance of previously existing norms in a society [
58] and, in that sense, social legitimacy directly influences business performance [
59]. Gordo-Molina and Diez [
58] conducted a comparative study of articles published in Web of Science and concluded that the impact of legitimacy is related to the public acceptance of an institution or its social prestige. There is a basic similarity in employing legitimacy for increasing social value and orientation driven toward stakeholders (society as a whole). We, therefore, consider exploring the police’s socially responsible and sustainable behaviour on the basis of legitimacy and social responsibility, concerning citizens’ opinions of what policing behaviours are deemed responsible and socially worthwhile or otherwise.
We adhere to LaFree’s Doctrine of Legitimacy [
60], which we deem congruent with Suchman’s [
10] (see above). LaFree argues that social institutions participate in a web of social relations by shaping a shared value system consistently with the legal and regulatory norms that authorise it to exercise its powers to prevent and respond to crime [
44,
61]. The police rely on public perception to enlist citizens’ support and discretionary cooperation [
44]. Yet, at the same time, police (and other institutions) provide citizens with guidance as to what behaviours settle the socially accepted norm by contributing to informal social control [
62]. Through these processes, LaFree explains that public institutions, including the police, create and reinforce shared norms and values and clarifies which behaviours are expected and desirable [
61]. Acceptance of legitimacy in a social group reinforces normative behaviour, increases predictability in social interactions, and reinforces interpersonal trust that other citizens also share the same value system, making it sustainable through generations: the new norm is legitimised, and new members are educated through the socialisation process about the norms set by institutions.
The sociologist Max Weber [
63] initiated a debate about social legitimacy and its influence on individual behaviour by considering legitimacy to be a motivator to comply with the rules set by authority figures voluntarily. For Weber, legitimate power in modern democracies is achieved through authority acting with legal rationality.
When citizens perceive authority to be legitimate, they are inclined to internalise obligations as personal responsibilities and to act consistently with authorities’ commands, even if a given behaviour contradicts self-interest and even when it is contrary to their moral judgment of what would be right or wrong [
64,
65,
66].
2.3. Legitimacy and Procedural Justice
Police legitimacy is a constructed concept [
67]. The police achieve legitimacy through practices and procedures that are in accordance with the law and social expectations and respect human rights [
68,
69]. These practices and procedures make the difference between a socially acceptable or unacceptable use of the police force for citizens [
61]. They are known as procedural justice, understood as the procedurally appropriate way in which police officers act, who are reverent of citizens’ rights and proportionate in their use of police means [
70]. However, if the population sees authorities as unfair and disrespectful, social trust is damaged in three ways: (1) little confidence in legal authorities reduces their legitimacy in the public’s eyes; (2) the less the authorities are seen as legitimate, the more disobedience and resistance to their orders and instructions they will encounter; (3) public support for Institutional Legitimacy and willingness to cooperate with the police and the justice system will decrease.
We could compare procedural justice with the company’s trustworthiness, as identified by Hadani [
56]. In both cases, the previous behaviour of the police or a given company strongly predicts the future expectations of the stakeholders and, therefore, their future behaviour.
To summarise, St. Louis and Greene [
71] point out two dimensions of citizens’ understanding of legitimacy: substantive legitimacy, when they believe that the rule is reasonable, and procedural legitimacy, when they understand that it is fairly enforced: when citizens understand that the police and judges fairly enforce the law, they agree to voluntarily comply [
66]. Conversely, when they perceive it to be applied in a biased way, voluntary compliance crumbles [
71].
2.4. Social or Collective Effectiveness: More Resilient Neighbourhoods, More Cooperative Societies
According to St. Louis and Greene [
71], in communities that have high crime rates, there is an inverse correlation between the demand for police services and promising opinions of the police. Although police demand is higher than the average, neighbours are reluctant to cooperate with the police. At the same time, they perceive their communities as being more insecure than others and police forces as not very legitimate or trustworthy. This bolsters a spiral of non-collaboration, social demoralization, and public environment wreckage, which turns certain areas into crime black spots that, ultimately, drive to deterioration.
Conversely, social trust and engagement can improve communities in three ways: promoting participation to solve priority problems and the functioning of public services; making public services more accountable and efficient; and improving collaboration with the police by increasing their legitimacy [
72,
73] because higher police legitimacy levels are associated with higher collective efficacy [
74,
75].
Neighbours who picture themselves as part of a community are more likely to bond together to solve common problems [
76,
77,
78]. Sampson et al. [
78] called this behaviour collective efficacy, meaning a shared sense of trust, common values, and reciprocal expectations by neighbours to exercise informal social control together by building social capital and mitigating crime and insecurity levels, even in socially disadvantaged neighbourhoods.
Sampson et al. point out that it creates a sense of community by compensating adversity with solidarity [
78]. This feeling is independent of friendship or other personal ties. Collective efficacy is the product of a neighbourhood socialisation process that begins when individuals who would otherwise remain isolated can communicate and share their ideas and anxieties. This kind of connection creates recognition and a sense of belonging, with joint interests, expectations, and concerns, including collective security.
An increasing number of neighbours experience more trust and solidarity with their fellow citizens, develop and share the same system of norms and beliefs, and are willing to act to benefit other community members. Individual or collective actions convey a sense of common responsibility and are not undertaken by the possibility of threat or reward but in the hope of reciprocal behaviour [
71]. The consequence is that neighbourhood members act in common to watch younger members´ behaviour, worry about intruders or molesters, or minimise disorderly conduct. Communities with high social engagement and, therefore, considerable efficacy can counteract their neighbourhoods’ potential structural disadvantages and achieve better outcomes. This is likely the case of companies with high levels of legitimacy through CSR practices.
Social controls do not need to be strict. Informal social control also increases social efficacy [
79]. Different authors provide plenty of evidence for the positive influence of social efficacy on security problems [
51,
76,
80,
81].
Conversely, structural disadvantages reduce neighbourhood cohesion, informal social control, and collective efficacy [
82,
83,
84]. Higher crime levels deteriorate social coexistence [
85]. We can highlight the work of Snell [
86], who studies the relations among the neighbourhood type, the crime level, and failed coexistence due to fear of crime and, therefore, supervened insecurity. Steptoe measures insecurity problems, health, and living standards as stressors in depressed neighbourhoods [
87]. Warner correlates the lack of social control in communities with high drug abuse levels [
88].
The antidote to such deterioration is to enhance legitimacy through procedural justice by reinforcing social efficacy. High police legitimacy levels influence the enhancement of social efficacy because police actions increase the perception of their legitimacy by, in turn, enhancing a community’s collective efficacy. So, their effect is beneficial in both directions [
75]. In this way, the police can increase the sense of legitimacy and social efficacy by promoting the quality of their services and minimising their wrong actions, which are understood as those that do not comply with procedural justice.
This social efficiency concept is linked with concern about the social economy to promote collectivity and people’s initiative when it comes to generating social capital, as defined by several authors [
89], and fulfills two components (relational and structural) of social capital, as reflected by Nieves-Nieto and Briones-Peñalver [
90].
It also fits well with Pava and Krautz’s [
46] criteria for legitimacy of CSR: (1) local knowledge, or close bonds among neighbours; (2) level of responsibility, a shared responsibility in a common community; (3) shared consensus, which is paramount in this case, because, otherwise, there is no common ground to build social effectiveness; and, finally, (4) relationship to financial performance. Unluckily, this last criterion is difficult to gauge due to the public character of security not prone to being valued or measured on economic terms.