Abstract:

The spillover effects of corporate misconduct represent a critical phenomenon in organizational and financial research, describing the transmission of consequences-positive or negative-from a transgressor firm to innocent bystander firms within the ecosystem. These effects manifest in alterations to stock prices, reputational capital, resource access, and competitive opportunities for firms not directly implicated in the wrongdoing. Extant theories predominantly focus on industry or product similarity, leveraging shared characteristics to explain both positive and negative spillover directions. However, these streams of research often treat the two types of effects in isolation, leading to a fragmented theoretical landscape and a lack of integrative explanation. To address this gap, this study adopts the lens of attributional cognitive processes to construct a unified theoretical framework that simultaneously explains and integrates both positive and negative spillover effects of corporate misconduct.

Specifically, this research posits that the direction of spillover is fundamentally determined by stakeholders’ “attribution locus” regarding the cause of the incident. When stakeholders attribute the misconduct to factors unique to the offending firm-such as specific managerial failures, isolated internal control breaches, or distinct ethical lapses-they engage in an isolated attribution. This perception frames the event as idiosyncratic and confined, thereby potentially redirecting trust, investment, and resources toward other firms within the industry that appear untainted, thus generating a positive spillover effect. Conversely, when stakeholders perceive the root cause as a systemic issue shared by a broader organizational group-such as pervasive regulatory gaps, industry-wide unethical norms, common technological vulnerabilities, or collective governance failures-they form a systemic attribution. This view triggers a generalized loss of confidence and a broad reassessment of risk across peer firms, resulting in a negative spillover effect.

Furthermore, this study elucidates that the nature of the misconduct (ability failure and moral failure) and its multidimensional attributes (intensity, temporal and spatial attributes) critically shape stakeholders’ attributional choices. For example, compared to moral failure, capability failure is more likely to lead stakeholders to make isolated attributions of responsibility. Competence-based failures (e.g., operational errors, technical miscalculations) are often perceived as specific, correctable flaws, confining blame to the individual firm. Second, and conversely, compared to capability failure, moral failure is more likely to cause stakeholders to make systematic attributions of responsibility. Integrity-based violations (e.g., fraud, deliberate deceit) provoke moral outrage and immediately implicate the culture, governance, and industry norms that enabled such behavior, diffusing blame across a broader category of firms.

Additionally, the research explores the moderating roles of corporate reputation and the multidimensional attributes of the behavior within the attribution process. A strong, resilient reputation can act as a buffer against negative spillovers under systemic attributions, as stakeholders discount the firm’s association with the tainted group. Conversely, under isolated attributions, high-reputation firms may be the prime beneficiaries of positive spillovers, attracting disproportionate gains in trust. The model also posits that the multidimensional attributes of the behavior moderate the primary attribution process itself. For instance, a high-magnitude event with high industry typicality will powerfully interact to strengthen systemic attribution and amplify negative spillovers.

In summary, this study synthesizes disparate strands of spillover research into a coherent, process-oriented theory centered on stakeholder cognition. By delineating the attributional pathway from misconduct characteristics to spillover valence, moderated by firm and contextual factors, it provides a robust cross-industry theoretical tool. This tool enhances anticipatory capability, allowing managers to assess not just if a spillover might occur, but its likely direction based on real-time causal narratives forming in the public sphere. For policymakers, it highlights the importance of managing systemic perceptions to prevent industry-wide crises. Ultimately, this integrated framework advances academic discourse by replacing a similarity-based paradigm with a more dynamic and predictive cognitive model, offering significant implications for crisis management, strategic communication, and regulatory intervention.

Key words: stakeholder perception, corporate misconduct, spillover effect, attribution cognitive process