Multi-national corporations are increasingly facing attention and disapproval by different actors, including authorities, public and (non-) commercial organizations. Digital globalization and especially social media as a low-cost, highly interactive and multidirectional platform shape a unique context for this rising attention. In the literature, much attention has been devoted to top-down approaches and strategies that corporations use to avoid stigmatization and sanctioning of their behaviour. Reactions to corporate harm are, however, seldom researched from a labelling perspective. As a result, corporations are not considered as objects towards whom labelling is targeted but rather as actors who hamper such processes and who, as moral entrepreneurs, influence which behaviour is labelled deviant. Based on theoretical analysis of literature and case studies, this article will discuss how the process of labelling has changed in light of the digitalized, late-modern society and consequently, how the process should be revisited to be applicable for corporate deviance. Given a diversification of moral entrepreneurs and increasingly dependency of labelling and meaning-making on the online sphere, two new forms of labelling are introduced that specifically target institutions; that is bottom-up and horizontal labelling.

Following a crisis, questions are often raised about how this crisis could have happened and whether someone is to be blamed for the crisis or its bad management. The blame game can become fierce as actors try to avoid, shift or mitigate blame in order to stay in office. In 2014, a festival took place in Haaksbergen where a monster truck drove into the audience, killing three people and injuring many others. Not enough safety measures had been taken to prevent the tragedy. Many actors were to blame for that, including the local authority which had granted the permit. Other actors blamed for the events were the mayor, the monster truck driver, and the organization organizing the festival. In the end, the mayor of Haaksbergen resigned. Instead of becoming more accommodative in his response as his blame levels increased, the mayor continued to be quite defensive, stating that the permit would be granted again – even with today’s knowledge. As one council member stated it, one cannot defend something which cannot be defended.

On September 21th 2012, a sweet sixteen party in Haren (a Dutch village), announced on Facebook as PROJECT X Haren, turned into a riot in which youngsters clashed with the police. The blame was put on the film Project X (2012) that would have inspired adolescents to become aggressive and violent. However, like other adolescent comedies, this movie offers an insight in the adolescent state of mind, the role of humor and their lack of risk assessments. Much violence is (harmless) slapstick-like, boundaries are exceeded (sex, alcohol, drugs) and transgression is often directed against parents, teachers and the police. What is tested in the adolescent imagination is the public order. Film functions as a symbolic rite of passage, with carnivalesque inversions. Reacting in Haren on this adolescent state of mind with an administrative prohibition (‘there is no party’) confirmed the juvenile joke. Acting as if it is not a party but a huge disaster (by enlarging police forces) contributed to make the riot a reality that the youngsters themselves never imagined. The commission of inquiry recommends taking serious film and other forms of public imagination, because they contribute to our understanding of reality, especially concerning the perceptions of societal actors.