Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Individual accountability for corporate harms

Disqualification and the role of public enforcement

Bibliographic Data

ID14971308
AuthorsJoan Loughrey (0000-0003-0160-3762, Queen's University Belfast, corresponding author)
Year2024
Volume33
Issue4
Pages534-555
Publication date2024-10-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueGriffith Law Review (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1038-3441 • E-ISSN: 1839-4205
PublisherInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/10383441.2025.2502196
OpenAlexW4410287988
LanguageEN
References cited41

A number of jurisdictions including the UK and Australia use director disqualification as a public enforcement mechanism when responding to corporate harms that give rise to public anger and calls for executive accountability. Focussing on the UK, and referencing the on-going Post Office scandal as an example, this paper demonstrates that disqualification alone is an inadequate means of achieving accountability. This is not just because in the UK it is very rare for directors of large public and private companies to be disqualified. Even were this to change, disqualification would still not achieve retributive and rectificatory goals that-as this paper explores and argues-underpin public calls for individual executive accountability in the wake of corporate scandals. Rather it is aimed at public protection by removing miscreant directors from circulation, and at regulatory goals, that is, at shaping future behaviour through deterrence and standard setting. The literature has focussed on how effectively it achieves these regulatory goals and has overlooked the entirely separate question of whether, as policy makers claim., it adequately achieves accountability. The paper offers suggestions for reform that would address this lacuna, before concluding

Accountability · Business · Enforcement · Law and economics · Political science · Public relations · Publishing · Sociology · Corporate Law and Human Rights · Law · Regulation and Compliance Studies · Wildlife Conservation and Criminology Analyses

  • Holding Power to Account

    Open Access•Richard Mulgan•Holding Power to Account•2003

  • On the Expressive Function of Law

    Cass R Sunstein•University of Pennsylvania Law…•1996

  • Punishment and Responsibility

    H L A Hart, John Gardner•Punishment and responsibility•2008

  • Corporate Governance, Competition, and Performance

    Open Access•C Mayer•Journal of Law and Society•1997

  • Corrective Justice in a Nutshell

    Ernest J Weinrib•University of Toronto Law Journal•2002

  • Directors' Duties to Creditors

    Open Access•Andrew Keay•Modern Law Review•2003

  • Two Concepts of Accountability

    Mark Bovens•West European Politics•2010

  • Citizen oversight of independent police services

    Open Access•Graham Smith•Regulation & Governance•2009

  • What is regulation? An interdisciplinary concept analysis

    Open Access•Christel Koop, Martin Lodge•Regulation & Governance•2017

  • General Deterrence and Corporate Environmental Behavior

    Open Access•Dorothy Thornton, Neil Gunningham et al.•Law & Policy•2005

  • The Division of Labour in Society

    Open Access•George Simpson, Emile Durkheim et al.•Durkheim•1984

  • The Expressive Function of Punishment

    Joel Feinberg, Sherwood J B Sugden•The Monist•1965

Citation velocityhistorical
Highly citedNo

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae