In contrast to crisis communication frameworks, normative ethical perspectives focus on the sincerity and moral quality of apologies. According to deontological ethics, organisations have a duty to acknowledge wrongdoing irrespective of consequences (Shaw, 2016). Recent scholarship continues to highlight the limitations of purely strategic frameworks. Shao (2021) proposes a six-tenet apology model that blends ethical and reputational goals, emphasising the importance of restitution, empathy and timeliness. Vaia (2023) extends this critique by interrogating how normative ethics can be operationalised within corporate settings, particularly when legal risk suppresses ethical transparency. Both contributions highlight the need for ethically grounded apology mechanisms that account for institutional complexity and power asymmetries between firms and affected stakeholders. Consequentialism evaluates apologies based on outcomes such as restored trust or reparative action, while virtue ethics considers the character and integrity demonstrated in the apology process (Werhane & Freeman, 1999). Scholars such as Smith et al. (2020) argue that corporate apologies often lack genuine contrition and are guided by risk management rather than ethical responsibility. Similarly, Sekerka et al. (2009) emphasise that apologies must be accompanied by concrete actions to rebuild stakeholder trust. Without restitution or reform, public apologies risk becoming superficial gestures designed to appease rather than atone (Kim et al., 2004).

Recent interdisciplinary approaches seek to merge ethics and communication. Shao (2021) proposes a six-tenet apology model that includes responsibility, regret, restitution, reform, empathy and timeliness. Smith (2014) similarly suggests a practical framework for evaluating apologies in civil contexts. While promising, these frameworks lack empirical validation in ethically complex environments such as South Africa, where corporate wrongdoing often intersects with weak governance and socio-economic inequality (Van Vuuren, 2020). Supporting this need for empirical grounding, Coustas and Price (2024) conducted a South African study that explored how the content, timing, fairness, and delivery channel of an apology influence employee perceptions of authenticity and relational repair. Their findings suggest that even when apologies meet strategic or formal criteria, failure to align with stakeholder expectations around justice and sincerity can diminish their effectiveness. These insights reinforce the value of integrating context-sensitive, ethically grounded approaches to apology evaluation.

Four key gaps emerge from the literature, based on both foundational scholarship and recent contributions (2019–2024):

This article addresses these gaps by applying a structured ethical evaluation framework grounded in normative theory to South African corporate crises. It offers a comparative case analysis of Tiger Brands, Steinhoff, and Eskom-related firms, drawing on corporate apology texts, stakeholder feedback, media coverage, and recent judicial outcomes. In doing so, it contributes an ethical lens to the existing literature and supports a shift from superficial image repair to authentic moral accountability.

Deontological ethics, rooted in the work of Immanuel Kant, holds that the morality of an action depends on adherence to duties, principles or rules, regardless of outcomes (Shaw, 2016). Applied to corporate apologies, a deontological approach requires that organisations acknowledge wrongdoing out of a moral obligation to do so, not merely because it benefits their image or reduces penalties. From this perspective, a corporate apology should involve full admission of responsibility; a clear acknowledgement of wrongdoing; and an apology issued even if it incurs reputational or legal costs. A deontological shortfall is evident when companies issue vague or qualified apologies, avoiding direct acknowledgement of their role in harm.

Consequentialism, particularly utilitarianism, evaluates actions based on their outcomes, specifically whether they produce the greatest good for the greatest number (Shaw, 2016). In the context of corporate apologies, a consequentialist analysis focuses on the outcomes of the apology: does it restore public trust, lead to reparative action, and improve corporate behaviour? Indicators of ethically sound outcomes include tangible restitution to those harmed, implementation of structural reforms, and an increase in public trust and stakeholder engagement. An apology is ethically deficient under this model if it fails to change behaviour or repair harm, regardless of how well it is worded.

Virtue ethics evaluates actions based on the character and moral intentions of the actor rather than strict rules or outcomes (Werhane & Freeman, 1999). A virtuous organisation demonstrates integrity, humility, and responsibility not only in times of crisis but also as a core part of its culture. In corporate apology contexts, virtue ethics calls for sincerity and emotional authenticity; leadership that models moral courage; and long-term commitment to ethical values. A virtue ethics failure occurs when apologies are issued for show, lacking any connection to an internal commitment to ethical behaviour.

The application of virtue ethics within corporate contexts requires careful qualification. Unlike individual agents, corporate actors often operate under legal, structural and reputational constraints that limit their ability to publicly express moral virtues such as humility, remorse or moral courage (Vaia, 2023). In high-stakes crisis situations, executives may be explicitly advised by legal counsel to avoid personal admissions of guilt or emotionally charged statements, as these may be construed as liabilities in court or by shareholders. This raises a critical question: to what extent can organisations or their representatives be expected to exhibit virtue ethics when doing so may incur significant financial or legal penalties? As Sekerka et al. (2009) observe, the corporate demonstration of virtue is often mediated through institutional design and leadership modelling rather than spontaneous ethical expression. Therefore, while virtue ethics remains a valuable lens for evaluating apology tone and leadership presence, its practical applicability may be inherently limited in adversarial, litigious environments. Recognising these constraints adds nuance to the framework and prevents an overly idealistic interpretation of ethical accountability in corporate crisis management.

This article adopts a qualitative case article approach to deeply explore corporate apology practices in real-world contexts characterised by ethical complexity. Case article research is particularly appropriate as it allows for a comprehensive, contextually grounded understanding of phenomena, facilitating an intensive exploration of ethical communication practices (Yin, 2018). Discourse analysis was selected to critically evaluate how corporate apologies use language to construct meaning, manage identities, and negotiate accountability with stakeholders. Given the inherently rhetorical nature of corporate apologies, discourse analysis provides an essential tool for examining how companies linguistically frame responsibility, remorse, and corrective actions and how these frames shape public perceptions. Meanwhile, content analysis was chosen to systematically identify recurrent ethical and rhetorical themes, omissions or patterns across multiple corporate apologies and related public documents. This method enables an organised and quantifiable approach to assessing consistency or divergence across cases, adding methodological rigour to the analysis of textual data.

The primary data include official company statements, press releases and apology speeches. Coverage from mainstream media outlets (e.g., News24, Business Day, Daily Maverick). Legal and regulatory reports, including Parliamentary hearings and findings by the Zondo Commission. Secondary sources include academic and policy analysis of each case. All materials are publicly available and dated between 2017 and 2024.

The Ethical Apology Evaluation Rubric employed in this article was developed through a structured, iterative process grounded in existing normative ethical literature (Moffitt, 2014; Shao, 2021; Shaw, 2016; Werhane & Freeman, 1999). This rubric operationalises ethical theory into practical evaluation criteria, focusing specifically on deontology (clarity and completeness of admission), consequentialism (tangible restitution and reform outcomes) and virtue ethics (sincerity, moral leadership and ethical consistency).

Criteria were initially extracted from normative ethics literature, existing apology evaluation frameworks (e.g. Shao’s six-tenet model) and crisis communication scholarship. Key constructs relevant to evaluating ethical quality (e.g. admission clarity, restitution measures and sincerity) were identified and synthesised into distinct evaluative dimensions aligned with the three ethical theories.

The initial rubric underwent content validation by an expert panel consisting of two governance specialists, a corporate governance legal expert, and a senior communications professional. The panel assessed the rubric for theoretical coherence, conceptual clarity, and practical applicability, providing feedback and recommendations that refined both the clarity of criteria definitions and their relevance to the South African corporate context.

Following expert feedback, the rubric was pilot-tested on a preliminary sample of corporate apology statements (outside the final article set) to assess applicability, clarity and consistency of scoring. Adjustments were made to clarify ambiguous criteria definitions, enhance interpretive consistency, and ensure reliable application across diverse ethical cases. This rigorous, iterative process ensured that the rubric is not only theoretically robust and methodologically sound but also contextually relevant to the complex ethical and reputational dynamics specific to South Africa’s corporate sector.

The 2017–2018 listeriosis outbreak in South Africa, traced to Tiger Brands’ Enterprise Foods facility in Polokwane, resulted in over 1000 infections and 218 confirmed deaths (National Institute for Communicable Diseases [NICD], 2018). Initially marked by legal defensiveness and denial of liability, Tiger Brands’ public response evolved significantly over several years. In May 2025, the company offered its first partial settlement to a group of victims, marking a potential turning point in its ethical and reputational management of the crisis (Bega, 2025).

In December 2017, Steinhoff International, a global retail and furniture conglomerate, admitted to ‘accounting irregularities’ that led to the collapse of its share price, wiping out over R300 billion in shareholder value (Myburgh, 2017). The scandal became one of South Africa’s most significant corporate failures with global implications. Public and investor reactions were immediate and severe, prompting executive resignations and regulatory scrutiny. Despite this, the company’s apology and ethical recovery process have remained controversial.

During the State Capture era, Eskom became a focal point of unethical procurement, with several private consultancies and service providers implicated in improper and unlawful contracts. McKinsey & Company, a globally respected management consulting firm, was contracted alongside Trillian Capital Partners, an unregistered financial services provider linked to the Gupta family, despite Eskom failing to follow proper procurement procedures. The Zondo Commission later found these arrangements irregular and ethically indefensible (Zondo, 2022).

Based on the findings, the following recommendations are proposed to improve ethical crisis response in corporate settings:

This article relied solely on publicly available sources such as corporate statements, media reports, and official documents, which while ensuring transparency, limited access to internal deliberations and motivations behind the apologies. As such, the findings primarily reflect external performances rather than internal ethical intent. The lack of direct input from stakeholders such as victims or employees constrained the article’s ability to fully assess how apologies were experienced or interpreted. Future research should incorporate interviews or surveys with affected stakeholders and corporate insiders to deepen understanding of apology authenticity. Expanding the evaluation framework across other national contexts could also test its broader applicability.