Science1 publisherNot yet confirmed elsewhere2 min readPublished
ESMT Berlin paper traces corporate scandals to justifications groups build in three phases
ESMT Berlin research proposes that workplace misconduct grows from justifications a group shares and reinforces in three phases, before major wrongdoing. The paper builds on theory and past corporate scandals and points managers at group norms, but its cases cannot show how often that kind of drift ends in harm.
The Scientist · Science desk
What happened
- Ulf Schaefer of ESMT, Urs Müller of SDA Bocconi and Johannes Habel of the University of Houston published the paper in the peer-reviewed Journal of Business Ethics.
- The framework is theoretical, combining moral disengagement theory, multilevel theory and research on complex adaptive systems.
- The authors illustrate it with Volkswagen's Dieselgate, the Siemens bribery case, Wells Fargo's fake accounts and Purdue Pharma's promotion of OxyContin.
- They name three vulnerability factors: influential employees who legitimize questionable conduct, internal narratives that justify it, and loyalty that discourages speaking up.
Compiled by The ScientistSomething wrong?How this is made
Why it matters
- decision If the framework holds, compliance programmes that audit individuals after incidents would also need checks on how leaders signal, how teams discuss targets and what incentives reward.
- exposure Employees who still see themselves as ethical can take part in the drift, so individual self-assessments and integrity screens would miss the stage the authors care about.
- constraint Because strong group loyalty is on the list for discouraging dissent, a manager cannot treat a quiet, cohesive team's lack of complaints as evidence that its norms are sound.
The paper's question is about timing. According to the ESMT summary, earlier research mostly looked at individuals, or at the rationalisations people offer after wrongdoing has happened. This paper asks how conduct becomes normal inside a group before major misconduct occurs [2]. The summary opens by saying that unethical behaviour in organisations is often less sudden than companies assume [9].
Schaefer, a senior lecturer at ESMT Berlin [6], made the argument in two sentences. "Many major corporate scandals are not driven by isolated individuals, but by groups of people who gradually come to normalize problematic behavior together," he said [7]. "Employees may continue to see themselves as ethical people while collectively redefining what is considered acceptable inside the organization," he said [8].
The paper is a theoretical framework, and the release describes no new data collection [3]. Its illustrations are scandals that are already public [4]. Cases picked because they ended badly can show that a staged account fits the record in hindsight. They cannot show how often a team with the same vulnerability factors [5] carries on without misconduct. Without that comparison group, there is no way to tell whether the factors predict drift or simply turn up wherever someone looks after a scandal. Schaefer's claim covers "many" major scandals [7]. The design cannot supply the denominator: how many groups showed the same early signs and never went wrong.
The release's practical advice is to watch leadership signals, internal discussions and incentive structures before misconduct escalates [10]. I think that is sensible guidance for a compliance team, as long as it is treated as a hypothesis drawn from theory and hindsight. The thing this doesn't tell you is whether a manager watching those signals would see drift early enough to act. Nor does it say how to tell drift apart from an ordinary change in how a team works.
What to watch
- A prospective study that scores teams on the listed vulnerability factors and follows them, including teams that never produce misconduct, would test whether the factors predict drift.
- Whether the three phases are turned into a group-level measure that a company could run before an incident, and whether it separates drift from ordinary changes in team norms.
Clarity's read
What the record supports and how the coverage leans. The claims behind it follow.
Reality
- Evidence35
- Adoption
- Insufficient
- Hype gap+25
- Incentives55
- Confidence40
Claim ledger
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
- [1]
The study 'The Emergence of Collective Moral Disengagement' was co-authored by Ulf Schaefer (ESMT), Urs Müller (SDA Bocconi School of Management) and Johannes Habel (C.T. Bauer College of Business, University of Houston) and published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Business Ethics (2026).
- [2]
Previous research has often focused on individuals or on rationalizations after wrongdoing has already happened; the new study examines how unethical behavior becomes socially normalized within groups before major misconduct occurs.
- [3]
The paper develops a theoretical framework, drawing on moral disengagement theory, multilevel theory and research on complex adaptive systems, outlining a three-phase process through which unethical behavior gradually becomes accepted within groups through shared justifications and social reinforcement.
- [4]
To illustrate the dynamics, the researchers analyze several major corporate scandals, including Volkswagen's Dieselgate emissions scandal, the Siemens bribery case, the Wells Fargo fake accounts scandal and Purdue Pharma's promotion of OxyContin.
- [5]
The study identifies factors that make organizations more vulnerable to unethical drift, including influential employees who legitimize questionable behavior, internal narratives that justify misconduct and strong group loyalty that discourages employees from speaking up.
- [6]
Ulf Schaefer is a senior lecturer at ESMT Berlin.
- [7]
"Many major corporate scandals are not driven by isolated individuals, but by groups of people who gradually come to normalize problematic behavior together."
ReportedInsufficientSource: Ulf Schaefer, ESMT Berlin2 sources— create a free account to open themView cited source - [8]
"Employees may continue to see themselves as ethical people while collectively redefining what is considered acceptable inside the organization."
ReportedInsufficientSource: Ulf Schaefer, ESMT Berlin2 sources— create a free account to open themView cited source - [9]
Unethical behavior inside organizations is often less sudden than companies assume.
ReportedInsufficientSource: ESMT Berlin via phys.org2 sources— create a free account to open themView cited source - [10]
The findings suggest companies should pay closer attention to early organizational dynamics; the research highlights leadership signals, internal discussions and incentive structures in shaping how employees collectively interpret ethical boundaries before misconduct escalates.
Sources
1 independent publisher whose own reporting we read for this story.
- phys.orgHow companies drift into unethical behavior
1 article · October 8, 2026
Topics and entities
Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.