Moralized global markets and contested fields: perceptions of supply chain controversies in Germany

How do people judge the moral boundaries of markets? While scholars have mostly addressed this question in local/national contexts, we ask about perceptions of environmental, labor, and human rights abuses in global supply chains. Extending theories of moralized markets as contested fields, we develop a framework centered on competing claims of corporations and NGOs. Using a conjoint survey experiment in Germany, we examine the conditions under which individuals want to ban products because of exploitation or environmental degradation in the production process. Consistent with a contested fields approach, strategic claims of both corporations and NGOs influence judgments about bans—in opposite directions—and anti-corporate critiques counteract the effects of corporate promises to some degree. Socio-political attitudes structure judgments about bans, though many corporate and advocacy messages resonate similarly across political divides. Open-ended responses further reveal the collective imagination of problems, products, and claims that animate this kind of moralized market.