We know that structural embeddedness and cultural embeddedness are variable and complex. We know they intersect in every legitimate market transaction. Where is the preponderance of the evidence in America's corporate markets of the intersection between these two? Where do markets' accusations converge? In effect, where are the hot spots in the social ecology of America's corporate economy?

The mores of the market specify the “desirable” ends toward which corporations should direct their energies. They are more than generalized guidelines facilitating economic action, and more than agreed-upon arrangements for the convenient conducting of business. Rather, they are rules that “carry conceptions of the good and desirable and must therefore be distinguished from strictly utilitarian norms” (Turner et al. 2002, 357).

The proper quantitative analysis of repertoires assesses both density and direction of cultural content. By density we mean the volume or level of accusations; by direction we mean the market-based exchange route on which they are distributed. The two can be coupled or embedded. They can be tightly coupled or loosely coupled. When a statistically significant number of cultural recipes occur on a specific market-based route, we say this concurrence of recipe and route is a repertoire.

One-fifth of the corporations account for 45 percent or more of the accusations. Some firms are repeatedly accused of wrongdoing, in several cases ten or more times during the decade under study.