Why Saying “I'm Sorry” Isn't Good Enough: The Ethics of Corporate ...

Ethics Corporate Apologies
Element #3: Promptly Apologizing
In the context of corporate apologies, rendering to people their due means the firm
rectifying a past harm or offense and/or preventing future injury and suffering. The
promptness with which Chrysler’s Nardelli and Netflix’s Hastings offered their apologies
conveys the impression that they were eager to make things right going forward. This
eagerness leads the audience to infer that the speaker is a just and considerate individual
who does not want to be party to an ongoing harm (Lewicki et al, 1996). That perception,
in turn, suggests the CEO in question will actually do something to rectify the offence
(see Element #8). This inference gives listeners a reason to be open to reestablishing
relations with the offender and his or her firm going forward.
If all the other elements sketched in this paper are present, even a belated assumption
may still function as a step toward reconciliation. A prompt apology, though, is typically
better than one long delayed (Seeger et al, 2001). Tokyo Electric Power Company
(TEPCO)’s CEO was widely excoriated for waiting six weeks to utter an apology for the
2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster at the firm’s Daiichi plant following a huge tsunami
(Harlan, 2011). Firestone’s CEO Masatashi Ono suffered a barrage of criticism for taking
weeks to speak to customers who were worried that Firestone’s radial tires (widely used
on Ford’s Explorer vehicles) were defective and likely to disintegrate, resulting in deadly
accidents. The delay, coupled with Ono’s failure to accept any responsibility for making
sure that this sort of problem did not happen again, frustrated the firm’s customers and
the general public (Hearit, 2006). A long delay may lead listeners to believe that the
apology had to be wrested from a non-virtuous CEO, using threats of legal action,
boycotts, etc. In general, an apology must be construed as freely given. An apology made
26