Why do people always believe the story that there was a solo perpetrator who acted alone and without the consent of the organization? Most likely they were nothing more than a sacrificial pawn in this scheme.
In my experience watching company cultures, companies that fire employees for bad behavior (as opposed to reassigning or sending them for additional training) are less likely to be complicit in that behavior. And when this sort of behavior is uncovered at a higher level, more likely to fire the senior leader as well.
I find I too have a knee jerk reaction to narrative arguments which seek to assert a generalization (as most of them do) against their enemy target. We are flooded with them these days pretty much everywhere we look.
I observe that a simple statement, "I give credit to companies that fire employees they discover have engaged in actions which violate their stated values.", is pretty standalone without narrative. And yet, it is contextualized by the reader into the narratives they either endorse or oppose.
And since narratives are crafted from a curated set of truths, things that would either disprove or dismiss the conclusions of a narrative are most vigorously opposed or pushed back upon.
It almost seems to me that the reality of a more nuanced and textured reality where many things are true, corporations can be both good and evil, and everything is evolving through experience and time, is the most frightening place of all.