Moral injury has increasingly entered organizational scholarship beyond occupations traditionally associated with extreme threat, yet its boundaries remain unsettled when applied to ordinary organizational life. This Original Conceptual Framework Article develops a proposed Organizational Moral-Injury Framework for understanding how morally salient organizational demands may interact with constrained agency, complicity, silence, withdrawal, and identity-related responses. The framework distinguishes potentially morally injurious exposure from moral-injury outcomes; moral conflict from generic job demands; complicity from unconstrained choice; silence from the simple absence of voice; and withdrawal from a diagnostic indicator of moral injury. It proposes a conditional process in which morally salient organizational conditions are appraised through perceived and actual discretion, responsibility, authority, and consequential influence. These appraisals may shape whether employees resist, participate, acquiesce, omit, speak, or remain silent, after which moral appraisal may contribute to differentiated trajectories involving re-engagement, continued silence, identity distancing, psychological withdrawal, or exit. The article also identifies rival explanations, including general strain, illegitimate tasks, moral disengagement, organizational identity threat, and established turnover pathways. The framework is intended to organize testable propositions rather than imply empirical validation. Its principal implication is that organizations should not infer moral injury from distress, silence, or turnover alone, and researchers should test proposed mechanisms with longitudinal, multilevel, qualitative, and discriminant measurement designs. The contribution is a bounded organizational account of how moral injury may emerge, persist, or be avoided under conditions of contested responsibility and constrained agency.
