Erin Brockovich, Corporate Ethics, and Deviant Behavior
This paper examines the 2000 film Erin Brockovich as a lens for analyzing corporate deviance and ethics. After summarizing the true story of Erin Brockovich's investigation into Pacific Gas and Electricity's (PG&E) contamination of Hinkley, California's water supply with hexavalent chromium, the paper analyzes the dynamics between the prosecuting legal team and the corporation. It then applies William Glasser's Choice Theory to explain why PG&E's executives chose deliberate, white-collar criminal behavior, and connects those choices to Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development. The paper argues that PG&E's conduct represents a calculated prioritization of corporate profit over community welfare and basic ethical responsibility.
- Introduction: Film overview and paper's analytical objectives
- The Story of Erin Brockovich: Narrative summary of the PG&E contamination case
- David and Goliath: Erin, Ed, and Corporate Power: Individual vs. corporation dynamics and moral contrast
- Corporate Deviance and Glasser's Choice Theory: Applying Choice Theory to PG&E's criminal decisions
- Conclusion: Glasser's five needs and corporate moral failure
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds its theoretical analysis in a concrete, well-known real-world case, making abstract concepts like Choice Theory and moral development immediately relatable.
- Screenplay excerpts are used strategically to illustrate character dynamics and reinforce analytical points, lending authenticity and narrative texture to the argument.
- The paper explicitly justifies its choice of theory — explaining why a psychology-based framework suits white-collar crime better than a sociological or economic one — demonstrating strong critical reasoning.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied theoretical analysis: it selects a specific behavioral theory (Glasser's Choice Theory) and justifies that selection based on the nature of the crime before applying it. This move — theory selection as a reasoned argument, not a default assumption — is a hallmark of upper-level social science writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with an introduction framing the film and its analytical purpose, followed by a narrative summary of the case using direct script quotations. A transitional "David and Goliath" section connects the story to broader themes of corporate power and individual resistance. The analysis then turns to Glasser's Choice Theory applied to PG&E's criminal conduct. The paper ends with a discussion of Kohlberg's moral development framework, though this section appears truncated in the source.
Introduction
Erin Brockovich, a film released in 2000, is a dramatization of a true story about a woman who became a legal assistant through sheer force of personality. After discovering evidence that people were being poisoned by toxins from a Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) plant, she nearly single-handedly brought a successful lawsuit against the company ("IMDB," 2011). The film provides a verstehen — a filtered, empathetic understanding — of the bitter contest between injured citizens and a large corporation with deep pockets ("IMDB," 2011). This paper briefly summarizes the story, then analyzes the position of the prosecuting legal team, and finally discusses corporate deviance through the lens of Glasser's Choice Theory and its relationship to Kohlberg's theory of morality.
The story takes place in 1993. Following the loss of a personal injury lawsuit, Erin Brockovich asks her attorney, Edward L. Masry, to help her find a job to compensate for the loss ("IMDB," 2011). The attorney hires Erin as a file clerk, and she earnestly tries to get a handle on the work:
The Story of Erin Brockovich
Erin is at her desk, staring bewilderingly at the files from the box Ed gave her, which are now spread across her desktop. She sees Anna packing up her things to leave.
ERIN: Anna? With this real estate stuff — could you remind me, because I'm a little confused about how exactly we do that. Why are there medical records and blood samples in real estate files? (Grant, 2000)
From this point, Erin begins her investigation (Grant, 2000). She curiously reads the medical files of Donna and Peter Jensen, then later asks Ed if she can investigate further (Grant, 2000). He is distracted and gives her permission without fully realizing what he has agreed to (Grant, 2000). PG&E has offered to purchase the Jensens' house in Hinkley, California — and so, true to form, that is where Erin drives next (Grant, 2000).
As Erin digs into the particulars of the case, the facts begin to add up (Grant, 2000). She discovers that PG&E has systematically covered up the fact that the water supply in the town of Hinkley has been contaminated by a toxic industrial compound called hexavalent chromium (Grant, 2000). Many people are already seriously ill, several have died, and the health of the entire community is at stake (Grant, 2000). Erin finds evidence that PG&E is responsible for the illnesses of Hinkley's residents (Grant, 2000).
Ed fires Erin for being absent for two weeks without informing anyone — she has been investigating and working around the clock (Grant, 2000). When he receives the lab report Erin requested, detailing the toxin levels, he hires her back (Grant, 2000). Erin persists until she convinces Ed to mount a case against the energy company (Grant, 2000):
ED: — And what the hell do you know about any of this anyway? Something like this, Erin — it could take forever. They're a huge corporation. They could bury us in paperwork for the next fifteen years. I'm just a guy with a private firm.
She makes her move.
ERIN: — who happens to know they poisoned people and lied about it. We can get these people. With a little effort, I really think we can nail their asses to the wall. (Grant, 2000)
David and Goliath: Erin, Ed, and Corporate Power
Through happenstance, Erin meets a man in a bar who claims he was supposed to destroy certain PG&E documents but decided not to when he put two and two together (Grant, 2000). He observed that workers who labored in the unlined ponds in Hinkley were being plagued by medical conditions — his own cousin died from a malady caused by the toxins (Grant, 2000). The lynchpin is a document from 1966 that connects a conversation between a corporate executive at PG&E's San Francisco headquarters and the Hinkley station (Grant, 2000). The evidence was examined by a judge — without the benefit of a jury — and PG&E was ordered to pay a settlement of $333 million to be divided among the 634 plaintiffs (Grant, 2000).
The relationship between Erin and Ed has substantive relevance to the common social reaction to corporate deviance and questions of morality. Erin is naïve, stubborn, and driven by a clear-cut sense of right and wrong (Grant, 2000). Ed carries the weight of many struggles with powerful entities, and though reluctant to continue draining his resources in Quixotic attempts to compel corporations to honor their corporate social responsibility, he is eventually persuaded (Grant, 2000). It is precisely Ed's hesitancy that PG&E is counting on — his experience with protracted legal proceedings acts as a disincentive to pursue the case, and the company will exploit that at every turn (Grant, 2000).
PG&E, however, was not counting on the irrepressible righteousness of Erin Brockovich (Grant, 2000). She is Don Quixote, yes, but she is also David — and she swings a mean slingshot. Erin is perhaps the most difficult opponent the company could have imagined because she possesses a "beginner's mind"1 — and because everything about her will attract attention, leave a lasting impression, and stand in stark contrast to the polished, impenetrable façade of a corporate behemoth (Hartman, 2001). She represents every "little man" (or woman) pitted against the callous, greedy, immoral corporation that justifies its actions on the basis of its ability to pay large dividends to stockholders (Hartman, 2001). Erin is not the sort of witness PG&E wants placed before a jury, nor are the hurt and devastated people of Hinkley.
1 In Zen Buddhism, a beginner's mind is innocent of preconceptions, expectations, judgments, and prejudices. It is simply present — exploring and observing without a fixed point of view or prior judgment, asking only, "What is it?" (Hartman, Z.B. (2001). Beginner's Mind [Lecture]. Retrieved from )
Conclusion
In view of this, a theory grounded in psychology rather than sociology, economics, or criminology seems most appropriate. William Glasser's Choice Theory is based on his fifty-some years of practice as a counseling psychologist (Glasser, 2011). Choice Theory assumes that human behavior takes its form and direction from the satisfaction of five needs that are genetically driven, similar to those described by Abraham Maslow (Glasser, 2011). The needs are as follows: (1) Survival, which includes food, shelter, clothing, and personal safety; (2) Belonging,
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.