Fixing the Game? Legitimacy, Morality Policy and Research in Gambling Rohan Miller • Grant Michelson Received: 7 September 2012 / Accepted: 11 September 2012 / Published online: 23 September 2012 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012 Abstract It is a truism that some industries are contro- versial either because the processes employed or the resulting products, for instance, can potentially harm the well-being of people. The controversy that surrounds cer- tain 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 aca- demic 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 gam- bling will be contested by opponents of the industry. Keywords Stakeholders Á Electronic gambling Á Legitimacy theory Á Morality policy Á Corporate social responsibility Introduction In different societies a range of ‘unmentionable’ products, services or concepts exist ‘that for reasons of delicacy, decency, morality, or even fear, tend to elicit reactions of distaste, disgust, offense, or outrage mentioned or openly presented’ (Wilson and West 1981, p. 92). This does not mean that all objects and actions that are ‘unmentionable’ or controversial are undesirable or that societal values will not change over time; rather, that items classified in this way can generate strong dissensus among societal members. If certain products, services and concepts generate soci- etal controversy, as a corollary there will be controversial industry sectors. For these industries, questions pertaining to their legitimacy and any ‘genuine’ corporate social respon- sibility (CSR) efforts will likely be raised. This is apparent for certain products or activities characterised as ‘sin’ (e.g. gambling, tobacco, alcohol, pornography) (see Meier 1994). Should the products or activities even be available? In the case of gambling at least, the activity is often sponsored by governments in many countries in the form of state lotteries and produces significant tax revenues, investment and employment (Schwartz 2003, p. 206). Thus, there are con- siderable benefits for governments to endorse gambling. While mindful of the financial advantages, governments are also conscious that gambling can potentially result in adverse social and economic consequences (Hancock et al. 2008). R. Miller University of Sydney Business School, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia e-mail: rohan.miller@sydney.edu.au G. Michelson (&) School of Management, Edith Cowan University, Perth, WA 6027, Australia e-mail: g.michelson@ecu.edu.au 123 J Bus Ethics (2013) 116:601–614 DOI 10.1007/s10551-012-1487-z