Emmanuel Andres Artusa Essay Module 1
University of Leicester
Civil Safety and Security Unit
Name: Emmanuel Andres ARTUSA
Student Number: 139048615
Course: MSc in Risk, Crisis and Disaster Management
Essay Title: Can legalistic mechanisms such as “corporate liability” be effectively used to promote organisational safety? Use two specific cases to illustrate your argument.
Intake: Sept 2013
Module: 1
Submission Date: 09/12/2013
Word Count: 3.652
Tittle: Can legalistic mechanisms such as “corporate liability” be effectively used to promote organisational safety? Use two specific cases to illustrate your argument.
Introduction
Since corporations became a key player in today´s economy, there have been many cases where the misconduct, wrongdoings or negligent acts of these corporations have caused major personal injury and even the loss of lives on a large scale - incidents which have involved their own employees, their clients and the communities where they operate. Such incidents have triggered debate among the public and jurists as to whether corporations as a whole should not be held criminally liable for the way in which they manage their risks and design their organisational safety as opposed to imposing liability solely on individuals within an organisation.
Relevant to this debate is the consideration of whether risk-management regimes should be more or less blame oriented. Those in favour of a blame oriented approach believe that imposing severe financial and legal liability for risk on corporate decision-makers would help to promote proactive and effective organizational safety in order to avoid such disasters (Hood & Jones, 1996: 46).
Following this approach, this paper will present the idea that the perception of potential liability, based on previous litigation, by an organisation´s top management team can influence the adoption of a positive safety culture, following a blame-oriented approach.
The essay will use and describe two case studies, from the UK and Canada
Civil Safety and Security Unit
Name: Emmanuel Andres ARTUSA
Student Number: 139048615
Course: MSc in Risk, Crisis and Disaster Management
Essay Title: Can legalistic mechanisms such as “corporate liability” be effectively used to promote organisational safety? Use two specific cases to illustrate your argument.
Intake: Sept 2013
Module: 1
Submission Date: 09/12/2013
Word Count: 3.652
Tittle: Can legalistic mechanisms such as “corporate liability” be effectively used to promote organisational safety? Use two specific cases to illustrate your argument.
Introduction
Since corporations became a key player in today´s economy, there have been many cases where the misconduct, wrongdoings or negligent acts of these corporations have caused major personal injury and even the loss of lives on a large scale - incidents which have involved their own employees, their clients and the communities where they operate. Such incidents have triggered debate among the public and jurists as to whether corporations as a whole should not be held criminally liable for the way in which they manage their risks and design their organisational safety as opposed to imposing liability solely on individuals within an organisation.
Relevant to this debate is the consideration of whether risk-management regimes should be more or less blame oriented. Those in favour of a blame oriented approach believe that imposing severe financial and legal liability for risk on corporate decision-makers would help to promote proactive and effective organizational safety in order to avoid such disasters (Hood & Jones, 1996: 46).
Following this approach, this paper will present the idea that the perception of potential liability, based on previous litigation, by an organisation´s top management team can influence the adoption of a positive safety culture, following a blame-oriented approach.
The essay will use and describe two case studies, from the UK and Canada
Bibliography: -Eversheds (2013) “Corporate manslaughter: where’s the proof?”, Health and Safety at work, April 5, Available online at http://www.healthandsafetyatwork.com/hsw/corporate-manslaughter/wheres-the-proof; accessed 29 October, 2013 -Hood, C. and Jones, D. K. C. (1996) Accident and design. Contemporary debates in risk management, London, Routledge. -Institute of Lifelong Learning (2008) Msc in Risk, Crisis and Disaster Management, Module I -O’Loan, M. (2012)“Corporate Manslaughter: Half a million reasons to take action”. Cleaver Fulton Rankin. Available online at http://www.cfrlaw.co.uk/fs/doc/articles/corporate-manslaughter.pdf; accessed 1 November, 2013. -Pidgeon, N. & O’Leary, M. (2000). Man-made disasters: why technology and organizations (sometimes) fail -PLC UK Corporate, “Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007: a quick guide”, PLC UK Law Department, Thompson Reuters, available online at http://uk.practicallaw.com/5-376-0311?source=relatedcontent#null; accessed 25 October, 2013. -Schein, E. (1992) (3rd Ed), “Organizational Culture and Leadership”, San Francisco, Jossey Bass. -UK Health and Safety Executive, Safety Culture: A Review of the Literature, HSL/2002/25, 2002. Available online at http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/hsl_pdf/2002/hsl02-25.pdf; accessed 24 October, 2013. -Wells, C. (1995) ´Criminal law, blame and risk: Corporate Manslaughter´ in Hood, C. and Jones, D. K. C. (1996) Accident and design. Contemporary debates in risk management, London, Routledge: 50-60.