Organizations facing stigmatization often experience markedly different social control—some face severe regulatory sanctions and stakeholder penalties while others weather controversy with minimal impact. This variation in how stigma translates into social control presents a theoretical puzzle: why do similar instances of stigmatization lead to such different consequences? We argue that rhetoric plays a crucial mediating role between stigmatizing labels and social control. Drawing on rhetorical theory and research on social problems, we develop a theoretical framework identifying four distinct rhetorical genres through which organizational stigma is constructed and amplified: "social harm," "bad taste," "rule-breaking," and "incompetence." Each genre represents a different way of framing organizational deviance that tends to activate particular types of social control—some primarily trigger formal responses while others typically activate informal ones. We further specify how contextual conditions, including regulatory history, cultural homogeneity, and industry characteristics, moderate the relationship between rhetorical genres and social control. The framework offers new insights into the varied pathways through which stigma triggers social control and the conditions under which different types of sanctions emerge.
