Encyclopedia of Law and Economics

2019 Edition
| Editors: Alain Marciano, Giovanni Battista Ramello

Organizational Liability

  • Klaus HeineEmail author
  • Kateryna Grabovets
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7753-2_605


Companies are acknowledged to be distinct legal persons that bear liability both for organizational failures and misconduct of their agents. Civil liability has long been imposed on companies and organizations. Corporate criminal liability has rapidly been expanded in recent years. Following the common law jurisdictions, in which notions of corporate criminal liability were introduced already in the early twentieth century, many civil law countries also recognize the possibility of holding companies criminally liable. However, distinctions in the use and theoretical underpinning of organizational liability remain across countries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Arlen J, Kraakman R (1997) Controlling corporate misconduct: an analysis of corporate liability regimes. N Y Univ Law Rev 72:687–779Google Scholar
  2. Böse M (2011) Corporate criminal liability in Germany. In: Pieth M, Ivory R (eds) Corporate criminal liability: emergence, convergence and risk. Springer, New York, pp 227–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Coffee JC Jr (1981) “No soul to damn: No body to kick”: an unscandalized inquiry into the problem of corporate punishment. Mich Law Rev 79:386–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coffee JC Jr (1999) Corporate criminal liability: an introduction and comparative survey. In: Eser A, Heine G, Huber B (eds) Criminal responsibility of legal and collective entities. Edition iuscrim, Freiburg im Breisgau, pp 9–37Google Scholar
  5. DiMento JFC, Geis G (2005) Corporate criminal liability in the United States. In: Tully S (ed) Research handbook on corporate legal responsibility. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, pp 159–176Google Scholar
  6. Engelhart M (2014) Corporate criminal liability from a comparative perspective. In: Brodowski D, Espinoza de los Monteros de la Parra M, Tiedemann K, Vogel J (eds) Regulating corporate criminal liability. Springer, London, pp 53–76Google Scholar
  7. Fischel DR, Sykes AO (1996) Corporate crime. J Leg Stud 25:319–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Keating GC (2001) The theory of enterprise liability and common law strict liability. Vanderbilt Law Rev 54:1285–1335Google Scholar
  9. Keulen BF, Gritter E (2011) Corporate criminal liability in the Netherlands. In: Pieth M, Ivory R (eds) Corporate criminal liability: emergence, convergence and risk. Springer, New York, pp 177–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Khanna VS (1996) Corporate criminal liability: what purpose does it serve? Harv Law Rev 109:1477–1534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Krawiec KD (2005) Organizational misconduct: beyond the principal-agent model. Fla State Univ Law Rev 32:571–615Google Scholar
  12. Kyriakakis J (2009) Corporate criminal liability and the ICC Statute: the comparative law challenge. Neth Int Law Rev 56:333–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Laufer WS (1999) Corporate liability, risk shifting, and the paradox of compliance. Vanderbilt Law Rev 52:1343–1420Google Scholar
  14. Laufer WS (2006) Corporate bodies and guilty minds: the failure of corporate criminal liability. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Moot JS (2008) Compliance programs, penalty mitigation and the FERC. Energy Law J 29:547–575Google Scholar
  16. Priest GL (1985) The invention of enterprise liability: a critical history of the intellectual foundations of modern tort law. J Leg Stud 14:461–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sant’Orsola FC, Giampaolo S (2011) Liability of entities in Italy: was it not societas delinquere non potest? New J Eur Crim Law 2:59–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Shavell S (1980) Strict liability versus negligence. J Leg Stud 9:1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stessens G (1994) Corporate criminal liability: a comparative perspective. Int Comp Law Q 43:493–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sykes AO (1984) The economics of vicarious liability. The Yale Law J 93:1231–1280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sykes AO (2012) Corporate liability for extraterritorial torts under the Alien Tort Statute and beyond: an economic analysis. The Georgetown Law J 100:2161–2209Google Scholar
  22. Tricot J (2014) Corporate liability and compliance programs in France. In: Manacorda S, Centonze F, Forti G (eds) Preventing corporate corruption: the anti-bribery compliance model. Springer, London, pp 477–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Walsh CJ, Pyrich A (1995) Corporate compliance programs as a defense to criminal liability: can a corporation save its soul? Rutgers Law Rev 47:605–691Google Scholar
  24. Weigend T (2008) Societas delinquere non potest? A German perspective. J Int Crim Justice 6:927–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wells C (1999) A new offence of corporate killing – the English Law Commission’s proposals. In: Eser A, Heine G, Huber B (eds) Criminal responsibility of legal and collective entities. Edition iuscrim, Freiburg im Breisgau, pp 119–128Google Scholar
  26. Wilkinson M (2003) Corporate criminal liability – the move towards recognizing genuine corporate fault. Canterbury Law Rev 9:142–178Google Scholar
  27. Witt JF (2003) Speedy Fred Taylor and the ironies of enterprise liability. Columbia Law Rev 103:1–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar


  1. Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 24 Cal. 2d 453, 150 P.2d 436 (1944)Google Scholar
  2. Greenman v. Yuba Power Prods., Inc. 59 Cal. 2d 57, 27 Cal. Rptr. 697, 377 P.2d 897 (1963)Google Scholar
  3. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. 32 N.J. 358, 161 A.2d 69 (1960)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rotterdam Institute of Law and Economics, Erasmus School of LawErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Rotterdam Business SchoolRotterdam University of Applied SciencesRotterdamThe Netherlands