4.6 Article

The Escalation of Organizational Moral Failure in Public Discourse: A Semiotic Analysis of Nokia's Bochum Plant Closure

期刊

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS
卷 184, 期 2, 页码 459-478

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10551-022-05125-x

关键词

Process study; Media; Nokia; Organizational moral failure; Plant closure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines the escalation process of a plant closure from a local concern to a perceived organizational moral failure that attracts national attention. By utilizing semiotic analysis, the researchers identify two distinctive moral framings of the plant closure and reveal how key actors utilize evocative labels to frame the events as moral issues. These moral framings draw in additional stakeholders, generate widespread media coverage, and turn the case into an organizational moral failure in the eyes of the national public.
We examine the processes involved in the escalation of a plant closure from a local concern to a perceived organizational moral failure that commands national attention. Our empirical case covers the controversy over the decision of telecommunications giant Nokia to close a plant in Germany, despite having received significant state subsidies, and the relocation of production to Hungary and Romania. We conducted an inductive study that utilizes a semiotic analysis to identify how various actors framed the controversial plant closure and sought to cast it as moral failure. Our analysis uncovered two distinctive moral framings of the plant closure and revealed how key actors used evocative labels to frame these events in moral terms. These moral framings drew in additional stakeholders, generated more widespread media coverage, and turned the case into an organizational moral failure in the eyes of the national public. We contribute to the literature on organizational moral failure by theorizing its escalating process and elaborating why and how local events may become moral issues of interest to broader stakeholder groups.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据