“The Excuses We Make”: Defining Eight Corruption Rationalization Categories

The rationalization of corruption allows individuals to detach from moral imperatives, enabling them to perceive unethical or unlawful actions as acceptable or justifiable. Closely linked to the concept of moral disengagement, rationalization involves cognitive distortions that frame inhumane or immoral behavior as neither wrong nor inconsistent with the agent's values. Despite its conceptual significance, rationalization has been empirically understudied, largely due to the limited availability of firsthand qualitative data from corruption perpetrators. This study addresses this gap by analyzing how individuals involved in corruption rationalize their actions. We conduct an abductive thematic analysis of 141 h of testimony from 49 Odebrecht executives, collected as part of their leniency agreements during Brazil's high‐profile Car Wash investigation. Through these depositions, we uncover and interpret the discursive strategies used by the executives to normalize their involvement in systemic corruption. Drawing on prior research and our empirical findings, we propose eight categories of rationalization. These categories offer a framework that not only advances academic understanding of corruption rationalization mechanisms but also provides practitioners—such as compliance officers, ethics trainers, and internal auditors—with actionable insights to design more effective ethics training programs and preventive strategies that focus on cultural and psychological mechanisms rather than legislation and market regulations.