The second face of evil is hurtful, rather than malevolent. We argue that this is likely to be the form of wrongdoing characteristic of corporate actors. This article views the corporation at 3 levels: the individual self-interested actors within it, the individual actors who respond to their hierarchical position, and the hierarchy (corporation) it-self Research shows that action inside complex organizations such as corporations is not necessarily more rational and informed by greater foresight than individual actions, but several studies indicate that individuals hold organizations to a higher level of responsibility than individuals committing similar acts, and they do so in part because they perceive organizations to enjoy greater foresight. We address this paradox by suggesting that future research address how the corporation 's obligations to foresee consequences and the sheer, primitive consequences themselves may shape perceptions of corporate foreseeability.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Annas, G. J., & Grodin, M. A. (Eds.). (1992). The Nazi doctors and the Nuremberg Code: Human rights in human experimentation. New York: Oxford University Press.
2.
Arkes, H., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 124-140.
3.
Arlen, J., & Kraakman, R. (1997). Controlling corporate misconduct: An analysis of corporate liability regimes. New York University Law Review, 72, 687-779.
4.
Brodeur, P. (1985). Outrageous misconduct: The asbestos industry on trial. New York: Pantheon.
5.
Calhoun, C., & Hiller, H. (1988). Coping with insidious injuries: The case of Johns-Manville Corporation and asbestos exposure. Social Problems, 35, 162-181.
6.
Chin, A., & Peterson, M. A. (1985). Deep pockets, empty pockets: Who wins in Cook County jury trials. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
7.
Coffee, J. (1981). No soul to damn, no body to kick: An unscandalized inquiry into the problem of corporate punishment. Michigan Law Review, 63, 1099-1278.
8.
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
9.
Cressey, D. R. (1989). The poverty of theory in corporate crime research. In W. S. Laufer & F. Adler (Eds.), Advances in criminological theory (Vol. 1, pp.31-55). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
10.
Curcio, A. A. (1996). Painful publicity: An alternative punitive damage sanction. DePaul Law Review, 4, 341-393.
11.
Darley, J. M. (1996). How organizations socialize individuals into evildoing. In D. M. Messick & A. E. Tenbrunsel (Eds.), Codes of conduct: Behavioral research into business ethics (pp. 13-43). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
12.
Davidson, A. (1990). In the wake of the Exxon Valdez. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
13.
Dowie, M. (1977, September/October). Pinto madness. Mother Jones, pp. 18-24, 28-32.
14.
Fisse, B., & Braithwaite, J. (1993). Corporations, crime and accountability. New York: Cambridge University Press.
15.
Fox, F., & Staw, B. M. (1979). The trapped administrator: The effects of job insecurity and policy resistance upon commitment to a course of action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 449-471.
16.
French, P. A. (1984). Collective and corporate responsibility. New York: Columbia University Press.
17.
Goffman, E. (1969). Strategic interaction. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
18.
Grandori, A. (1987). Perspectives on organization theory. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
19.
Hamilton, V. L., & Sanders, J. (1992a). Everyday justice: Responsibility and the individual in Japan and the United States. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
20.
Hamilton, V. L., & Sanders, J. (1992b). Responsibility and risk in organizational crimes of obedience. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 14, pp. 49-90). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
21.
Hamilton, V. L., & Sanders, J. (1995). Crimes of obedience and conformity in the workplace: Surveys of Americans, Russians, and Japanese. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 67-88.
22.
Hans, V. P. (1989). The jury's response to business and corporate wrongdoing. Law & Contemporary Problems, 52, 177-203.
23.
Hans, V. P. (1994, June). Lay reactions to corporate defendants. Paper presented at the Law and Society Association Meeting, Phoenix, AZ.
24.
Hans, V. P., & Ermann, M. D. (1989). Responses to corporate versus individual wrongdoing. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 151-166.
25.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
26.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 314-350.
27.
Kelman, H. C., & Hamilton, V. L. (1989). Crimes of obedience. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
28.
Laufer, W. (1994). Corporate bodies and guilty minds. Emory Law Journal, 43, 647-730.
29.
Lempert, R. O., & Sanders, J. (1986). An invitation to law and social science. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
30.
Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B., & Phillips, L. (1982). Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art to 1980. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 306-334). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
31.
Lifton, R. J. (1986). The Nazi doctors: Medical killing and the psychology of genocide. New York: Basic Books.
32.
MacCoun, R. J. (1996). Differential treatment of corporate defendants by juries: An examination of the “deep-pockets” hypothesis. Law and Society Review, 30, 121-161.
33.
Many jurors consider deep pockets and ignore presumption of innocence. (1993, February 22). National Law Journal, 15, p. S12-S12.
34.
McGill, A. L. (1996). Responsibility judgments and the causal background. In D. M. Messick & A. E. Tenbrunsel (Eds.), Codes of conduct: Behavioral research into business ethics (pp. 228-242). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
35.
Metzger, M. B., & Dalton, D. R. (1996). Seeing the elephant: An organizational perspective on corporate moral agency. American Business Law Journal, 33, 489-576.
36.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row.
37.
Miller, A. G., Collins, B. E., & Brief, D. E. (Eds.). (1995). Perspectives on obedience to authority: The legacy of the Milgram experiments [Special issue]. Journal of Social Issues, 31(3).
38.
Mills, C. W. (1940). Situated actions and vocabularies of motive. American Sociological Review, 5, 904-913.
39.
Pollock, F., & Maitland, F. W. (1968). History of English law. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1898)
40.
Sanders, J., & Hamilton, V. L. (1996). Distributing responsibility for wrongdoing inside corporate hierarchies: Public judgments in three societies. Law and Social Inquiry, 21, 815-855.
41.
Shaver, K. G. (1985). The attribution of blame. New York: Springer.
42.
Simpson, J. A., & Weiner, E. S. C. (Eds.). (1991). Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Clarendon.
43.
Sobol, R. B. (1991). Bending the law: The story of the Dalkon Shield bankruptcy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
44.
Solzhenitsyn, A. I. (1973). The gulag archipelago (Vol. 1). New York: Harper & Row.
45.
Staub, E. (1989). The roots of evil: The origins of genocide and other group violence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
46.
Staw, B. M. (1976). Knee-deep in the big muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 27-44.
47.
Staw, B. M., & Fox, F. (1977). Escalation: Some determinants of commitment to a personally chosen course of action. Human Relations, 30, 431-450.
48.
Staw, B. M., & Ross, J. (1987). Behavior in escalation situations: Antecedents, prototypes, and solutions. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 39-78). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
49.
Stone, C. (1975). Where the law ends: The social control of corporate behavior. New York: Harper & Row.
50.
Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 297-332). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
51.
Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why do people obey the law?New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
52.
Upham, F. K. (1987). Law and social change in postwar Japan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
53.
Vaughan, D. (1996). The Challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture and deviance at NASA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
54.
Vidmar, N. (1994). Empirical evidence on the deep pockets hypothesis: Jury awards for pain and suffering in medical malpractice cases. Duke Law Journal, 43, 217-266.
55.
Williamson, O. (1981). The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach. American Journal of Sociology, 87,548-577.
56.
Williamson, O. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.
