This paper is published in Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08276331.2015.1017869#abstract.

THE STIGMATIZATION OF BANKRUPT ENTREPRENEURS IN DUTCH

NEWSPAPERS

Wakkee, I., Dorrestein, F. and Englis, P.

Abstract - We examine to what extent bankrupt entrepreneurs are stigmatized in the mass

media. Based on a decade of newspaper articles, we show that while overall the level of

stigmatization is lower than expected based on popular belief, stigmatization increases in the

years with many bankruptcies, and in the months following a prominent bankruptcy. These

differences are caused by the distinctions made by journalists between entrepreneurs in charge of

large and small firms respectively as villains responsible for the bankruptcy and its

consequences, or as hard-working victims of the system. Findings are explained in terms of

experienced peril and cultural factors.

Keywords: bankruptcy, entrepreneurship, media, stigmatization, culture, exposure

1

Introduction

It is often suggested that entrepreneurs who have been involved in a bankruptcy are

stigmatized and that this stigma keeps them from ever starting another new firm (Landier 2002;

Burchell and Hughes 2006; European_Commission 2007). Nevertheless few empirical studies

have been undertaken to establish whether this stigma is reality or merely popular belief and

possibly an excuse for those entrepreneurs who do not dare to start again. The present research

considers the first of these issues and investigates whether evidence is found for the alleged

stigmatization of (ex-) bankrupt entrepreneurs in the media.

As yet, few entrepreneurship studies have relied solely on newspaper articles to develop

insight into how relevant stakeholders and society perceives entrepreneurs. Studies by Nicholson

and Anderson (2005) on changing metaphoric portrayal of entrepreneurs, by Achtenhagen and

Welter on the depiction of female entrepreneurs in the German media and by Schultz and

Achtenhagen (2013) on stereotypes of ethnic entrepreneurs in U.S. newspapers form some

interesting recent exceptions. Here, the nature and extent of stigmatization of bankrupt

entrepreneurs is explored by qualitatively examining how they were portrayed in the Dutch mass

media. By systematically analyzing newspapers articles from 2000 till 2009, we examine the

extent and nature of stigmatization and connect the level of stigmatization to the number of

bankruptcies in a specific period, the characteristics of these bankruptcies in terms of firm size,

and to the occurrence of prominent bankruptcy cases. We reveal that the overall level of

stigmatization of ex-bankrupt entrepreneurs in the media is not as high as expected. A rather

balanced picture of bankruptcy emerges in the media.

Closer inspection reveals that in years with many bankruptcies the overall tone is more

stigmatizing, just like in the period following a prominent bankruptcy case. In addition,

considerable differences are observed in the way the media report firms of different sizes

experiencing a bankruptcy. While entrepreneurs involved in medium sized to larger firms are

often portrayed as mainly taking care of their own (financial) position, owner-managers of micro

and small ventures that go bankrupt are typically shown as victims of the system or as slaving

against all odds. We explain the findings using insights from previous studies on stigma in other

domains such as mental illness or obesity (Goffman 1963; Pinel 1999), and on the role of culture

(Burchell and Hughes 2006; Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner 1994). We conclude that

2

perceived peril (Jones et al. 1984; Neuberg et al. 2000) offers a better explanation of

stigmatization compared to exposure or empathy effects (Corrigan et al. 2001; Jacoby et al.

2004). In terms of culture, we argue that the egalitarian nature of the Dutch society may explain

differences in stigmatizing reports of large versus small firm bankruptcies.

This paper is organized in the following manner. The next section starts with a description

of the meaning and nature of bankruptcy in the Netherlands where this study was conducted and

how it leads to the stigmatization of entrepreneurs involved in bankruptcy. Next we provide an

overview of the literature on media framing and how this connects to the issue of entrepreneurial

bankruptcy. The third section describes the qualitative method that we adopted including a

description of our main data sources, our sample and a qualitative articles classification

framework. After presenting our findings we end this study with a discussion in which we

interpret our findings in terms of exposure to bankruptcy stories versus the perceived level of

peril resulting from bankruptcy as well as in terms of a number of national culture dimensions.

Background

Bankruptcy and the destruction of entrepreneurial capital

Bankruptcy is an important legal means to protect the rights of debtors and acts as an

important mechanism to filter out less capable entrepreneurs resulting in more successful

entrepreneurial activities at the macro-level (Hunt 1997; Thornhill and Amit 2003). Yet,

bankruptcies are typically due to many different internal and external factors, only some of

which are controllable by the entrepreneur. Furthermore, bankruptcies are a cause of destruction

of entrepreneurial capital when the entrepreneurs involved give up (Shepherd 2009; Shepherd,

Covin, and Kuratko 2009; Shepherd, Wiklund, and Haynie 2009). Indeed only a small proportion

of these actually start a new firm. Most would like to do so (Reynolds et al. 2004) but are kept

from it by extensive perceived and actual stigmatization (Furuya 2002; Landier 2002; Alesina

and Glaeser 2004).

In the Netherlands, any legal entity can be declared bankrupt by the court if they have at

least two creditors and fail to pay their debt. Both the creditors and the owner-manager of the

firm can request for bankruptcy. The court then appoints a liquidator who assumes guardianship

3

of the firm and who seeks to execute the firm’s estate to pay off as much of the debt as possible

by drastically reorganizing or liquidating the firm. Also, the liquidator is responsible for

initiating a potential investigation into director’s liability.

(http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001860/geldigheidsdatum_16-12-2013). While liquidators

should settle a bankruptcy case as soon as possible, there are no legal time limits. Consequently

many bankruptcy cases linger for many months or even years depending on the size of the debt

and complexity of the case. While discussions about updating the 19th century bankruptcy law

have been going on between lawyers and policy makers for several years now, no major changes

in the bankruptcy law have been implemented between 2000 and 2009. The number of

bankruptcy cases in the Netherlands ranged from 4.498 in 2000 to 10.559 in 2010 with annual

variations as a result of the number of firms and the stage of the economic cycle (CBS, 2011).

The total economic and societal damage of firm bankruptcies is difficult to establish but in 2010

it was estimated that about 4 billion euro’s in unpaid debt remained after bankruptcy (CBS

2011). The number of jobs lost as a result of bankruptcies in this period tripled from almost

20.000 in 2000 to almost 60.000 in 2009 (Sprangers, Timmermans, and Lalta 2010).

Stigmatization of bankrupt entrepreneurs

According to Goffman (1963) stigma refer to “personal attributes that are deeply

discrediting and that reduces a whole and usual person into a tainted and discounted one” (p. 3)

and that separate this person from the society or community in which he lives (Kasperson,

Jhaveri, and Kasperson 2001; Semadeni et al. 2008). Stigmatization thus refers to an invisible

divide that can be seen as sign of disapproval which permits "insiders" to draw a line around the

"outsiders" in order to demarcate the limits of inclusion in any group. This demarcation enables

insiders to know who is "in" and who is "out". This allows a group to maintain its solidarity by

demonstrating what will happen to individuals who deviate from accepted norms of conduct

(Falk 2001). Individuals stigmatize in order to reduce complexity, to feel better about themselves

or about their group, to justify their perceived status in society or to validate an important

worldview (Crocker and Quinn 2003). This is most likely to happen to individuals who threaten

the successful functioning of the group (Neuberg et al. 2000).

4

The extent to which bankruptcy is a cause for stigma varies across regions and over time

due to differences and changes in norms and values which are caused by contextual factors such

as rules and regulations, demographics and economic circumstances (Dake 1992; Douglas and

Wildavsky 1983; Landier 2002; Saxenian 1996). Damaraju, Barney, and Dess (2010) showed

that bankrupt entrepreneurs are stigmatized more commonly in collectivist cultures, like the

Netherlands, than in individualistic cultures. In individualistic cultures, environmental dynamism

suppresses the effect of stigmatization on entrepreneurial risk taking. In collectivistic cultures

environmental dynamism does not act as a moderator. These findings suggest that culture alone

cannot explain either the stigmatization or the effects on the number of restarts after bankruptcy.

Indeed (Burchell and Hughes 2006) show that despite having a higher tolerance towards failure

than Europeans, Americans are slightly less willing to grant a second chance to those who start

again. Yet, re-startup rates are much higher in the U.S than in Europe. According to the authors,

GDP growth rather than cultural differences explain differences in the (re)startup rate.

Previously, (Landier 2002) suggested differences in the regulation and bankruptcy procedure,

rather than general cultural attitudes, might explain variations in re-startup rates across countries.

Nevertheless, stigmatization is generally seen as an important contributor to permanent exits

from entrepreneurial careers after bankruptcy.

Several mechanisms play a role in the formation and persistence of stigma of bankruptcy in

different institutional environments (Jones et al. 1984). The first mechanism comes into play

when individuals fear that bankrupt entrepreneurs are either incompetent or not to be trusted and

that they will mess up again. When individuals consider entrepreneurs involved in bankruptcy

are not to be trusted, they are often afraid that this entrepreneur will (intentionally) deceive them

some point in the future. The second mechanism is not based on an individual’s personal views

about bankrupt entrepreneurs, but on the (correct or incorrect) assumption that third parties will

negatively evaluate their association with a bankrupt entrepreneur. This assumption causes

individuals to distance themselves from (ex-)bankrupts to save their own reputation, almost as if

the stigma would be contagious (Goffman 1963; Jones et al. 1984; Sutton and Callahan 1987).

Most individuals do not deal with bankrupt entrepreneurs on a daily basis and therefore

they typically cannot rely on their own experiences to form an opinion about such entrepreneurs.

Instead, they form opinions by ‘following’ or ‘adopting’ the opinions of individuals or groups

5

who occupy an elite position like business analysts, judges and liquidators and journalists and

who are expected to be able to form an accurate perception of a particular attribute or

phenomenon (Wiesenfeld, Wurthmann, and Hambrick 2008). Because the viewpoints of these

opinion leaders are usually shared with the general audience through the mass media, in this

research we will explore how mass media report about bankrupt entrepreneurs and how these

reports change over time.

Framing Bankruptcy

Mass media refer to newspapers, book publishing, radio and television (Krippendorff

2012). Mass media both affect which topics are brought to the attention of the public (agenda

setting theory (McCombs 2013; McCombs and Shaw 1972) and how these topics are brought to

their attention and consequently what the public should think of these topics (framing theory

(Otieno, Spada, and Renkl 2013; Semetko and Valkenburg 2000)). The key assumption of

framing theory is that people have different perspectives when looking at events or phenomena,

and that the way in which journalists characterize or frame these in their reports can influence

how people perceive the issue or through which perspectives people see the world (Hallahan

1999; Iyengar and Simon 1993). Frames enable individuals to locate, perceive, identify and label

events and have four functions: problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation and

recommendation of solutions (Entman 1993).

The public expects the media to be objective and driven by professional codes of conduct

and thus to present a balanced picture of a specific phenomenon. Journalists and media managers

nevertheless are also driven by their own prejudices and by commercial considerations. Thus,

when creating a report they consciously or unconsciously select characteristics and attributes of

the event they stress to demarcate the issue (Wilkins 2006; Skovsgaard et al. 2013). Further due

to competitive motives, journalists and media managers seek to present the news in such a way

that it meets the expectations of the audience and resonates with them. Wiesenfeld, Wurthmann,

and Hambrick (2008) argue that this has led to an increase in the use of colourful expressions

and dramatizations of events. When reports reflect a certain level of pleasure at the expense of

other people’s mistakes, this contributes to further stigmatization via the activation of negative

stereotypes to a larger extent than the underlying actual factors and mechanisms justify (Van

Gorp 2007). Alternatively, the media can also play a role in reducing the stigma on bankruptcy.

6

Although some suggest that the audience is more susceptible to negative than to positive stories

in the media (Byrne 2003), it is also widely accepted that informing and educating the audience

plays a major role in reducing stigma by providing accurate and balanced information

concerning causes and consequences (Reeder and Pryor 2008).

To determine to what extent framing contributes to stigmatization of entrepreneurs

involved in bankruptcy, two dimensions of framing need to be considered. The first relates to the

type of frame that is being used and the second concerns the way in which frames are utilized

(Scheufele 1999). On the basis of these two dimensions the framing process can be subdivided

into frame building and frame setting. Five frame types are commonly used (Semetko and

Valkenburg 2000). 1: Conflict frames in which emphasis is placed on conflicts between

individuals, groups and institutions; 2. Economic frames in which emphasis is placed on the

economic consequences of an event; 3. Human interest frames that show the personal side or

human face of an event; 4. Morality frames that position an event in the context of contemporary

norms and social codes of conduct; and 5. Responsibility frames that are used to indicate

responsibility of groups and institutions for either an event or problem or for the solution to this

problem. Recent studies suggest that these five frame types are equally used in relation to such

crises. The extent to which a specific type of crisis is seen as either preventable or inevitable

determines which of these frames is more commonly used. In particular when a crisis is seen as

being avoidable, the responsibility frame is used most commonly (An and Gower 2009). While

testing the actual impact of different frames on the audience is beyond the scope of this study,

Entman (1993) showed that the responsibility and the morality frame will have the strongest

impact on the opinions the audience will form about a particular phenomenon as they explicitly

address and evaluate causal agents and the effects.

Determining which type of frame is used is not sufficient when seeking insight in the level

of stigmatization. In fact, each type of frame can contain elements that are stigmatizing, neutral

or stigma-reducing. Therefore it is equally important to examine the actual content of a media

frame. Four dimensions can be used to determine the content of a frame: 1. the attributes of the

event that are being highlighted; 2. the nature of the presentation and prominence of a report in

the media (e.g. its length or location, usages of images); 3. the extent to which reporters seek to

invoke an emotional response; and 4. the level and nature of the details and connections between

7

these presented in order to allow the audience to cognitively understand the issue and or its

potential solutions (Ghanem 1997). By selecting both the type of frame and determining which

dimensions to incorporate when creating a news report and how to apply these, journalists build

media frames. In this frame building process, journalists are influenced by both external and

internal factors such as professional values, political orientations, perceptions about the

expectations of the audience, the views of other opinion leaders and pressure groups.

The interactions between different internal and external influences are not yet fully

understood (Scheufele 1999)) and developing insight into the underlying mechanisms is beyond

the scope of the research. Here we explore the effect of two external factors namely the number

of bankruptcies and the occurrence of prominent bankruptcy cases. First, journalists might be

influenced by the frequency with which the events about which they report occur. Wiesenfeld,

Wurthmann, and Hambrick (2008) suggest that when confronted with the bankruptcy of a firm,

stakeholders ask themselves questions about who is responsible or even to blame. If they

attribute bankruptcy to the behavior of the entrepreneur (due to lack of skills and capabilities or

even malicious intent), individuals will shut these entrepreneurs out and are unwilling to give

them a second chance (Furuya 2002). If bankruptcies occur frequently in a specific period,

journalists – possibly affected by economic analysts or policy makers who express themselves

negatively on the issue - might perceive this as an important sign that entrepreneurs are poorly

equipped for their position and thus to blame for the economic and societal perils of termination

of so many firms (Jones et al. 1984). Consequently, journalists may write about bankrupt

entrepreneurs in a more stigmatizing manner than they would generally do. Alternatively, when

many firms experience bankruptcy simultaneously, journalists potentially start to consider

external factors like general economic decline or inadequate policies and regulations. Indeed,

previous research has shown that mere exposure to patients reduces the extent to which an

individual stigmatizes someone affected by a mental illness (Corrigan et al. 2001). Exposure (via

personal interaction or via the media) is suggested to lead to the accumulation of actual

knowledge about an illness or phenomenon and thus to the reduction of stereotypes that lead to

stigmatization. This in turn would lead to a reduction of the stigmatization (Jacoby et al. 2004).

The question therefore remains, to what extent is the level of stigmatization of an entrepreneur

involved in a bankruptcy explained by the number of bankruptcies that occur in a given period?

8

Second, we expect that stigmatizing reports concerning prominent bankruptcy cases have a

negative influence on the reports concerning other bankruptcies. Prominent cases are defined in

this study as those bankruptcy cases that are described by the media as being large, as involving

extensive debt and or massive layoffs. They do not necessarily have to involve entrepreneurial

firms in the sense that they are owned and managed by a single entrepreneur or small team of

entrepreneurs but can also involve (publicly owned) corporations. Scheufele (1999) argues that

journalists act as a public when they read news reports of other journalists and are influenced in a

similar way. Referring to earlier research by Gamson and Modigliani (1989), Van Gorp (2007)

suggests that this process occurs most likely after large events that are imprinted on the

collective memory of a country. In their study, Gamson and Modigliani (1989) explain how

accidents with the nuclear power plant in Chernobyl led to a change in the way media report

about nuclear power plants in general. The original positive frame of innovation and

development was replaced by ‘Faustian’ or fatalistic frames. This line of thinking might lead to

the assumption that reports about prominent bankruptcy cases negatively influence the way in

which journalists report about other bankruptcy cases. However the lack of empirical research in

this area calls for more investigation into the question of how reports about prominent cases

affect the level of stigmatization in reports about other bankruptcies cases that occur shortly after

the prominent case is first announced.

Method

Qualitative research provides an excellent means to explore and make sense of societal

developments over time as it allows researchers to incorporate contextual and intervening

conditions that may impact upon a specific issue or process, while also showing the dynamic

interplay of various factors (Saldaña 2003). Qualitative researchers are typically interested in the

“lived experiences” of the actors involved and how these experiences influenced the actors in

relation to the issue or process under investigation. Therefore, most qualitative research is based

on primary information collected via interviews and observations, which allow for a direct

interaction between the researcher and the subject of the study. Secondary materials, which are

independent and not created for the purpose of research like newspapers or websites, typically

serve as background information in a data triangulation process (Decrop 1999). These materials

are mainly used to confirm the trustworthiness of primary information or to serve as a starting

9

point for an interview or conversation with the research subjects (Groen, Wakkee, and De

Weerd-Nederhof 2008; Taylor and Jack 2012){Groen, 2008 #1742;Taylor, 2012 #1743}. While

this use of secondary materials advances insight in entrepreneurship, we maintain that qualitative

researchers have so far overlooked the full potential of secondary materials. First, secondary

materials are typically easily accessible via the web or public archives when and how often the

investigators want to access it. Collecting secondary materials is thus less obtrusive for the

subjects involved and the investigator has the potential to go back to the material again and again

without burdening these subjects. Second, no recollection biases are involved as the materials

were created at time of the events on which they report. Biases resulting from social desirable

behavior towards the investigator are also not an issue. Particularly when exploring the

development of attitudes and behaviors over time, this constitutes a major benefit of secondary

materials.

To explore how mass media report about bankrupt entrepreneurs, we set up a qualitative

design using content analysis involving the analysis mass media reports covering the period 2000

- 2009. Since no significant differences can be observed between different types of mass media

and the types of media frames that are being used (Semetko and Valkenburg 2000), the

investigation is limited to newspapers because these are used most commonly by relevant

stakeholders such as bank employees and policy makers to keep informed

(NationaalOnderzoekMultimedia 2010). In addition, the analysis of text (newspapers) is

considered more efficient that the analysis of spoken words (radio) and or images (television).

Rather than including all Dutch newspapers, three newspapers (Telegraaf, Volkskrant (VK) and

Financieel Dagblad (FD)) are included. Each has a significant market share and serves a different

reader profile. In particular the Telegraaf is the largest national newspaper with an average

market share of about 15% between 2000 and 2010). The newspaper is generally typified as

‘popular’ for its considerable attention to entertainment and sports. The newspaper attracts a

readership from a broad section of the population with its relatively conservative (right wing) or

even populist tone of voice. Yet, its financial section is more serious and therefore generally

appreciated by policy makers and business people. The Volkskrant has much smaller market

share with about 5% but is still the third largest newspaper in terms of readership. The

newspaper is considered one of the country’s three “quality newspapers” and is seen as being left

wing although its editorial voice has moved more to the political center in the past decade. Its

10

readers generally have a higher level of education compared to the Telegraaf. Finally, the

Financieel Dagblad is a specialized newspaper that focuses on financial and corporate news. It

has a market share of about 1.3% but is well read amongst the upper echelon, decision makers of

Dutch SMEs corporations and policy makers (Cebuco 2009; Upmedia 2010).

Relevant articles were selected via the search engine LexisNexis and utilizing (the Dutch

translation of) two combinations of search terms: “bankrupt entrepreneurs” and “bankruptcy

AND entrepreneur(ship)”. After removing double entries and articles that were too small to

classify such as announcements that a particular firm was declared bankrupt, that a bankruptcy

was terminated, or that (parts of) a bankrupt firm were sold to another firm, we ended up with a

sample of 323 newspaper articles. It should be noted that most bankruptcy cases were discussed

in a single article only or only once per newspaper. Very few cases were tracked over time as

developing stories.

In addition to these articles on entrepreneurial bankruptcies we also searched for prominent

(corporate) bankruptcies cases that attracted considerable media attention. After discussions

between the authors, three bankruptcies were identified as being highly profiled during the

period 2000- 2009 based on recollection of our collective memory and separate search using the

keyword “prominent” AND “bankruptcy”. The first case concerns the bankruptcy of KPNQwest

on May 31st, 2002. One of the newspapers wrote about this case as it being the “Largest

Bankruptcy since DAF in 1993” (September 30th, 2010). KPNQwest was a telecom joint venture

founded by the Dutch KNP and the US firm Qwest which was founded in 1999. The firm began

to build a broadband Internet network and experienced a quadrupling in sales but never reached

positive results. Even before the network was completed, the firm was declared bankrupt. 550

employees lost their job. To this date the bankruptcy is still an active and highly disputed case. In

total eight articles were published about this bankruptcy in the first three months after its

announcement which is indicative of the media coverage of this case. Only one article contained

stigmatizing remarks about the firm’s senior management, but overall the tenor in these articles

was stigma-reducing or neutral in nature. Rather, the blame for this bankruptcy is put on the

American shareholder. For example, “Riseeuw is surprised that the American Qwest

Communications, that owns 48% of the shares of KPNQwest, did not provide a helping hand to

improve the poor situation the company was in” (Telegraaf, June 8th, 2002). While the pattern of

11

reporting on particular cases over time is beyond the scope of this investigation, it should be

noted that articles published about the case in later periods became increasingly judgmental and

stigmatizing in nature as a result of the additional information that surfaced.

The second case involves the bankruptcy of the military/defense company SP Aerospace

and Vehicle Systems on August 13th, 2004. 250 employees lost their job. Shortly after the

bankruptcy was declared, the firm was split in two parts that were subsequently acquired by two

key customers (Stork and KMW) providing jobs for most of the employees who lost their job

due to the bankruptcy. The first article printed on this case (FD, August 13th, 2004) was neutral in

tone, as it only announced the bankruptcy and named the appointed executor. The other five

articles were neutral towards the entrepreneur. However, articles published in July 2006, and

October, November and December of 2007 were highly stigmatizing towards the owner. In these

articles the entrepreneur is linked to bankruptcy fraud. While these articles are not included when

testing proposition 2 because they were published outside the three month scope for the analysis,

the change in tone is remarkable. It suggests that journalists do not automatically blame

entrepreneurs when a firm goes bankrupt but that they remain neutral until additional relevant

information surfaces.

The third prominent case concerns the demise of the Dirk Scheringa Bank (DSB) of

October 19th 2009. The DSB bank was a relatively young bank that originated in a financial

advice agency founded in 1977 and only obtained a bank license in 2005. The bank experienced

rapid growth by offering consumer credit and a number of insurance and savings products. At the

time of the bankruptcy, the bank had reached a market share of about 17% in consumer credits.

In contrast to the other two cases, the tenor in the first twelve articles about the bankruptcy of

DSB was predominantly negative towards the entrepreneur: The bankruptcy is completely

attributed to the entrepreneur: “Some self-reflection would have become DS when he announced

the bankruptcy of his bank this morning. It has long been his strength to ignore the past while

ruling his advanced money bank. Eventually however this became his Achilles’ heel in

practicing the serious banking profession. DSB existed because of him but now it also ceased to

exist because of him” (FD, October 20th, 2009). The negative tone towards the entrepreneur

remained prominent in later articles about the case. In addition, reports about the liquidator

involved in the case also turned increasingly stigmatizing over time.

12

Following Nicholson and Anderson (2005), we used a content analysis to rigorously

capture beliefs, values and ideologies embedded in documents and how these change over time

(Weber 1985). The analysis process consisted of three steps. First, we established the type of

media frame used per article. Second, we tried to determine how these media frames were used

on the basis of the attributes that were highlighted (Ghanem 1997). Finally, we classified each

article as stigmatizing (negative towards (ex-bankrupt entrepreneurs) or neutral (impartial

towards (ex-)bankrupt entrepreneurs) or stigma-reducing (positive towards (ex-)bankrupt

entrepreneurs or offering alternative explanations for bankruptcy rather than incompetence or

misconduct from the side of the entrepreneur on the basis of previously developed checklist. To

ensure credibility and dependability in the assessment, the first author using the jointly

developed framework, initially classified all the articles. Next, the second author performed a

similar analysis using a random subsample consisting of 75 articles relying on the list of

qualitative categories that were inductively identified by the first author. In only three cases a

somewhat different interpretation of the text led to a different categorization. After having

discussed the results and reviewing similar cases collectively, the original classification made by

the first author was used in the remainder of the analysis.

Data on the number of bankruptcies in a specific year were obtained from the website of

the Dutch Bureau of Statistics (www.cbs.nl). Prominent bankruptcy cases were identified as

follows: one was presented as “the largest bankruptcy since DAF” and the other two were

identified on the basis of the high debt and massive layoffs.

Findings

Descriptive Results

Of the 323 articles included in our analysis, 84 were originally published in de Telegraaf,

87 were published in de VK and 152 were published in Het FD. From 2000, the number of

reports rose gradually until the middle of the decade followed by a decline in the period 2005 –

2007 only to start rising very sharply by the 2008 and through 2009. All three newspapers

roughly follow these same patterns although the increase in the number of articles began

somewhat earlier in the Telegraaf than in the other newspapers.

13

Turning to the type of media frames used then, the FD predominantly uses economic

frames to report about bankruptcies, the articles in de Telegraaf most commonly adopted a

responsibility frame, and the VK mainly used the human interest frame. From our analysis we

conclude that when considering all three newspapers over the entire period, the responsibility

frame is used most commonly (n = 103), followed by the human interest frame (n = 84) and the

economic frame (n =72). The morality frame is used less frequently (n =49) while the conflict

frame is used only rarely (n = 15). Following insights from An and Gower (2009), the wide use

of the responsibility frame suggests that journalists generally believe that bankruptcies are

avoidable; yet, the usage of the responsibility frame varies rather widely throughout the decade.

From the analysis however no apparent explanation for this variation could be identified. As can

be observed from Table 1, the usage of the human interest frame (HF) began to be more

dominant in the second half of the decade. This is in line with earlier observations that suggested

the competitive landscape forces journalists to try and capture the audience’s interest

(Wiesenfeld et al. 2008; Skovsgaard et al. 2013).

Table 1 about here

Next, subcategories of frames were identified to determine in more detail how the Dutch

mass media report about bankrupt entrepreneurs and to what extent these reports could lead to

stigmatization of or stigma-reduction for such entrepreneurs. While this was not a focal area of

attention at the start of our analysis, when conducting this analysis it became increasingly clear

that across all types of media frames journalists clearly distinguish between entrepreneurs who

are in charge of medium to large sized firms and corporations and entrepreneurs who operate

micro and small firms. Although the number of employees or the sales level (prior to the demise

of the firm) was not always explicitly mentioned, either the approximate size class of the firm

became apparent from the story or in some cases it was already known to one of the authors

through previous exposure to information about these firms. While we identified stigmatizing,

neutral and stigma-reducing reports about both types of entrepreneurs, the tenor proved distinct

across the different frame types.

As mentioned previously, the responsibility frame is used most frequently over the course

of the decade. Careful analyses of the content of these articles lead to the identification of nine

qualitatively different types of reports - four of which are clearly stigmatizing bankrupt

14

entrepreneurs. Specifically we distinguished the following qualitative categories: fraudulent large

entrepreneurs (n = 23), overall poor quality of entrepreneurial skills in the Netherlands (n = 12),

incompetent ‘small’ entrepreneurs (n = 11), and mismanagement by entrepreneurs running larger

firms (n = 10). In these articles, the role and responsibility of other contributing stakeholders

and environmental factors is neglected or trivialized as shown from the following example:

“While the poor economic situation is often asserted as causing the problems in 75% of all cases

we can simply point to mismanagement.” (Telegraaf, November 9th 2005). Likewise an article in

the VK of October 2003 suggests: “The large number of startups in 2000 and 2002 is part of the

boom in bankruptcies. The starting entrepreneur from the latter days of the economic boom was

poorly educated and only had hobby-like knowledge.”

In the other five categories, journalists do inform on the role of other parties. Several

pointed to the poor quality of support and consultancy services (n = 15), inadequate legislation (n

= 14) or the impact of customers who do not pay their invoices or do so too late (n = 9). Whereas

most of the articles in these categories have a neutral tone, about one third can be typified as

stigma-reducing for entrepreneurs involved in a bankruptcy as they either offer an alternative

explanation for the occurrence of a bankruptcy, other than misconduct or lack of capabilities of

the entrepreneur or actually portray the entrepreneur as being the victim of other actors’

behaviors An example of such an article can be found in FD on April 7th 2004: “Late-paying

debtors are a huge expense: the supplier suffers from an interest loss and recovering the claims

requires manpower. When the money does not come at all it may be the fatal blow”.

Furthermore, reports about the role of monitoring and controlling bodies such as boards of

governors or (financial) watchdogs (n = 6) or the rigid (credit) approach of banks (n = 3) can be

seen as potentially reducing stigmatization for entrepreneurs as they offer an explanation for the

occurrence of bankruptcies that does not involve incompetency or misconduct of entrepreneurs.

For instance “Research of State Secretary Ybema (Economic Affairs) shows that two out of three

bankruptcies is unnecessary and would be avoidable if banks were more lenient.” (Telegraaf,

January 23rd, 2002). The reports in these last two categories are typically neutral in tenor as they

do not completely discharge entrepreneurs from their responsibility but rather suggest that they

are not the only ones to blame.

15

Turning to articles using a human interest frame, seven qualitative categories were

identified. The majority of these focused on the personal life of the entrepreneur. Very few

articles devoted attention to potential other “victims” of bankruptcies such as former employees

or un-served customers (n = 4) or to bankruptcy lawyers reflecting on the bankruptcy

phenomenon (n = 6). From the articles focusing on the entrepreneurs, we could again observe a

strong distinction between the way in which entrepreneurs running small firms and entrepreneurs

running medium sized to large firms are being depicted. Entrepreneurs running small businesses

are most typically portrayed as “foolish or naive” or as “Muddling through against the Odds” (n

= 29). As the following example shows: “… a break out of a bacterial disease, for which a

costly vaccine had to be developed…tremendous increases in the price of fodder and extensive

competition from imported fish due to the cheap dollar … the labor-intensive character of the

tilapia production is detrimental to the sale of expensive Dutch farm fishes. In an attempt to save

his firm he sets up a pilot to breed another fish even though he knows he officially is not allowed

to do so: according to the regulations of the Ministry his cannot breed other fishes until at least

three years after having obtained a subsidy for breeding tilapia. Anonymous breeders tip off the

inspection and he receives a fine” (FD, October 29th 2008). The majority of these articles are not

stigmatizing in nature. We also identified several articles that may contribute to the reduction of

stigma on bankruptcy as they portrayed entrepreneurs running small businesses who had become

very successful in a new venture after having experienced a bankruptcy in the past (n =8).

When it comes to the articles about entrepreneurs running larger firms, we identified a

qualitative category that depicted these as Struggling against the Tide (n = 11) . These articles

resembled those about entrepreneurs running small businesses who are muddling through. For

instance on June 13th 2000, De Telegraaf reports about a particular entrepreneur as “emaciated,

as poor as a church rat but with admirable resilience he is fighting for complete rehabilitation.”

Another category presents entrepreneurs running larger firms as “Cunning and focused on

protecting their personal interest.” (n = 18). For instance, the VK reported that “While financially

business may be bad…. – his corporation has been declared bankrupt last Tuesday – his

personal finances are apparently in good shape: he recently bought a brand new airplane” (VK,

April 4th 2005). Articles in this final category are without exception stigmatizing in nature.

16

When analyzing articles using an economic frame, we identified seven qualitative

categories of arguments to explain the occurrence of bankruptcies. Two of these categories

establish a direct connection between the behavior of the entrepreneurs and the bankruptcy and

as such could be considered stigmatizing towards entrepreneurs involved in bankruptcy. The first

category (n = 12) suggests that many starting entrepreneurs go bankrupt as a result of a lack

education and training and thus a lack of knowledge and skills. The second category points to

more general and sometimes even deliberate mismanagement (n = 19). These articles typically

also point to the residual debts that such entrepreneurs leave behind when their firm goes

bankrupt. For instance, The FD reports that “Some analysts began to question the reliability of

the financial reports openly. In addition, insiders suggested that the book keeping at Landis was

rattling. The word ‘Mismanagement’ is mentioned repeatedly”. In the other five categories

bankruptcies are attributed to factors beyond the control of the entrepreneur and as such these

articles cannot be classified as being stigmatizing towards entrepreneurs. In particular in these

articles, reporters attribute bankruptcies to late or non-paying customers (n = 5), government

policies (n = 10), general economic decline (n = 13), termination of support from others (n = 9),

and drops in demand (n = 4). For instance the VK reports that: “Based on the numbers produced

by Euler Hermes we can conclude that, relatively in no other European country so many firms

go bankrupt as in the Netherlands. According to Toemen this cannot only be attributed to poor

entrepreneurship. The economic decline of recent years plays a significant role. Especially

amongst consumer-oriented companies there are many casualties. Consumers after all keep a

tight hand”.

Articles in which a morality frame is used tend to incorporate one of three pleas. Two of

these pleas (for reduction of stigma (n= 29) and for changing the role of the administrator during

the bankruptcy process (n = 9)) contain strong stigma reducing elements. The third type of plea

(for dealing with malicious or incapable entrepreneurs (n = 11)) clearly stigmatized

entrepreneurs as is shown from an example in the VK: “Companies sometimes use a bankruptcy

to get rid of their employees. In case of a through-start they recruit new personnel. The FNV <a

trade union> examines why this type of fraud is so difficult to fight” (June 7th 2004).

Finally, while analyzing the articles in which a conflict frame is being used, we could

distinguish between five types of conflicts stakeholders with whom bankrupt entrepreneurs are

17

considered to be in conflict with: franchisers (n = 3), investors (n =5), bankruptcy lawyers/

administrators (n = 2), customers (n = 4) and banks(n = 1). These articles predominantly placed

the blame for the conflict with the entrepreneur. For instance the VK reported that “This type of

management is really killing the Fund. They show they are incapable of running a firm.”

However, in six cases the reporter sought to create a more balanced picture that does justice to

both parties. Also in a number of reports, the entrepreneur is being portrayed as the victim of

their customer or of the executor handling the bankruptcy case.

When looking at the differences across the three newspapers, VK and FD both use

stigmatizing elements in just over half of their articles about bankrupt entrepreneurs. The use of

such stigmatizing frames in the Telegraaf is less common, at 30%. This result might at first seem

surprising because of the more populist-oriented tone of voice, which is often associated with a

higher level of stigmatization. Yet, this newspaper is very well-read amongst entrepreneurs and

this might explain why this newspaper is more careful when it comes to stigmatizing part of its

audience.

Effect of the Number of Bankruptcies

The number of bankruptcies in a particular period might lead to the use of different media

frames and the use of more or less stigmatizing reports. We proposed that a negative relationship

would occur between the number of bankruptcy cases and the level of stigmatization in the

media. As can be seen in Figure 1, there are five years where the number of bankruptcies is

relatively high: 2003-2006 and 2009. In the years 2000 till 2002 and 2007 – 2008, the number of

bankruptcies was much lower. During the first half of the decade in years with many bankruptcy

cases, the responsibility frame (RF) was used most frequently. Since 2005 however, the human

interest frame has steadily become more and more popular and it has been the most dominantly

used media frame in relation to bankruptcy cases, even surpassing the responsibility frame

during the peaks in the number of bankruptcies in 2004/5 and 2009.

Figure 1 about here

Subsequently we examined whether in years with more bankruptcies the content of the

articles was less negative towards bankrupt entrepreneurs. As can be seen in Table 2 and Figure

2, a relationship could indeed be observed. In years with many bankruptcies, the number and

18

percentage of stigmatizing reports was higher than in years with fewer bankruptcies and these

patterns extend to each of the three newspapers. The exception to this pattern however is the year

2006. In this year the number of bankruptcies is still very high but the share of stigmatizing

articles drops sharply. An explanation for this could be that in that the media observed a

downward trend in the number of bankruptcy cases and anticipated that the trend would

continue. Alternatively, journalists might at this stage also begin to recognize that since so many

entrepreneurs suffered from bankruptcy in the preceding period, clearly they could not be to

blame for all of these bankruptcies.

Table 2 and Figure 2 furthermore show that the relationship between the number of

bankruptcies and the extent of stigmatization extends to all media frames but were most apparent

for articles adopting a human interest frame. In years with few bankruptcies, less than 12% of the

articles using a human interest frame is stigmatizing while in years with many bankruptcies this

share rises to more than 53%. The apparent volatility that is observed with respect to the use of

stigmatizing elements in articles based on a conflict frame is explained by the very small number

of articles in this category (n = 6) rather than by another underlying mechanism.

While overall the number of stigma-reducing articles is relatively limited (n = 63), more

than half of the articles adopting a morality frame are stigma-reducing. In years with fewer

bankruptcies this share rises to almost two thirds.

Figure 2 about here

To explore the relationship between the number of bankruptcies and the share of

stigmatizing frames further we investigated the previously observed difference between reports

about large and small entrepreneurs in more detail. As was reported, journalists use relatively

more stigmatizing frames when portraying entrepreneurs running larger businesses while they

typically use more neutral or stigma-reducing frames in their reports about entrepreneurs with

micro or small businesses. Figure 2 shows that the increased use of stigmatizing media frames in

years with many bankruptcies extends to small and large firms and likewise to reports about the

bankruptcy phenomenon in general. While the stigmatization of large firms was already

extensive in years with few bankruptcies, it rises further in years with many bankruptcies.

Stigmatizing reports about small firms and bankruptcy in general are not common in years with

19

few bankruptcies; yet, stigmatizing frames are used a lot more frequently in years with many

bankruptcies – though still much less compared to large firms. Based on these analyses, we

conclude that the level of stigmatization of all (ex-) bankrupt entrepreneurs in the media

increases when the number of bankrupts is high.

Effects of Prominent Bankruptcy Cases

In our theoretical framework we argued that prominent bankruptcy cases would lead to the usage

of more stigmatizing frames in the reports about other bankruptcy cases in the period following

the announcement. We expected this effect to be the largest when the reports about the

prominent case would be stigmatizing.

To determine the effects of these prominent cases on the framing of later bankruptcies, we

selected all the articles in our sample that were published in the three months prior to and the

three months after the announcement, whereby the articles published in the months prior to the

announcement of the prominent case were used to set a baseline. Next we determined which

frame types were used in these two periods and to what extent the articles in each period could

be classified as stigmatizing, neutral or stigma-reducing. The results are shown in Table 3.

Table 3 about here

As can be seen from Table 3, after all three prominent cases the relative use of stigmatizing

media frames increased as was in line with expectation. While the number of articles published

in the periods prior and after the announcement is too limited to infer robust conclusions, the

trend suggests that after the announcement of a prominent bankruptcy case, the articles about

other bankruptcy cases contain relatively more stigmatizing frames compared to the baseline

period. This effect is strongest when the baseline was less stigmatizing.

In the three months after the announcement of the DSB bankruptcy, we observed both an

increase in stigmatizing frames and in stigma-reducing frames in articles about other bankruptcy

cases. While these articles refer explicitly to the DSB case, these findings possibly mean that

rather than seeking balance, journalists find it more important to take a position in the public

20

debate on bankruptcy in general. Furthermore, in-depth analysis revealed an interesting pattern:

The increase in stigmatizing frames applied predominantly to articles about the bankruptcy

phenomenon in general and about entrepreneurs involved in medium sized and larger firms.

Almost all articles about entrepreneurs involved in micro and small firms remained neutral or

stigma-reducing in nature. This can be seen as further evidence that the stigmatization of

bankrupt entrepreneurs in the Netherlands does not apply to entrepreneurs involved in micro-

and small sized firms. Rather stigmatization of bankruptcy remains confined to the domain of

entrepreneurs running larger firms. In the discussion and conclusion section some possible

explanations will be discussed.

Discussion and conclusion

Through systematic analysis of newspaper reports about bankruptcies appearing in Dutch

newspapers in the past decade, we examined how mass media report about bankrupt

entrepreneurs and explored whether these reports contain evidence of stigmatization. In

particular, we sought to relate the nature of the reporting to the number of bankruptcies occurring

in a specific period and to the occurrence of prominent cases.

We have shown that over the entire decade about half of the articles published in the VK and the

FD on (ex-) bankrupt entrepreneurs contained elements of stigmatization, while less than a third

of the articles in the Telegraaf did so. Almost as many articles were neutral in tone and a

considerable share even showed elements of stigma-reduction. From this we might conclude that

overall the media present a fairly balanced image of entrepreneurial bankruptcy. Closer scrutiny

reveals that two important factors play a role in the level of stigmatization. First, contrary to our

expectations the level of stigmatization rose sharply in years with many bankruptcies (2003-

2006, 2009). In such years, the share of stigmatizing reports increased to about 53% at the

expense of the neutral reports. When excluding the year 2006, this share would even rise to more

than two-thirds. The relative share of the stigma-reducing reports remained stable in years with

many bankruptcies. This suggests that exposure to bankruptcy does not lead to the development

of a more forgiving attitude towards those affected by it. This finding is in contrast to results

reported in studies on the stigmatization of people suffering from mental illnesses or epilepsy

(Corrigan et al. 2001; Jacoby et al. 2004). At least in the case of entrepreneurial bankruptcy,

exposure does not breed kindness. A possible explanation for the more negative reporting in

21

years with many bankruptcies might be found in early studies on stigmatization conducted by

Neuberg et al (2000). These authors have suggested that stigmatization will happen when

individuals perceive specific behavior to be a threat to themselves or to the functioning of their

group (Neuberg et al. 2000). Similar ideas have been formulated by (Jones et al. 1984) who

argued that the perceived peril of a given attribute contributes to stigmatization. When more

firms go bankrupt, the costs to the economy increase and this will be felt by a larger part of the

society. Journalists – possibly responding to what they expect their audience wants to hear

(Wiesenfeld, Wurthmann, and Hambrick 2008) – might respond to this potential peril and utilize

a more negative tenor in their reports about individual bankruptcy cases.

When looking at the pattern of frame usages after the announcement of prominent

bankruptcy cases, we observed an increase in the level of stigmatization. These findings are

similar to previous studies on the impact of large-scale events such as the Chernobyl disaster

(Gamson and Modigliani 1989; Van Gorp 2007). Contemplating these findings, we think that the

announcement of prominent bankruptcy with its large debt and massive layoffs is some sort of

wake-up call again directing the journalist’s attention to the possible perils of bankruptcy in a

way similar to years with many bankruptcies. Interestingly, in the case of the DSB we not only

observe an increase in the usage of stigmatizing frames but also an increase in the use of stigma-

reducing frames. Possibly this means that rather than seeking balance or nuances in their reports,

journalists give priority to taking a position in the public debate.

The idea that the experienced peril can indeed explain the extent of stigmatization also

seems to be corroborated when looking at the way in which journalists differentiate between

large and small entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs involved in large firms are more frequently blamed

for the demise of their firm and for the consequences for others, while entrepreneurs previously

running smaller firms are more often portrayed as being victims. Clearly, the threat of

bankruptcy of a larger firm to (members of) society is significantly larger than those of a smaller

bankruptcy where fewer jobs are lost and typically the residual debt is lower. If the perceived

peril explains the level of stigmatization, it is therefore not surprising that articles about large

entrepreneurs are more negative than those about small entrepreneurs or about the phenomenon

of bankruptcy in general.

22

Another explanation for the higher level of stigmatization of entrepreneurs involved in

larger firms might be found in the Dutch culture. On the one hand, panel studies suggest that the

majority of the population is of the opinion that successful entrepreneurs have a high social

status (Hessels, Bosma, and Wennekers 2005). On the other hand, other studies (Trompenaars

and Hampden-Turner 1994) portray the Dutch “as more egalitarian and less hierarchical in than

any other culture included in their survey, the Dutch distrust anyone who shows off or draws

attention to him- or herself...no one is permitted to rise too high” [p269-270]. This resentment of

success includes entrepreneurs who were able to create a large company. This resentment can

lead to malicious delight or hidden pleasure when such individuals eventually fail (Angenot

2010). This culture of resentment might explain the higher level of stigmatization against large

entrepreneurs compared to small entrepreneurs. These findings are visualized in Figure 3. In

short, this figure shows that the number of bankruptcies and perceived impact therefore directly

affect the perceived level of peril. Cultural dimensions have both a direct and an indirect effect

on perceived peril, with firm size mediating the impact of cultural dimensions on perceived peril

where bankruptcies of larger firms lead to higher levels of perceived peril. All of this affects the

level of stigmatization of bankruptcy in media.

Insert Figure 3 here

Like any study ours has limitations. One concerns the timeframe of this investigation. We

decided to incorporate a full decade of newspaper articles in our investigation. This choice is

justifiable as during this decade we witnessed more than a complete economic cycle. At the

beginning of the decade the number of bankruptcies was low, rising steadily until 2005, then

declining again for a number of years in order to rise to the highest point of the decade under the

influence of financial and economic crisis in the year 2009. While writing up our study, the

number of bankruptcies is once more declining. Future studies could examine whether the

sudden decrease in the share of stigmatizing articles in 2006 – while the number of bankruptcies

was still high – is repeated since 2010.

Also, when looking at the time frame choice to explore the effect of high profile

bankruptcy cases, we have to consider a potential bias. While the declaration of a bankruptcy

23

case causes considerable attention in the media, many bankruptcy cases involve long term

investigation and settlement processes. In fact each of the prominent cases described in this study

are still open. Throughout a bankruptcy process the media might go back and report on relevant

developments as they occur over time. When it comes to complex cases, it is more than likely

that more accurate information about the event surfaces after some time passes. Therefore the

reports that are published later on in the case might have a more extensive effect on how other

bankruptcy cases are portrayed. Future research involving case study designs should shed more

light on the influence of prominent bankruptcies on stigmatization of bankruptcies in general.

Another limitation of this study is that we only classified articles on the basis of the

stigmatizing characteristics. It is generally accepted that mass media play a role in how other

stakeholders perceive groups of individuals and social phenomena and that a slight change in the

frames that media use have a significant effect on these perceptions. For instance Sniderman and

Theriault (2004) showed that when referring to the freedom of speech 85% of their first sample

indicated that meetings of hate groups should be allowed, while only 45% of their second sample

would allow such meetings after reference was made to the risk of violence involved in such

meetings (Sniderman and Theriault 2004). We expect similar effects to occur in relation to

stigmatization of bankrupt entrepreneurs; however, we did not actually test the responses these

articles evoked in the attitudes and perceptions of relevant stakeholders including the

entrepreneurs and those who support them. Also we do not know whether these other

stakeholders such as policy makers, bankers, consultants or suppliers differentiate between small

and large entrepreneurs in a similar way as we observed here and adjust their level of support

accordingly. Future studies should therefore be undertaken to establish the effect of the media

reports on the number of renascent entrepreneurs. What we can say is that at least the media do

not portray (ex-) bankrupt entrepreneurs in an overly negative manner thus strongly contributing

to a climate of stigmatization.

Finally, while some findings were quantified we did not aim to seek statistical validity in

this study. The observed frequencies and percentages reported in this study are merely used to

offer insights in the developing trends and patterns underlying our qualitative observations.

To conclude, this research contributes to the extant literature by examining the extent to

which bankrupt entrepreneurs are stigmatized in the mass media. Based on analysis of a decade

24

of newspaper articles, our results show that in the media the level of stigmatization towards small

entrepreneurs is lower than we expected based on anecdotal reports and popular belief

(European_Commission 2007); however, stigmatization increases in the years with many

bankruptcies and in the months following a prominent bankruptcy. We also found distinctions

made by journalists between entrepreneurs in charge of large and small firms respectively.

Although the number of articles that are actually stigma-reducing is limited, small entrepreneurs

might take comfort in our findings - at least they do not have to battle against negative media

reports.

References

Achtenhagen, L., and F. Welter. "'Surfing on the ironing board' - the representation of women's entrepreneurship in German newspapers." Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 23 (9-10):763-786.

Alesina, A., and E. L. Glaeser. 2004. Fighting poverty in the US and Europe: A world of difference. Oxford: Oxford University Press

An, S-K., and K. Gower. 2009. "How do the news media frame crises? A content analysis of crisis news coverage." Public Relations Review 35 (2):107-112.

Angenot, M. 2010. "The Ideologies of Resentment." AmeriQuests 7 (1).Burchell, B., and A. Hughes. 2006. The stigma of failure: An international comparison of failure

tolerance and second chancing. Cambridge: Center for Business Research, University of Cambridge.

Byrne, P. 2003. "Psychiatry and the media." Advances in Psychiatric Treatment 9 (2):135-143.Cebuco. 2009. "Oplage - en bereikcijfers " Accessed December 20th 2009.

http://www.cebuco.nl/dagbladen/oplage_en_bereik_cijfers.Corrigan, P., A. Green, R. Lundin, M.A. Kubiak, and D.L. Penn. 2001. "Familiarity with and

social distance from people who have serious mental illness." Psychiatric Services 52 (7):953-958.

Crocker, J., and D. Quinn. 2003. "Social stigma and the self: Meanings, situations, and self-esteem." In The social psychology of stigma, edited by T. Heatherton, R. Kleck, M. Hebl and J. Hull, 153-183. New York: Guilford Press.

Dake, Karl. 1992. "Myths of nature: Culture and the social construction of risk." Journal of Social issues 48 (4):21-37.

Damaraju, N.L., J. Barney, and G. Dess. 2010. "Stigma and entrepreneurial risk taking." Summer Conference, Imperial College London Business School.

Decrop, A. 1999. "Triangulation in qualitative tourism research." Tourism management 20 (1):157-161.

25

Douglas, Mary, and Aaron B Wildavsky. 1983. Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers: University of California Pr.

Entman, R. 1993. "Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm." Journal of communication 43 (4):51-58.

European_Commission. 2007. Overcoming the Stigma of Business Failure – for a Second Chance Policy Implementing the Lisbon Partnership for Growth and Jobs. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.

Falk, G. 2001. Stigma: How we treat outsiders: Prometheus Books.Furuya, K. 2002. "A socio-economic model of stigma and related social problems." Journal of

economic behavior & organization 48 (3):281-290.Gamson, W.A., and A. Modigliani. 1989. "Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear

power: A constructionist approach." American journal of sociology:1-37.Ghanem, S. 1997. "Filling in the tapestry: The second level of agenda setting." Communication

and democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting theory:3-14.Goffman, E. 1963. Stigma: Notes on a spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Groen, A.J., I. Wakkee, and P.C. De Weerd-Nederhof. 2008. "Managing Tensions in a High-tech

Start-up An Innovation Journey in Social System Perspective." International small business journal 26 (1):57-81.

Hallahan, K. 1999. "Seven models of framing: Implications for public relations." Journal of Public Relations Research 11 (3):205-242.

Hessels, J, N Bosma, and S Wennekers. 2005. "Nieuw ondernemerschap in herstel; global entrepreneurship monitor 2004 Nederland (in Dutch), EIM publieksrapportage A200502." Zoetermeer: EIM.

Hunt, S. D. 1997. "Resource-advantage theory: an evolutionary theory of competitive firm behavior?" Journal of Economic Issues 31 (1):59-77.

Iyengar, S., and A. Simon. 1993. "News Coverage of the Gulf Crisis and Public Opinion A Study of Agenda-Setting, Priming, and Framing." Communication research 20 (3):365-383.

Jacoby, A., J. Gorry, C.l Gamble, and G.A. Baker. 2004. "Public knowledge, private grief: a study of public attitudes to epilepsy in the United Kingdom and implications for stigma." Epilepsia 45 (11):1405-1415.

Jones, E., A. Farina, A. H. Hastorf, and R. French. 1984. Social stigma: The psychology of marked relationships: WH Freeman New York.

Kasperson, R., N. Jhaveri, and J.X. Kasperson. 2001. "Stigma and the social amplification of risk: Toward a framework of analysis." In Risk, media, and stigma: Understanding public challenges to modern science and technology, edited by J. Flynn, P. Slovic and H. Kunreuther, 9-27. London/ Sterling: Earthscan.

Krippendorff, K. 2012. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology: Sage.Landier, A. 2002. "Entrepreneurship and the Stigma of Failure." Unpublished thesis. Mimeo,

MIT.McCombs, M. 2013. Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion: Polity.McCombs, M., and D. Shaw. 1972. "The agenda-setting function of mass media." Public

opinion quarterly 36 (2):176-187.NationaalOnderzoekMultimedia. 2010. Managers Verknocht Aan Dagbladen. Amsterdam:

Nationaal Onderzoek Multimedia.

26

Neuberg, S., D. Smith, T. Asher, T. Heatherton, R. Kleck, M. Hebl, and J. Hull. 2000. "Why people stigmatize: Toward a biocultural framework." The social psychology of stigma:31-61.

Nicholson, L., and A.R. Anderson. 2005. "News and Nuances of the Entrepreneurial Myth and Metaphor: Linguistic Games in Entrepreneurial Sense‐Making and Sense‐Giving." Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 29 (2):153-172.

Otieno, C., H. Spada, and A. Renkl. 2013. "Effects of News Frames on Perceived Risk, Emotions, and Learning." PloS one 8 (11):e79696.

Pinel, E.C. 1999. "Stigma consciousness: the psychological legacy of social stereotypes." Journal of personality and social psychology 76 (1):114.

Reeder, G., and J. Pryor. 2008. "Dual psychological processes underlying public stigma and the implications for reducing stigma." Mens sana monographs 6 (1):175.

Reynolds, Paul D, Nancy M Carter, William B Gartner, and Patricia G Greene. 2004. "The prevalence of nascent entrepreneurs in the United States: Evidence from the panel study of entrepreneurial dynamics." Small Business Economics 23 (4):263-284.

Saldaña, J. 2003. Longitudinal qualitative research: Analyzing change through time: Altamira Pr.

Saxenian, AnnaLee. 1996. Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128: Harvard University Press.

Scheufele, D. 1999. "Framing as a theory of media effects." Journal of communication 49 (1):103-122.

Schultz, C. J. P., and L. Achtenhagen. 2013. "Discouraging stereotypes? US newspaper coverage of ethnic minority entrepreneurs before the economic downturn." Journalism.

Semadeni, M., A.A. Cannella Jr, D.R. Fraser, and D. S. Lee. 2008. "Fight or flight: Managing stigma in executive careers." Strategic Management Journal 29 (5):557-567.

Semetko, H., and P. Valkenburg. 2000. "Framing European politics: A content analysis of press and television news." Journal of communication 50 (2):93-109.

Shepherd, D. A., J. G. Covin, and D. F. Kuratko. 2009. "Project failure from corporate entrepreneurship: Managing the grief process." Journal of Business Venturing 24 (6):588-600.

Shepherd, D.A. 2009. "Grief recovery from the loss of a family business: A multi-and meso-level theory." Journal of Business Venturing 24 (1):81-97.

Shepherd, Dean A, Johan Wiklund, and J Michael Haynie. 2009. "Moving forward: Balancing the financial and emotional costs of business failure." Journal of Business Venturing 24 (2):134-148.

Skovsgaard, M., E. Albæk, P. Bro, and C. de Vreese. 2013. "A reality check: How journalists’ role perceptions impact their implementation of the objectivity norm." Journalism 14 (1):22-42.

Sniderman, P.M., and S.M. Theriault. 2004. "The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing." Studies in public opinion: Attitudes, nonattitudes, measurement error, and change:133-65.

Sprangers, A. , R. Timmermans, and V. Lalta. 2010. Bedrijfseconomisch ontslag verdubbeld in 2009. In Sociaal Economische Trends Zoetermeer: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS)

Sutton, R.I., and A.L. Callahan. 1987. "The stigma of bankruptcy: Spoiled organizational image and its management." Academy of Management Journal 30 (3):405-436.

27

Taylor, M., and R. Jack. 2012. "Understanding the pace, scale and pattern of firm internationalization: An extension of the'born global'concept." International Small Business Journal.

Thornhill, S., and R. Amit. 2003. "Learning about failure: bankruptcy, firm age, and the resource-based view." Organization Science 14 (5):497-509.

Trompenaars, F., and C Hampden-Turner. 1994. The seven cultures of capitalism: Value systems for creating wealth in the United States, Britain, Japan, Germany, France, Sweden, and the Netherlands. London: Piatkus.

Upmedia. 2010. "Profielwijzer." Accessed January 8th 2010. http://www.upmedia.nl/Klantenservice/Profielwijzer/tabid/803/language/nlNL/Default.aspx

Van Gorp, B. 2007. "The constructionist approach to framing: Bringing culture back in." Journal of communication 57 (1):60-78.

Weber, R. 1985. Basic Content Analysis. London: Sage.Wiesenfeld, B.M., K.A. Wurthmann, and D.C. Hambrick. 2008. "The stigmatization and

devaluation of elites associated with corporate failures: A process model." Academy of Management Review 33 (1):231-251.

Wilkins, L. 2006. "The Normative Challenge: Balancing the Long-Term Social Capital Created by News with the Demand for Short-Term Profit." Leadership in the Media Industry:77.

28

Year Responsibility

Frame

Human

Interest Frame

Economic

Frame

Morality

Frame

Conflict

Frame

Total

2000 5 3 1 5 2 16

2001 6 5 9 5 0 25

2002 14 3 7 5 2 31

2003 8 2 13 7 1 31

2004 19 4 5 4 4 36

2005 7 12 12 5 0 36

2006 6 8 5 7 0 26

2007 12 11 3 3 0 29

2008 6 13 7 1 2 29

2009 20 23 10 7 4 64

Total 103 84 72 49 15 323

TABLE 1

Spread of Frame Usage per Year

29

  Percentage of articles containing stigmatizing elements

  per newspaper per frame type

Year Telegraaf VK FD CF EF HF MF RF

2000 0% 57% 13% 50% 100% 20% 40% 40%

2001 0% 22% 47% 0% 22% 20% 0% 17%

2002 22% 25% 39% 50% 43% 0% 0% 43%

2003 40% 80% 56% 100% 62% 0% 57% 88%

2004 69% 70% 92% 75% 60% 75% 50% 68%

2005 100% 58% 90% 0% 75% 100% 20% 86%

2006 17% 40% 27% 0% 20% 13% 0% 17%

2007 9% 67% 25% 0% 33% 18% 0% 31%

2008 0% 13% 50% 0% 0% 8% 0% 67%

2009 29% 63% 52% 0% 30% 43% 43% 62%

average total 29% 50% 49% 28% 45% 30% 21% 52%

average many

bankruptcies

38% 56% 56% 25% 40% 37% 24% 60%

average fewer

bankruptcies

29% 48% 49% 31% 46% 28% 19% 51%

TABLE 2

Share of articles including stigmatizing elements in %

30

Prominent case N prior Relative usage

of frame types

prior

Level of

stigmatization

prior

N after Relative usage

of frame types

after

Level of

stigmatization after

change

KPNQwest: RF,

Stigma-

reducing

11 9 % CF

27 % EF

0 % HF

27 % MF

37 % RF

18 % stigmatizing

64 % neutral

18 % stigma-

reducing

6 0 % CF

17 % EF

33 % HF

0 % MF

50 % RF

83 % stigmatizing

0 % neutral

17 % stigma-

reducing

Increase in

stigmatization

SP Aerospace:

EF, neutral

12 8 % CF

8 % EF

33 % HF

18 % MF

33 % RF

50 % stigmatizing

42 % neutral

8 % stigma-

reducing

6 17 % CF

17 % EF

33 % HF

0 % MF

33 % RF

66 % stigmatizing

34 % neutral

0 % stigma-

reducing

Increase in

stigmatization

DSB: RF,

stigmatizing

10 20 % CF

20 % EF

40 % HF

0 % MF

20 % RF

30 % stigmatizing

70 % neutral

0 % stigma-

reducing

16 6 % CF

12 % EF

38 % HF

12 % MF

32 % RF

49 % stigmatizing

38 % neutral

13 % stigma-

reducing

Increase in

stigmatization and

stigma-reducing

TABLE 3

Effect of Prominent Cases

31

FIGURE 1

Usages of media frame and number of bankruptcies over time

32

Sharp increases in HR during peaks in number of

bankruptcies

Steady increase in use of HR is inline with common trends in media landscape

(Bennet and Graber, 1996)

Common usage of RV suggests that journalists perceive bankruptcies to be avoidable crises

(An and Gower 2009)

Common usage of RV suggests that journalists perceive bankruptcies to be avoidable crises (An and Gower 2009)

Start of global financial and economic crisis

Sharp increase in the number of bankruptcies amongst sole proprietors (due to a rise in

startups in the previous year), the number of bankruptcies of limited companies dropped

sharply (which is a sign the economy is picking) up (www.cbs.nl)

FIGURE 2

Stigmatizing, neutral and stigma-reducing media frames in years with few and many bankruptcies

Conflict fra

me

Economic F

rame

Human In

terest

Fram

e

Moral Fr

ame

Responsib

ility F

rame

Conflict fra

me

Economic F

rame

Human In

terest

Fram

e

Moral Fr

ame

Responsib

ility F

rame

Conflict fra

me

Economic F

rame

Human In

terest

Fram

e

Moral Fr

ame

Responsib

ility F

rame

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

years with few bankruptcies years with many bankruptices

Stigmatizing frames

33

Neutral frames Stigma-reducing frames

FIGURE 3

Integrative Framework

34