4 ms·

The diffusion of responsibility is one of those protections. There should definitely be some strict liability for certain corporate malfeasance, where it doesn'

The diffusion of responsibility is one of those protections. There should definitely be some strict liability for certain corporate malfeasance, where it doesn't too much matter who specifically did the deed, the executive/C-level is responsible and takes the fall (and maybe throw the BoD in there too). Then prosecution comes down to 'Did your company do X? If yes, you're guilty.'

a_cardboard_box 4y ago
Not only would that be effective in disincentivizing the malfeasance, it has the added benefit of limiting the scale of corporations to what execs can effectively manage.
ocdtrekkie 4y ago
Exactly. If the CEO goes to prison if the company commits X crime, the CEO has a strong incentive to ensure the business is not doing that. If the CEO's only concern is shareholder profit, crime usually pays pretty well.
- ticviking 4y ago
  The idea that a 10000 year jail sentence must be served by every share holder disturbed in proportion to how much they owe would make “shareholder value” mean “not making me check into jail to serve my 2 days of the sentence for my 1 share” which might change corporate behavior a bit. Especially if insuring shareholders income against that risk becomes a line item in the budget.
  - ocdtrekkie 4y ago
    I think shareholders might be too detached from decisionmaking for that to make sense. It'd definitely have a huge negative impact on stock values, but I'm not sure it would prevent corporate malfeasance.
    - meheleventyone 4y ago
      If nothing else it would make jail nicer in that case.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
  A more realistic approach is to take away personhood rights that these corporations rely on. A 10 year ban on political donations and lobbying would be a good starting point. Then prison for the C-levels if they violate those terms which are directly under their control.
- geysersam 4y ago
  Yes and the less you know the better for you when it eventually goes to court. We had one of these cases recently in my country. CEO of one of the biggest X in the country goes to trial for lying/not informing correctly about Y gross malfeasance. Walks free after years of investigation, because didn't know about it.
lamontcg 4y ago
In the Coast Guard and Navy it doesn't matter if the Captain didn't know what was going on, its their job to know what was going on and they're always the ones held responsible one way or another.
- HybridCurve 4y ago
  This is because if you are in the military your subordinates are bound by UCMJ to follow all lawful orders. The officers are granted complete authority over the subordinates but bear the responsibility for all the actions of those under their command. There is no civilian equivalent for this kind of relationship between authority and responsibility(though law enforcement should be using the same model). Holding both companies and management responsible can be tricky as well. IIRC Exxon-Mobil had an aggressive policy of destroying records from projects as soon as they were legally able to prevent them from being used against the company in litigation or investigations. In this case, having poorly structured laws or regulations encouraged the company solve the problem of liability, rather than one of accountability.

a_cardboard_box 4y ago

Not only would that be effective in disincentivizing the malfeasance, it has the added benefit of limiting the scale of corporations to what execs can effectively manage.

ocdtrekkie 4y ago

Exactly. If the CEO goes to prison if the company commits X crime, the CEO has a strong incentive to ensure the business is not doing that. If the CEO's only concern is shareholder profit, crime usually pays pretty well.

ticviking 4y ago
The idea that a 10000 year jail sentence must be served by every share holder disturbed in proportion to how much they owe would make “shareholder value” mean “not making me check into jail to serve my 2 days of the sentence for my 1 share” which might change corporate behavior a bit. Especially if insuring shareholders income against that risk becomes a line item in the budget.
- ocdtrekkie 4y ago
  I think shareholders might be too detached from decisionmaking for that to make sense. It'd definitely have a huge negative impact on stock values, but I'm not sure it would prevent corporate malfeasance.
  - meheleventyone 4y ago
    If nothing else it would make jail nicer in that case.
kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
A more realistic approach is to take away personhood rights that these corporations rely on. A 10 year ban on political donations and lobbying would be a good starting point. Then prison for the C-levels if they violate those terms which are directly under their control.
geysersam 4y ago
Yes and the less you know the better for you when it eventually goes to court. We had one of these cases recently in my country. CEO of one of the biggest X in the country goes to trial for lying/not informing correctly about Y gross malfeasance. Walks free after years of investigation, because didn't know about it.

lamontcg 4y ago

In the Coast Guard and Navy it doesn't matter if the Captain didn't know what was going on, its their job to know what was going on and they're always the ones held responsible one way or another.

HybridCurve 4y ago
This is because if you are in the military your subordinates are bound by UCMJ to follow all lawful orders. The officers are granted complete authority over the subordinates but bear the responsibility for all the actions of those under their command. There is no civilian equivalent for this kind of relationship between authority and responsibility(though law enforcement should be using the same model). Holding both companies and management responsible can be tricky as well. IIRC Exxon-Mobil had an aggressive policy of destroying records from projects as soon as they were legally able to prevent them from being used against the company in litigation or investigations. In this case, having poorly structured laws or regulations encouraged the company solve the problem of liability, rather than one of accountability.