abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

Diese Seite ist nicht auf Deutsch verfügbar und wird angezeigt auf English


1 Feb 2008

prepared by Allens Arthur Robinson law firm for UN Special Representative John Ruggie

[PDF] 'Corporate Culture' as a Basis for the Criminal Liability of Corporations

Recently, some jurisdictions have contemplated a new basis for [corporate] criminal liability – 'organisational liability' – that has the potential to address this interaction [between human actors and the corporation] more squarely. Australia, in particular, has introduced provisions holding corporations directly liable for criminal offences in circumstances where features of the organisation of a corporation, including its 'corporate culture', directed, encouraged, tolerated or led to the commission of the offence. This discussion paper: · evaluates the 'corporate culture' concept in Australian law...; · undertakes some comparative analysis to illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of various different approaches with regard to issues of accountability and predictability; and · discusses the merits of applying the 'corporate culture' concept at the liability / prosecution stage, as opposed to the damages / sentencing stage.