Righting the Wrong for Third Parties: How Monetary Compensation, Procedure Changes and Apologies Can Restore Justice for Observers of Injustice

• Published in: Journal of business ethics Vol. 122; no. 2; pp. 253 - 268
• Main Authors: Cugueró-Escofet, Natàlia, Fortin, Marion, Canela, Miguel-Angel
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Dordrecht Springer 01-06-2014; Springer Netherlands; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Apologies; Business; Business and Management; Business Ethics; Business organization; Coefficients; Compensation; Corporate culture; Distributive justice; Education; Ethics; Fairness; Financial management; Injustice; Justice; Management; Monetary economics; Monetary policy; Philosophy; Procedural justice; Professional misconduct; Quality of Life Research; Retributive justice; Social psychology; Studies; Third party; Victim compensation; Europe; Injustice remedies; Fairness restoration; Justice restoration; Organizational Justice
• ISSN: 0167-4544; 1573-0697
• DOI: 10.1007/s10551-013-1762-7

People react negatively not only to injustices they personally endure but also to injustices that they observe as bystanders at work—and typically, people observe more injustices than they personally experience. It is therefore important to understand how organizations can restore observers' perceptions of justice after an injustice has occurred. In our paper, we employ a policy capturing design to test and compare the restorative power of monetary compensation, procedure changes and apologies, alone and in combination, from the perspective of third parties. We extend previous research on remedies by including different degrees of compensation and procedural changes, by comparing the effects of sincere versus insincere apologies and by including apologies from additional sources. The results indicate that monetary compensation, procedure changes, and sincere apologies all have a significant and positive effect on how observers perceive the restoration of justice. Insincere apologies, on the other hand, have no significant effect on restoration for third parties. Procedural changes were found to have the strongest remedial effects, a remedy rarely included in previous research. One interpretation of this finding could be that observers of injustice prefer solutions that are not short sighted: changing procedures avoids future injustices that could affect other people. We found that combinations of remedies, such that the presence of a second remedy strengthens the effect of the first remedy, are particularly effective. Our findings regarding interactions underline the importance of studying and administering remedies in conjunction with each other.