Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A discussion of bias might be particularly problematic with issues where any harms are regarded as personal as well as social. Gambling, alcohol and tobacco are among the more well-known examples but there might be other less familiar ones. Hospital waiting lists could be one such example; it doesn’t really matter how long they are if you are the person waiting. Their mere existence is the ‘problem’.

  2. For an example regarding the impact of trade unions on productivity, see Doucouliagos et al. (2005).

  3. A search of Google scholar suggests the two reports have been cited in total in at least 80 academic studies as well as government reports, including the highly influential 2010 Productivity Report into Gambling. However, not all of the government reports, including references from various court and tribunal hearings are found in the Google search engine.

  4. Victoria is located in the south east of the country and is the second largest state in terms of number of inhabitants, constituting approximately 25 percent of the national population.

  5. The Caraniche report has no page numbers. For a point of reference these comments were found near Table 4.2.

References

  • Abraham, J. (1995). Science, politics and the pharmaceutical industry: Controversy and bias in drug regulation. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, P. J. (2011). Ways in which gambling researchers receive funding from gambling industry sources. International Gambling Studies, 11(2), 145–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Gaming Council. (2001). Responsible gaming code: A framework for responsible gaming. Melbourne: Australian Gaming Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banks, G. (2011). Evidence and social policy: The case of gambling. Presentation to the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies, Adelaide, 30 March.

  • Baur, D., & Palazzo, G. (2011). The moral legitimacy of NGOs as partners of corporations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(4), 579–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, G. (1990). Issue involvement and response effects in public opinion surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 54(2), 209–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blaszczynski, A. (circa 2001). Harm minimisation strategies in gambling: An overview of international initiatives and interventions. Report prepared for the Australian Gaming Council.

  • Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., Goulet, A., & Savard, C. (2006). How much do you spend gambling? Ambiguities in questionnaire items assessing expenditure. International Gambling Studies, 6(2), 123–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., & Shaffer, H. (2004). A science-based framework for responsible gambling: The Reno model. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20(3), 301–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borna, S., & Lowry, J. (1987). Gambling and speculation. Journal of Business Ethics, 6(3), 219–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, W. (1998). Funders and research: The vulnerability of the subject. In K. Whitfield & G. Strauss (Eds.), Researching the world of work: Strategies and methods in studying industrial relations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cai, Y., Jo, H., & Pan, C. (2012). Doing well while doing bad? CSR in controversial industry sectors. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(4), 467–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, F. (1976). The virtues of gambling. Business and Society Review, 17, 63–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caraniche Pty Ltd (Caraniche). (2005). Evaluation of electronic gaming machine harm minimisation measures in Victoria. Melbourne: Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Centre for Gambling Research (CGR). (2004). 2003 Victorian longitudinal community attitudes survey. Melbourne: Gambling Research Panel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, C., & Patten, D. (2007). The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy: A research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(7/8), 639–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cosgrave, J. S. (2010). Embedded addiction: The social production of gambling knowledge and the development of gambling markets. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 35(1), 113–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cossette, P. (2004). Research integrity: An exploratory survey of administrative science faculties. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(3), 213–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowen, H., & Goulbourne, H. (1998). From academe to polity: Tensions in conducting policy and community research. Policy Studies, 19(1), 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickerson, M., Allcock, C., Blaszczynski, A., Nicholls, B., Williams, R., & Maddern, R. (1996). An examination of the socio-economic effects of gambling on individuals, families and the community including research into the costs of problem gambling in New South Wales. Report for the NSW Government, Sydney.

  • Dickerson, M., McMillen, J., Hallebone, E., Volberg, R., & Woolley, R. (1997). Definition and incidence of problem gambling, including the socio-economic distribution of gamblers. Report for the Victorian Casino and Gaming Authority, Melbourne.

  • Doran, B., McMillen, J., & Marshall, D. (2007). A GIS-based investigation of gaming venue catchments. Transactions in GIS, 11(4), 575–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doucouliagos, H., Laroche, P., & Stanley, T. (2005). Publication bias in union-productivity research? Relations Industrielles, 60(2), 320–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elsbach, K. (1994). Managing organizational legitimacy in the California cattle industry: The construction and effectiveness of verbal accounts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(1), 57–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gambino, B. (2005). Interpreting prevalence estimates of pathological gambling: Implications for policy. Journal of Gambling Issues, 14, 26–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grinols, E., & Mustard, D. (2001). Management and information issues for industries with externalities: The case of casino gambling. Managerial and Decision Economics, 22(1/3), 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Englewoods Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hancock, L., Schellinck, T., & Schrans, T. (2008). Gambling and corporate social responsibility (CSR): Re-defining industry and state roles on duty of care, host responsibility and risk management. Policy and Society, 27(1), 55–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hing, N. (2001). Changing the odds: A study of corporate social principles and practices in addressing problem gambling. Journal of Business Ethics, 33(2), 115–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hing, N., & McMillen, J. (2002). A conceptual framework of the corporate management of social impacts: The case of problem gambling. Business and Society Review, 107(4), 457–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horn, B. (1997). The courage to be counted. Journal of Gambling Studies, 13(4), 301–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J., & Holub, M. (2003). Questioning organizational legitimacy: The case of US expatriates. Journal of Business Ethics, 47(3), 269–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, P., Hillier, D., & Comfort, D. (2009). Corporate social responsibility in the UK gambling industry. Corporate Governance, 9(2), 189–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladouceur, R., Bouchard, C., Rhéaume, N., Jacques, C., Ferland, F., Leblond, J., et al. (2000). Is the SOGS an accurate measure of pathological gambling among children, adolescents and adults? Journal of Gambling Studies, 16(1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaPlante, D., Nelson, S., LaBrie, R., & Shaffer, H. (2009). Disordered gambling, type of gambling and gambling involvement in the British gambling prevalence survey 2007. European Journal of Public Health, 21(4), 532–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lesieur, H., & Blume, S. (1987). The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): A new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144(9), 1184–1188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone, C., & Woolley, R. (2007). Risky business: A few provocations on the regulation of electronic gaming machines. International Gambling Studies, 7(3), 361–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, D. (2004). Gambling, public health and the role of the federal government. Australian Journal of Primary Health, 10(1), 56–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCready, J., & Adlaf, E. (2006). Performance and enhancement of the Canadian Problem. Gambling Index (CPGI): Report and recommendations. Report for the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, Ottawa.

  • McGowan, R. (1997). The ethics of gambling research: An agenda for mature analysis. Journal of Gambling Studies, 13(4), 279–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMillen, J., & Doran, B. (2006). Problem gambling and gaming machine density: Socio-spatial analysis of three Victorian localities. International Gambling Studies, 6(1), 5–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMillen, J., & Wenzel, M. (2006). Measuring problem gambling: Assessment of three prevalence screens. International Gambling Studies, 6(2), 147–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meier, K. (1994). The politics of sin. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millhouse, H., & Delfabbro, P. (2008). Investigating preferences for gaming machine features in problem and non-problem gamblers using a consumer choice methodology. Gambling Research, 20(1), 37–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohrman, S., Gibson, C., & Mohrman, A. (2001). Doing research that is useful to practice: A model and empirical exploration. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 357–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mooney, C. (1999). The politics of morality policy. Policy Studies Journal, 27(4), 675–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mucciaroni, G. (2011). Are debates about ‘morality policy’ really about morality? Framing opposition to gay and lesbian rights. Policy Studies Journal, 39(2), 187–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullner, R., Levy, P., Byre, C., & Matthews, D. (1982). Effects of characteristics of the survey instrument on response rates to a mail survey of community hospitals. Public Health Reports, 97(5), 465–469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, L. (1993). Gambling: A preliminary inquiry. Business Ethics Quarterly, 3(4), 405–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Office of Economic and Statistical Research (OESR). (2011). Australian gambling statistics (AGS) 1983–84 to 2008–09 (27th ed.). Brisbane: Queensland Treasury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. (2006). Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 71–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R. (2003). Stakeholder legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(1), 25–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, P., & Miller, D. (1999). Variations in the diffusion of state lottery adoptions: How revenue dedication changes morality politics. Policy Studies Journal, 27(4), 696–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prior Jonson, E., Lindorff, M., & McGuire, L. (2012). Paternalism and the pokies: Unjustified state interference or justifiable intervention? Journal of Business Ethics, December 23, 2011 (online).

  • Productivity Commission. (2010). Gambling (Vol. 1 and 2). Canberra: Australian Government Productivity Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodda, S., Brown, S., & Phillips, J. (2004). The relationship between anxiety, smoking, and gambling in electronic gaming machine players. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20(1), 71–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SACES. (2008). Social and economic impact study into gambling in Tasmania. Adelaide: South Australian Centre for Economic Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schellinck, T., & Schrans, T. (Focal Research Consultants). (2003). Surveying all adults in a household: The potential for reducing bias in prevalence studies and the opportunity to study households with more than one problem gambler. Gambling Research, 15(1), 51–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schepers, D. (2010). Challenges to legitimacy at the Forest Stewardship Council. Journal of Business Ethics, 92(2), 279–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schminke, M. (2009). The better angels of our nature – ethics and integrity in the publishing process. Academy of Management Review, 34(4), 586–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, M. (2003). The ‘ethics’ of ethical investing. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(3), 195–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, H., & Hall, M. (2001). Updating and refining prevalence estimates of disordered gambling behaviour in the United States and Canada. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 92(3), 168–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonpar, K., Pazzaglia, F., & Kornijenko, J. (2010). The paradox and constraint of legitimacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trope, Y. (1986). Identification and inferential processes in dispositional attribution. Psychological Review, 93(3), 239–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volberg, R., Moore, W., Christiansen, E., Cummings, W., & Banks, S. (1998). Unaffordable losses: Estimating the proportion of gambling revenues derived from problem gamblers. Gaming Law Review, 2(4), 349–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R., & Wood, R. (2004). The proportion of gaming revenue derived from problem gamblers: Examining the issues in a Canadian context. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 4(1), 33–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, A., & West, C. (1981). The marketing of ‘unmentionables’. Harvard Business Review, 51(1), 91–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winn, M., MacDonald, P., & Zietsma, C. (2008). Managing industry reputations: The dynamic tension between collective and competitive reputation management strategies. Corporate Reputation Review, 11(1), 35–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolf, P. (1991). Accountability and responsibility in research. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(8), 595–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We sincerely thank the three anonymous referees for providing incisive and detailed comments on earlier versions of the article. Collectively, their comments and suggestions have helped to produce a much improved article.

Conflict of interest

The first author has previously worked for, and acted as a consultant to, the gambling industry and identified some of the issues raised in this paper during consulting roles. The second author has never been associated with or interested in gambling or the gambling industry. The authors declare no conflicts of interest and no financial support for the authorship of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Sydney Business School, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia

    Rohan Miller

  2. School of Management, Edith Cowan University, Perth, WA, 6027, Australia

    Grant Michelson

Authors
  1. Rohan Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Grant Michelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Grant Michelson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Miller, R., Michelson, G. Fixing the Game? Legitimacy, Morality Policy and Research in Gambling. J Bus Ethics 116, 601–614 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1487-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1487-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation