One form of corporate malfeasance involves violation of workers' rights to a safe workplace. This article complements the dominant functionalist discourse concerned with defining, categorising and establishing antecedent conditions for psychological injury (and attendant physical health and social harm) arising from mistreatment at work. Drawing from claims heard in Australian courts and tribunals, this analysis examines the counterarguments presented by respondents in such cases. This preliminary evidence suggests that the normalisation and neutralisation of offending behaviours provides a justification for failing to deliver a safe work environment and for exacerbating injury when it has occurred. Further, the framing of regulation has enabled this pattern of neutralisation of offending and denial of justice for victims. This article calls for a re-examination of the way in which victimisation has been problematised and the consequent implications for prevention.