Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T16:55:44.879Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Corporate Culpability and the Limits of Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2015

William S. Laufer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ethicists and legal theorists have proposed models of corporate culpability that shift the standard of guilt determination from vicarious attribution of individual action and intention to an assessment of culture, policies, as well as organizational action and inaction. This paper briefly reviews four prominent models of corporate culpability, arguing that each makes claims that extend well beyond the limits of existing law. As an alternative to these models, a constructive corporate fault is described that relies on both objective and subjective reasonableness judgments. The paper concludes with a consideration of constructive corporate fault in relation to an Accountability model of corporate liability.

Type
Articles
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , July 1996 , pp. 311 - 324
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Law Institute (1962), Model Penal Code (Philadelphia: ALI)Google Scholar
Ashworth, A. (1991) Principles of Criminal Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press)Google Scholar
Bishop, J. P. (1901) New Comments on the Criminal Law Upon a New System of Legal Exposition (Boston: Little Brown)Google Scholar
Black, H. C. (1968) Black's Law Dictionary (St. Paul, MN: West)Google Scholar
Braithwaite, J. and Fisse, B. (1985) “Varieties of Responsibility and Organizational Crime,” Law and Policy, vol. 7, pp. 315‐43.Google Scholar
Brickey, K. F. (1984) Corporate Criminal Liability (Deerfield, IL: Clark Board-man Callaghan)Google Scholar
Brickey, K. F. (1993) “Corporate Sentencing: Close Corporations and the Criminal Law: On “‘Mom and Pop’ and a Curious Rule,” Washington University Law Quarterly, vol. 71, p. 189.Google Scholar
Bucy, P. H. (1991) “Corporate Ethos: A Standard for Imposing Corporate Criminal Liability,” Minnesota Law Review, vol. 75, p. 1095.Google Scholar
Bucy, P. (1993) “Organizational Sentencing Guidelines: The Cart Before the Horse,” Washington University Law Quarterly, vol. 71, p. 329.Google Scholar
Cressey, D. R. (1988) “The Poverty of Theory in Corporate Crime Research,” Advances in Criminological Theory, vol. 1, pp. 31‐56Google Scholar
Fisse, B. (1983) “Reconstructing Corporate Criminal Law: Deterrence, Retribution, Fault, and Sanctions,” Southern California Law Review, vol. 56, pp. 1141‐1246.Google Scholar
Fisse, B. and Braithwaite, J. (1988) “The Allocation of Responsibility for Corporate Crime: Individualism, Collectivism and Accountability,” Sydney Law Review, vol. 11, pp. 469‐513.Google Scholar
Fisse, B. and Braithwaite, J. (1993) Corporations, Crime and Accountability. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)Google Scholar
Fisse, B. and French, P. A. (1985) Corrigible Corporations and Unruly Laws. (San Antonio: Trinity Press)Google Scholar
Foerschler, A. (1990) “Corporate Criminal Intent: Toward a Better Understanding of Corporate Misconduct,” California Law Review, vol. 78, p. 1287.Google Scholar
French, P. A. (1984) Collective and Corporate Responsibility (New York: Columbia University Press).Google Scholar
Geis, G. (1995) “A Review, Rebuttal, and Reconciliation of Cressey and Braithwaite and Fisse on Criminological Theory and Corporate Crime,” Advances in Criminological Theory, vol. 6, pp. 399‐428.Google Scholar
Keeley, M. (1981) “Organizations as Non-Persons,” Journal of Value Inquiry, vol. 15, p. 149.Google Scholar
Laufer, W. S. (1994) “Corporate Bodies and Guilty Minds,” Emory Law Journal, vol. 43, pp. 647‐730Google Scholar
Laufer, W. S. (1992) “Culpability and the Sentencing of Corporations,” Nebraska Law Review, vol. 71, pp. 1049‐1094.Google Scholar
Laufer, W. S. & Robertson, D. C. (in press) “Corporate Ethics Initiatives as Social Control,” Journal of Business EthicsGoogle Scholar
Lennard's Carrying Co. v. Asiatic Petroleum Co. (1915) App. Cas. 705Google Scholar
Manning, R. C. (1984) “Corporate Responsibility and Corporate Personhood,” Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 3, pp. 77‐84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, James G. (1989) Decisions and Organizations (Oxford: Blackwell)Google Scholar
May, L. (1983) “Vicarious Agency and Corporate Responsibility,” Philosophical Studies, p. 69.Google Scholar
Moore, J. (1992) “Corporate Culpability Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines,” Arizona Law Review, p. 743.Google Scholar
Mueller, G. O. W. (1957) “Mens Rea and the Corporation—A Study of the Model Penal Code Position on Corporate Criminal Liability,” University of Pittsburgh Law Review, vol. 19, p. 21.Google Scholar
Nagel, I. H. & Swenson, W. M. (1993) “The Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Corporations: Their Development, Theoretical Underpinnings, and Some Thoughts About Their Future,” Washington University Law Quarterly, vol. 71, p. 205.Google Scholar
New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. United States (1909), 212 U.S. 481.Google Scholar
Note (1979), “Developments in the Law—Corporate Crime: Regulating Corporate Behavior Through Criminal Sanctions,” Harvard Law Review, vol. 92, p. 1227.Google Scholar
Pitt, H., and Groskaufmanis, R. (1990) “Minimizing Corporate Civil and Criminal Liability: A Second Look at Corporate Codes of Conduct,” Georgetown Law Journal, vol. 78, pp. 1559‐1589.Google Scholar
Prosser, W. L. (1971) The Law of Torts (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.)Google Scholar
Rakoff, J., Blumkin, L. & Suber, R. A. (1993) Corporate Sentencing Guidelines: Compliance and Mitigation (New York: Law Journal Seminars-Press)Google Scholar
Robinson, P. H. & Grail, J. A. (1983) “Element Analysis in Defining Criminal Liability: The Model Penal Code and Beyond,” Stanford Law Review, vol. 35, p. 681.Google Scholar
Sims, R. R. (1994) Ethics and Organizational Decision Making: A Call for Renewal (Westport, CT: Quorum)Google Scholar
Trevino, L. K. (1990) “A Cultural Perspective on Changing and Developing Organizational Ethics,” Research in Organizational Change and Development, vol. 4, pp. 195‐230.Google Scholar
United States v. Bank of New England (1987) 821 F.2d 844Google Scholar
United States v. T.I.M.E.-D.C., Inc. (1974) 381 F. Supp. 730 (W.D. Va.)Google Scholar
Velasquez, M.G. (1983), “Why Corporations Are Not Morally Responsible for Anything They Do,” Business & Professional Ethics Journal, vol. 2, pp. 1‐17.Google Scholar
Walt, S. and Laufer, W. S. (1991) “Why Personhood Doesn't Matter: Corporate Criminal Liability and Sanctions,” American Journal of Criminal Law, vol. 18, pp. 263‐87.Google Scholar
Walt, S. and Laufer, W. S. (1992) “Corporate Criminal Liability and the Comparative Mix of Sanctions, in Schlegel, K. & Weisburd, D. (eds.) White Collar Crime Reconsidered (Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press)Google Scholar
White, A. R. (1985) Grounds of Liability: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Law (New York: Oxford)Google Scholar
Wolgast, E. (1992) Ethics of an Artificial Person: Lost Responsibility in Professions and Organizations (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press).Google Scholar