Corporate Killing Research Articles

The Case for an International Hard Law on Corporate Killing

The Case for an International Hard Law on Corporate Killing

The corporate killing movement in South Korea: a critical realist analysis of social structure and collective agency

ABSTRACT South Korea has one of the highest occupational injury fatalities among the OECD countries over the past decades. It was in this context that the ‘Corporate Killing’ Movement was initiated in the early 2000s with the aim of radically reframing recurring fatal workplace injuries as a social problem by claiming that ‘a worker’s death is a corporate killing’. By drawing on Roy Bhaskar’s dialectical critical realism in combination with framing literature, this paper aims to trace the emergence and development of collective agency in the Corporate Killing Movement in Korea, paying particular attention to the implications of the formation of a united front of labour and a labour-civic alliance. We conducted in-depth interviews with 10 key informants from multiple sites of action, including civil society, organized labour, political party, and governments, all of whom have engaged in the Corporate Killing Movement over the past years. Drawing on Roy Bhaskar’s dialectical critical realism, this study identifies structural constraints affecting the collective agency of workers against fatal workplace injuries, and specifies the emancipatory, liberating power of collective agency to transform the very structures in which they were embedded. The research findings are also expected to inform future public health activism of how collective agency in a relatively narrow area of activism can gain momentum through the formation of an alliance with heterogeneous groups of agents. This is achieved by establishing a shared understanding of a common causal mechanism at the structural level that cuts across different issues.

In the Land of Corporate Impunity: Corporate Killing Law in the United States

Since the early 2000s, a number of Western capitalist states, including Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, have enacted criminal laws aimed at holding corporations to account for negligently killing workers or members of the public. In the United States, however, the existing respondeat superior (vicarious liability) regime remains intact. Drawing insight from semistructured interviews with corporate lawyers, nongovernmental representatives, union/labor leaders, and academics, I argue the relative impunity for corporate killing in the United States has its roots in corporate power and related beliefs in law and economics scholarship. This article documents how corporate offending is downplayed through hegemonic ideals that corporations are inherently good and law-abiding and any “bad apples” can be dealt with through existing law and market forces. In this respect, the recent rollback of various social protections is not simply a result of Trump’s presidency but instead a product of the neoliberal political, economic, and moral order.

Obscuring Corporate Violence: Corporate Manslaughter in Action

AbstractIn April 2008, the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 (CMCHAct) came into force in the UK. Since then, the Act has failed to live up to expectations, resulting in only 26 convictions in the first decade of its existence, despite thousands of work‐related fatalities during this time. This article critically analyses these CMCHAct prosecutions in order to chronicle the problems of the law in action and to demonstrate how the Act serves to downplay the seriousness of corporate killing. In so doing, we approach law as an ‘active discourse’ that is mutually constitutive of the broader social formation, so that it both creates, but is also a product of, the capitalist social order. Thus we explore the extent to which the CMCHAct ultimately privileges dominant beliefs that corporate killing is not ‘true’ crime and that corporate capitalism is an inherent good that must be defended, not disrupted.

Corporate killing law reform: A spatio-temporal fix to a crisis of capitalism?

The first decade of the new millennium saw the governments of Canada and the United Kingdom enact criminal legislation intended to hold corporations accountable for negligently killing workers and/or members of the public. Drawing empirically from document analyses and semistructured interviews, as well as theoretical insights concerning the crisis-prone tendencies of capital, this article demonstrates how both laws were conceived in ways that spatio-temporally delimited the ‘problem’ of corporate killing and re-secured the (neoliberal) capitalist status quo. In so doing, we argue that the inability of the state to hold powerful corporations and corporate actors to account for their serious offending presents strategic opportunities for demanding improved accountability measures and changes to a system responsible for so much bloodshed and killing.

The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007—A 10-Year Review

This year will mark the 10th anniversary of the commencement of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. The Act was significant in that it introduced a specific offence for corporate killing in the UK for the first time. Such reform was generally welcomed, yet many academics and practitioners were critical of what they perceived to be the Act’s unnecessary complexity and questioned how effective it would be. The Grenfell Tower fire has recently stimulated renewed debate about corporate manslaughter and the ability of the law to hold organisations and individuals to account. To engage meaningfully in this discourse, it is imperative to review the Act’s performance in practice over the last 10 years. The author offers an original contribution to knowledge in this area through (i) fresh analysis of whether the criticism 10 years ago has proved to be well founded; (ii) scrutiny of the extent to which the Act has been successful in meeting its stated aims; (iii) critique of the judicial precepts in this area; and (iv) new insights into the future of corporate manslaughter including how the Act could be more efficacious. The statutory corporate manslaughter offence affords a superior basis of liability to the unwieldy common law offence that preceded it; there have been more prosecutions, higher average fines and its reach encompasses more than just micro/small companies. Conversely, the Act is simultaneously a disappointing compromise; fewer prosecutions than predicted, unjustifiable inconsistency in sentencing, a continued lack of individual accountability and a prosecutory preoccupation with a limited range of defendant. The introduction of new sentencing guidelines and recent case law developments, including the first fine measured in the millions of pounds, signal progress and have gone some way to address these inadequacies. Despite this, it is questionable whether the Act can rise to the challenge of securing convictions in relation to Grenfell Tower and similar factually complex tragedies. In order to fully capture and prevent the wide range of deaths within the Act’s remit, it is clear that prosecutors need enhanced training and a willingness to embrace a holistic reconceptualisation of ‘offender’.

The Fiction of the Criminalisation of Corporate Killing

Since the 1970s, high-profile corporate killings forced the need to assess the criminal responsibility of corporations which have caused human or environmental fatalities. This enterprise proved difficult, and the task was not necessarily made easier by the 2007 Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act (c.19). The question to be asked is whether the Act serves any real public interest or merely pays lip service to the ‘war on crime’ agenda.

The UK’s corporate killing law: Un/fit for purpose?

The annual total of occupational deaths in the UK is measured in the tens of thousands, yet the overwhelming majority attract no criminal justice attention. More recently, a very small number of deaths have generated attempts to prosecute companies for manslaughter. In 1996, following a series of multiple fatality ‘disasters’, the Law Commission proposed for a new law on corporate manslaughter; in 2008, the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 came into force. It is with the implementation and effects of this Act that this article is concerned. It begins by setting out the dimensions of the new law before analysing the key themes that have emerged from its use to date. In conclusion, I consider whether the law has proven to be unfit for purpose—which begs the question of what that purpose might have been.

The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007: A Symbolic Response

A wide range of business enterprise is now subject to the new law on Corporate Manslaughter (the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007). The bulk of the legislation came into force in April this year. The Act has had a long and turbulent gestation period and is a response to widespread concern that ‘corporate killing’ was escaping the reach of criminal law.The legislation introduces an offence of corporate manslaughter in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and corporate homicide in Scotland. While the title of the Act suggests that the new law is aimed at incorporated bodies, the range of the legislation is extensive. The broad range of organisations caught by the Act extends from companies and local authorities to NHS bodies and specified government departments. The new law has attracted a mixed response, with some commentators viewing it as a largely symbolic exercise which will have a limited impact, whilst others express concern that the legislation only adds to the pressure on the business community at a time of economic crisis.The paper examines both the background to the Act and the main provisions and attempts a consideration of the way in which the legislation is likely to work in practice.

A political economy of corporate killing

(2007). A political economy of corporate killing. Criminal Justice Matters: Vol. 70, Politics, Economy and Crime, pp. 29-30.

An Inspector's-Eye View: The Prospective Enforcement of Work-Related Fatality Cases

This paper concerns the prospective implementation of the proposed 'corporate killing' offence. These proposals suggested that the Health and Safety Executive (HSE)-the body currently responsible for regulating work-related health and safety issues-should handle cases in which a 'corporate killing' charge is a possibility. Relatively little attention has been paid to this issue of implementation. An empirical investigation was undertaken to assess the compatibility of the HSE's methodology and enforcement philosophy with the new offence. It was found that inspectors categorize themselves as enforcers of criminal law, see enforcement action as valuable and support the new offence, but disagree over its use. They also broadly supported the HSE taking responsibility for the new offence. This suggests that 'corporate killing' may not necessarily be incompatible with the HSE's modus operandi, and there may be positive reasons forgiving the HSE this responsibility.

Corporate Manslaughter

The Government published its long-awaited draft Bill on the creation of a new criminal offence of corporate manslaughter shortly before the May 2005 general election. The Bill was included in the Queen's Speech after the general election and, with a Labour government back in power, the new offence could be on to the statute book as early as 2006. The Home Affairs Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee announced ajoint inquiry to consider and report on the Bill. This is expected to be completed by the end of 2005. Pressure for reform of the law relating to manslaughter and corporate killing arose out of a series of high profile fatal accidents, including several rail crashes. There has been said to be an increasing concern amongst the public that companies and organisations are not being held sufficiently accountable for deaths caused by their criminal negligence. The author acted in the first of the major cases, representing the directors accused of manslaughter following the Herald of Free Enterprise capsize disaster in 1987.

Kill or cure? The implications of proposed corporate killing legislation for the NHS

Kill or cure? The implications of proposed corporate killing legislation for the NHS

Update – corporate killing

Update – corporate killing

Companies Making a Killing—New UK Proposals for Corporate Killing

After more than a decade of major public and media outcries for an effective corporate liability regime in relation to workplace deaths the Home Secretary finally confirmed in May 2003, endorsed by the Cabinet in November 2003, that he will prepare a bill during this Parliament Session introducinga new offence of “Corporate Killing”. The call for such an offence as well as individual offences directed at directors and other senior officers arose out of the failures in the current corporate manslaughter law of the UK to convict any middle or large size companies. Specifically, after public disasters such as the capsizing of the Herald of Free Enterprise in 1987 (193 deaths), the Kings Cross Station fire (37 deaths), the Piper Alpha Oil Platform explosion (167 deaths) and a host of recent rail crashes have led to wide public calls to ensure corporations be held responsible for management failings resulting in fatalities.This paper looks briefly at the current law of corporate manslaughter and its failure to deliver the general public's desire for corporate liability as well as the development and evolution of the new proposals.

Corporate killing--will directors ever be held to account?

Corporate killing--will directors ever be held to account?

Corporate Killing - Will Directors Ever Be Held to Account?

Corporate Killing - Will Directors Ever Be Held to Account?

Two steps forward, one step back: towards accountability for workplace deaths?

AbstractThis paper examines the origins of the UK government’s proposals for reform of the law of ‘corporate manslaughter’ and evaluates some of the possible outcomes. The paper begins by outlining the principal legal barriers to determining liability for manslaughter where the offender is a corporation, not least the doctrine of identification. It then goes on to discuss key common law developments in involuntary manslaughter cases involving corporations. This is followed by a discussion of the emergence, nature and progress of long-standing proposals for the introduction of new statutory offences regarding corporate killing, and an appraisal of the likely impact of these proposed legal changes. Finally, the paper sets out a series of policy recommendations and insists that the proposals must not be diluted any further by New Labour’s relationship with private business interests.

Corporate killing laws not improving unhealthy attitudes to health and safety in British businesses

Corporate killing laws not improving unhealthy attitudes to health and safety in British businesses

A BETTER WAY OF CONVICTING BUSINESSES OF AVOIDABLE DEATHS AND INJURIES?

The Law Commission’s proposal for an offence of “corporate killing” (modelled on the common law crimeof gross negligence manslaughter) is criticised for vagueness and imprecison, for not comprehending serious non-fatal injuries, and for failing to recognise that in the absence of clear rules of attribution, any criminal liability imposed on an organisation can only be for failing to prevent something happening. It is suggested that offences (patterned on those of causing death by dangerous, or by careless and drunken driving) of causing death or serious injury by breaking (statutory) regulations would be a much better way of holding businesses and similar bodies as well as individuals liable for death and serious injuries that would not have occurred if those regulations had been obeyed.