How civil society makes sense of organizational scandals that entail allegations of wrongdoing during times of systemic emergency plays an important role in how these events are ultimately addressed. Yet we know little about what happens when disruptive events are attached to concurrent frames (i.e., wrongdoing, systemic emergency) by different stakeholders. We combine qualitative and topic modeling techniques to analyze the case of contagions in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) in Italy during the COVID-19 outbreak as collectively problematized by journalists, accused parties, and the general public on social media. We document a process of scandal dilution during a systemic emergency. We theorize the dilution as the consequence of a process of collective frame lamination whereby involved actors enact different strategies of scandal–emergency interplay: layering information, deflecting blames, and amplifying emotions. We add to work on collective framing of disruptive events and to research on organizational wrongdoing and emergency.
AdutA. (2008). On scandal: Moral disturbances in society, politics, and art (Vol. 31). Cambridge University Press.
2.
BarkemeyerR.FaugèreC.GergaudO.PreussL. (2020). Media attention to large-scale corporate scandals: Hype and boredom in the age of social media. Journal of Business Research, 109, 385–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.12.011
3.
BleiD. M.NgA. Y.JordanM. I. (2003). Latent Dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3(Jan), 993–1022.
4.
BöhmS.CarringtonM.CorneliusN.de BruinB.GreenwoodM.HassanL.JainT.KaramC.KourulaA.RomaniL.RiazS.ShawD. (2022). Ethics at the centre of global and local challenges: Thoughts on the future of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 180(3), 835–861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05239-2
5.
BreitE. (2010). On the (re) construction of corruption in the media: A critical discursive approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 92(4), 619–635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0177-y
6.
BundyJ.PfarrerM. D.ShortC. E.CoombsW. T. (2017). Crises and crisis management: Integration, interpretation, and research development. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1661–1692. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316680030
7.
ClarkH. (2006). Linguists vote ‘truthiness’ word of 2005. ABC News.
8.
ClementeM.GabbionetaC. (2017). How does the media frame corporate scandals? The case of German newspapers and the Volkswagen diesel scandal. Journal of Management Inquiry, 26(3), 287–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492616689304
9.
ClementeM.RouletT. (2015). Public opinion as a source of deinstitutionalization: A “spiral of silence” approach. Academy of Management Review, 40(1), 96–114. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0279
10.
Cochis, C., Bertolotti, F., & Ungureanu, P. (2025). The dynamic response of coworking communities: Unpacking resilience in times of disruption. Management Decision. Ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-09-2023-1728
11.
ComynsB.Franklin-JohnsonE. (2018). Corporate reputation and collective crises: A theoretical development using the case of Rana Plaza. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(1), 159–183https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3160-4
12.
CoombsW. T. (2021). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding. Sage Publications.
13.
CooperC.BlockR. (2007). Disaster: Hurricane Katrina and the failure of Homeland Security. Macmillan.
14.
CornelissenJ. P.WernerM. D. (2014). Putting framing in perspective: A review of framing and frame analysis across the management and organizational literature. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 181–235. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.875669
15.
CroidieuG.KimP. H. (2018). Labor of love: Amateurs and lay-expertise legitimation in the early US radio field. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(1), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839216686531
16.
DanisK.FonteneauL.GeorgesS.DaniauC.Bernard-StoecklinS.DomeganL.O’DonnellJ.HaugeS. H.DequekerS.VandaelE. (2020). High impact of COVID-19 in long-term care facilities, suggestion for monitoring cin the EU/EEA, May 2020. Eurosurveillance, 25(22), 2000956. https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.22.2000956
17.
DaudigeosT.RouletT.ValiorgueB. (2020). How scandals act as catalysts of fringe stakeholders’ contentious actions against multinational corporations. Business & Society, 59(3), 387–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650318756982
18.
DiMaggio, P. (2015). Adapting computational text analysis to social science (and vice versa). Big Data & Society, 2(2), 205395171560290.
19.
EntmanR. M. (2012). Scandal and silence: Media responses to presidential misconduct. Polity.
20.
FurnariS. (2018). When does an issue trigger change in a field? A comparative approach to issue frames, field structures and types of field change. Human Relations, 71(3), 321–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726717726861
21.
GarrardJ.NewellJ.NewellJ. L. (2006). Scandals in past and contemporary politics. Manchester University Press.
22.
GoffmanE. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press.
23.
GrayB.PurdyJ. M.AnsariS. (2015). From interactions to institutions: Microprocesses of framing and mechanisms for the structuring of institutional fields. Academy of Management Review, 40(1), 115–143. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0299
24.
GreveH. R.PalmerD.PoznerJ. E. (2010). Organizations gone wild: The causes, processes, and consequences of organizational misconduct. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 53–107. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416521003654186
25.
HällgrenM.RouleauL.De RondM. (2018). A matter of life or death: How extreme context research matters for management and organization studies. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 111–153. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0017
26.
HanniganT. R.H?aansR. F.VakiliK.TchalianH.GlaserV. L.WangM. S.KaplanS.JenningsP. D. (2019). Topic modeling in management research: Rendering new theory from textual data. Academy of Management Annals, 13(2), 586–632. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0099
27.
HoffmanA. J.OcasioW. (2001). Not all events are attended equally: Toward a middle-range theory of industry attention to external events. Organization Science, 12(4), 414–434. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.4.414.10639
28.
KimS. (2021). Frame restructuration: The making of an alternative business incubator amid Detroit’s crisis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(3), 753–805. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839220986464
29.
KleinJ.AmisJ. M. (2021). The dynamics of framing: Image, emotion, and the European migration crisis. Academy of Management Journal, 64(5), 1324–1354. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.0510
30.
LeeS. Y.SungY. H.ChoiD.KimD. H. (2021). Surviving a crisis: How crisis type and psychological distance can inform corporate crisis responses. Journal of Business Ethics, 168(4), 795–811. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04233-5
31.
LefsrudL. M.MeyerR. E. (2012). Science or science fiction? Professionals’ discursive construction of climate change. Organization Studies, 33(11), 1477–1506. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840612463317
32.
LitricoJ.-B.DavidR. J. (2017). The evolution of issue interpretation within organizational fields: Actor positions, framing trajectories, and field settlement. Academy of Management Journal, 60(3), 986–1015. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0156
33.
LiuD.PangL.XieB. (2009). Typhoon disaster in China: Prediction, prevention, and mitigation. Natural Hazards, 49(3), 421–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-008-9262-2
34.
MeyerA. D. (1982). Adapting to environmental jolts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 515–537.
35.
MeyerR. E.HöllererM. A. (2010). Meaning structures in a contested issue field: A topographic map of shareholder value in Austria. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1241–1262. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.57317829
Müller, O., Junglas, I., Brocke, J. V., & Debortoli, S. (2016). Utilizing big data analytics for information systems research: Challenges, promises and guidelines. European Journal of Information Systems, 25(4), 289–302.
38.
NewmanN.FletcherR.KalogeropoulosA.LevyD.NielsenR. K. (2017). Reuters Institute digital news report 2017. Available at SSRN 3026082.
39.
PatriottaG.GondJ. P.SchultzF. (2011). Maintaining legitimacy: Controversies, orders of worth, and public justifications. Journal of Management Studies, 48(8), 1804–1836. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00990.x
40.
PiazzaA.JourdanJ. (2018). When the dust settles: The consequences of scandals for organizational competition. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 165–190. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.1325
41.
ReineckeJ.AnsariS. (2021). Microfoundations of framing: The interactional production of collective action frames in the occupy movement. Academy of Management Journal, 64(2), 378–408. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.1063
42.
RiazS. (2009). Exploring institutional realities: The economic crisis as a time for IB to lead. Academy of International Business Insights, Forthcoming.
43.
RiazS.BuchananS. (2021). Elite maintenance work across the COVID-19 crisis: A critical view on power and language. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 17(2), 210–229. https://doi.org/10.1108/cpoib-05-2020-0053
44.
RiazS.BuchananS.BapujiH. (2011). Institutional work amidst the financial crisis: Emerging positions of elite actors. Organization, 18(2), 187–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508410389630
45.
RouletT. J.BothelloJ. (2022). An event-system perspective on disruption: Theorizing the pandemic and other discontinuities through historical and fictional accounts of the plague. Academy of Management Review(ja), 48(4), 772–789. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2021.0206
46.
RouletT. J.PichlerR. (2020). Blame game theory: Scapegoating, whistleblowing and discursive struggles following accusations of organizational misconduct. Organization Theory, 1(4), 2631787720975192. https://doi.org/10.1177/2631787720975192
ShadnamM.CraneA.LawrenceT. B. (2018). Who calls it? Actors and accounts in the social construction of organizational moral failure. Journal of Business Ethics, 165(4), 699–717. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4089-6
49.
ShrivastavaP. (1994). Technological and organizational roots of industrial crises: Lessons from Exxon Valdez and Bhopal. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 45(3), 237–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1625(94)90048-5
50.
SnowD.BenfordR.McCammonH.HewittL.FitzgeraldS. (2014). The emergence, development, and future of the framing perspective: 25+ years since “frame alignment”. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 19(1), 23–46. https://doi.org/10.17813/maiq.19.1.x74278226830m69l
51.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques. Sage Publications.
52.
TillyC. (2009). Credit and blame. Princeton University Press.
53.
UngureanuP.BertolottiF. (2020). Backing up emergency teams in healthcare and law enforcement organizations: Strategies to socialize newcomers in the time of COVID-19. Journal of Risk Research, 23(7-8), 888–901. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2020.1765002
54.
Ungureanu, P., Bellesia, F., & Cochis, C. (2025). Dealing with blame in digital ecosystems: The DAO failure in the Ethereum blockchain. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 215, 124096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2025.124096
55.
UtzS.SchultzF.GlockaS. (2013). Crisis communication online: How medium, crisis type and emotions affected public reactions in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Public Relations Review, 39(1), 40–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.09.010
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
