There are a few other paths to these types of decisions that also don’t require overt malice. The most prevalent, almost universal, is that macro strategy is s

There are a few other paths to these types of decisions that also don’t require overt malice. The most prevalent, almost universal, is that macro strategy is set without consideration of what it really takes to accomplish the goals. So the discussions are framed by resource constraints and decisions are rationalized by those constraints. Likewise, group discussions at high levels are almost always abstracted into corporate-speak that removes clarity to the point where nobody can even decipher the original intent. Honestly, even when thinking about decisions or talking 1 on 1, it’s easy to mask real consequences with obtuse language. It’s a coping mechanism for many. It’s been extremely rare that I’ve ever heard anyone say anything that could be directly considered condoning unethical behavior. Establishing plausible deniability is an involuntary reflex for lots of people. Generally the decisions made on the ground that seem like greed or malice are more often made as part of some survival strategy. It’s all quite messy and disheartening, but inevitably human.