** Apologies for cross-posting**
Journal of Business Ethics
To Right a Wrong: Theorizing and Guiding the Practice of Moral Repair
Special Issue Call for Papers.
Deadline: January 31st, 2027
Guest Editors
Jordi Vives-Gabriel, IESE Business School / University of St Gallen
Wim Van Lent, IESEG School of Management
Tricia Olsen, University of Minnesota
Laura Bernal, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana de Bogotá
Harry Van Buren III, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Please check out the full version of the Special Issue Call for Papers here: https://link.springer.com/collections/diafadeeeg
Introduction to the Special Issue
Increasingly, firms acknowledge responsibility for prior wrongs and commit resources to remediating any negative consequences suffered by stakeholders and to rebuilding damaged relationships with them. The practices that allow victims of corporate wrongdoings to move from a situation of damage to one where (some) stability in moral relationships is regained are commonly referred to as "moral repair" (Walker, 2006: 6). Corporate efforts towards moral repair (Walker, 2006), however, are often messy and controversial, leaving many victims dissatisfied with the ways they were approached and/or the amends that they received. Recent examples include Boeing's initiatives to support the families and communities affected by the crashes of two 737 MAX aircraft, which were caused by a flawed design (Wattles, 2019); the efforts of Sibanye-Stillwater, a mining company, to address its (legacy) responsibility for the most brutal massacre in South Africa since Apartheid (Vives-Gabriel & Van der Merwe, 2023); and the amends schemes established by BHP Billiton and Vale, two iron producers, following the collapse of the Fundão tailings dam in Brazil (Bertholdi & Pamplona, 2022; Nabuco & Aleixo, 2019).
For many, accountability may involve legal proceedings; moral repair, in contrast, describes a complex process that requires a collaborative effort among all parties affected by or connected to the wrongdoing to explore and fulfil the firm's social responsibilities (Goodstein et al., 2015; Vives-Gabriel et al., 2023; Walker, 2006). Scholars from a range of disciplines, most notably law, moral philosophy, and stakeholder theory, have examined its different facets, including relationship restoration and social reintegration. Some have emphasized the importance of restoring legitimacy and trust with stakeholders (Gillespie & Dietz, 2009; Pfarrer et al., 2008), while others have drawn on restorative justice to analyse the aftermath of corporate transgressions (Goodstein & Butterfield, 2010; Schormair & Gerlach, 2020). Integrating elements of these literatures, Vives-Gabriel et al. (2023) theorize the moral repair process by distinguishing between its procedural and substantive components. Relatedly, scholars have begun to explore how firms may take responsibility for historical injustices such as slavery, colonialism, or collaboration with oppressive regimes (Schrempf-Stirling et al., 2016; Van Lent & Smith, 2020; Vives-Gabriel et al., 2024).
Yet, despite these advances, treatments of moral repair within business ethics remain fragmented and often appear under different labels, including restorative remediation (Goodstein & Butterfield, 2010; Schormair & Gerlach, 2020), legitimacy reintegration (Pfarrer et al., 2008), and trust repair (Gillespie & Dietz, 2009; Kim et al., 2004). This lack of conceptual cohesion continues to hinder systematic theorization of the concept. Moreover, empirical research on the practice of moral repair remains limited, and existing recommendations are often underdeveloped or of uncertain applicability across contexts (Van Lent et al., 2025). Advancing research on moral repair is therefore both timely and necessary. First, this research effort could help deepen the theory about the complexities involved in addressing transgressions and rebuilding harmed stakeholder relationships. Second, a more refined understanding of the dynamics between firms and (groups of) victims could help firms navigate the paradoxical tasks of (a) understanding and satisfying the specific needs of victims flowing from the particular harms that they have suffered, while (b) maintaining a sense of equity across victims, especially if they can observe each other's treatment.
Types of Papers and Suggested Topics
This Special Issue seeks to advance our understanding of (a) what moral repair is, could be, and should be; (b) its place within broader business ethics scholarship; (c) the ethical problems and dilemmas that may arise in the practice of moral repair; and (d) how such challenges can be addressed by firms within reasonable cost parameters. Against this backdrop, the primary aim of this Special Issue is to tie currently disparate scholarly conversations in ways that contribute to refining theoretical understandings of moral repair, strengthening empirical analysis, and guiding its practice. We invite original submissions from a wide range of methodological and disciplinary perspectives that make theoretical, empirical, and/or methodological contributions. Submissions may address, but are not limited to, the following themes and questions:
- To what extent can corporations engage in moral repair? How should the scope and limits of their moral responsibilities be ethically justified?
- What approaches and procedures can firms follow when practicing moral repair?
- How should key moral concepts such as wrongdoing, offender, responsibility, and victimhood be conceptualized? What philosophical accounts can provide guidance?
- How do morally motivated corporate repair efforts relate to legally mandated reparations, and what ethical tensions, complementarities, or trade-offs arise between legal compliance and moral responsibility?
- How should firms ethically navigate the tension between acknowledging responsibility for wrongdoing and the legal, financial, or reputational risks associated with such acknowledgment?
- What ethical principles should guide firms in selecting, combining, and sequencing different forms of amends in response to prior wrongs?
- In what ways do contextual factors such as historical legacies, cultural norms, and power asymmetries shape the ethical evaluation of moral repair practices?
- What are the opportunities and limitations associated with symbolic forms of moral repair, such as apologies, commemorations, and memorials?
- In what ways can spiritual, religious, or moral philosophical traditions contribute to ethical theorizing about moral repair in business contexts?
- Can moral repair be legitimately facilitated or mediated by third parties, such as public authorities, civil society organizations, or professional mediators?
- How does moral repair extend or challenge existing frameworks for specifying business responsibility?
- Is moral repair possible when the underlying foundations of capitalism facilitate ongoing, systemic harm?
Submission Instructions
All submissions must be original, not published or under consideration for publication elsewhere. Authors must follow the Journal of Business Ethics submissions guidelines and format the paper in the JBE style. For more details on types of manuscripts considered for publication see http://www.springer.com/social+sciences/applied+ethics/journal/10551
Please submit manuscripts through Editorial Manager® by January 31st, 2027. The online submission system will be opened 60 days prior to this submission deadline. Submitted manuscripts will go through a double-blind peer-reviewed process as indicated in JBE's submissions guidelines.
Upon submission, please indicate that your submission is to this Special Issue of JBE. Questions about expectations, requirements, the appropriateness of a topic, etc., should be directed to the guest editors of the Special Issue. Additional JBE editorial procedures are outlined in the journal's Peer Review Policy, Process and Guidance, and Peer Reviewer Selection. Papers submitted to this Special Issue cannot subsequently be resubmitted to any of JBE's sections or to another JBE Special Issue; these include papers that have been rejected or withdrawn after review, even if they have been heavily modified and/or revised.
Paper Development Workshop
To support the development of high-quality submissions, we will offer a virtual workshop in connection with the Special Issue. The workshop will take place on June 11th, 2026 and serve as an informational session. Please note that workshop attendance is not a prerequisite for submitting to the Special Issue.
In the course of 2027 (exact date TBA), authors who were invited to revise and resubmit will have the opportunity to participate in a hybrid paper development workshop, where they will be supported by members of the editorial team in advancing their work. Participation is not a requirement for publication in the Special Issue.
References
Bertholdi, J., & Pamplona, D. A. (2022). A Feminist Analysis of the Legal Mechanisms of Protection and Repair in the Context of the Brazilian Extractive Industry: The Doce River Case. Business and Human Rights Journal, 7(1), 175–180.
Gillespie, N., & Dietz, G. (2009). Trust Repair After an Organization-Level Failure. Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 127–145.
Goodstein, J., & Butterfield, K. (2010). Extending the Horizon of Business Ethics: Restorative Justice and the Aftermath of Unethical Behavior. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(3), 453–480.
Goodstein, J., Butterfield, K., Pfarrer, M., & Wicks, A. (2015). Guest Editors' Introduction: Individual and Organizational Reintegration After Ethical or Legal Transgressions: Challenges and Opportunities. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24(3), 315–342.
Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2004). Removing the Shadow of Suspicion: The Effects of Apology Versus Denial for Repairing Competence- Versus Integrity-Based Trust Violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 104–118.
Nabuco, J., & Aleixo, L. (2019). Rights Holders' Participation and Access to Remedies: Lessons Learned from the Doce River Dam Disaster. Business and Human Rights Journal, 4(1), 147–153.
Pfarrer, M. D., Decelles, K. A., Smith, K. G., & Taylor, M. S. (2008). After the Fall: Reintegrating the Corrupt Organization. Academy of Management Review, 33(3), 730–749.
Schormair, M. J. L., & Gerlach, L. M. (2020). Corporate Remediation of Human Rights Violations: A Restorative Justice Framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 167(3), 475–493.
Schrempf-Stirling, J., Palazzo, G., & Phillips, R. A. (2016). Historic Corporate Social Responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 41(4), 700–719.
Van Lent, W., & Smith, A. D. (2020). Using Versus Excusing: The Hudson's Bay Company's Long-Term Engagement with Its (Problematic) Past. Journal of Business Ethics, 166(2), 215–231.
Van Lent, W., Vives-Gabriel, J., Van der Merwe, H., & Chowdhury, I. (2025). From Harm to Harmony? Epistemic Dominance and the Practice of Moral Repair. Working Paper.
Vives-Gabriel, J., & Van der Merwe, H. (2023). Remedy and Accountability a Decade after the Marikana Massacre. Business and Human Rights Journal, 8(1), 115–119.
Vives-Gabriel, J., Schrempf-Stirling, J., & Coraiola, D. (2024). Legacies of Irresponsibility: Organizational Responses and Policy Implications. Academy of Management Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2022.0126
Vives-Gabriel, J., Van Lent, W., & Wettstein, F. (2023). Moral Repair: Toward a Two-Level Conceptualization. Business Ethics Quarterly, 33(4), 732–762.
Walker, M. U. (2006). Moral Repair: Reconstructing Moral Relations After Wrongdoing. Cambridge University Press.
Wattles, J. (2019, July 3). Boeing Dedicates $100 Million to Victims of 737 Max Crashes Retrieved from https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/03/business/boeing-100-million-compensation-fund/index.html.