I hope this is an adequate answer.
I think legitimacy can come from various sources. One is performance, so that's quality of impact and generating that information on impact. One can gain legitimacy by performing well. Another general source is around issues of accountability and transparency. Legitimacy can be given to those who act in ways that seem accountable and transparent. I think there are issues about measuring performance, about measuring impact, and there are issues around accountability and transparency.
Legitimacy also—and this is what I was trying to say with my couple of examples—comes as a consequence of forms of corporate behaviour that are not really captured, necessarily, by the language of corporate social responsibility, but rather, by consistent behaviour. So if you say you're in the business of promoting development, then do that and don't pursue other activities that could be conceived as pulling in an opposite direction.
Then I think, fourthly, that systems give legitimacy as well. When the populace feels there is a system of regulation that they can believe in and that they know will hold to account, in this case, corporate actors, but also a variety of actors, then actually I think they're more likely—and certainly this is the centre of debates in Peru right now—to apportion legitimacy to corporate actors because they know they're going to be regulated.
So I think legitimacy comes from performance, accountability, behaviour, and systems.