Abstract

An organisation can remedy wrongdoing without acquiring a right to demand forgiveness, renewed loyalty, or public endorsement from those harmed. This conceptual article asks which corporate claims remain justified after remedy and develops a non-conversion principle: fulfilment of an antecedent remedial duty does not, by itself, create an entitlement to the response an organisation prefers. Using theory adaptation, the analysis compares stakeholder, moral-repair, restorative, and dialogical scholarship with accounts of institutional repentance and African relational ethics. Explicit normative premises and five hypothetical claim episodes distinguish discharged duties, reasons for favourable reassessment, and independently justified reciprocal claims. Four propositions identify limits on conditional redress, requirements for maintaining outstanding commitments when endorsement is withheld, and the scope of legitimate completion claims. Repaired separation, qualified return, and voluntary reconciliation emerge as nonhierarchical possibilities. The contribution is a test of the source and scope of corporate demands and representations, extending existing protections of stakeholder agency. Boards should assess remedial provision, procedural authority, and authorised relational responses separately. For international business, this distinction constrains how local settlements and representative mandates support corporate-group reporting. A proposed coding protocol supports future empirical examination; the article does not establish prevalence or causal effectiveness.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.