Max
06-06-2003, 12:33 PM
Who Will Take Responsibility for Corporate Killing?
Library: MED
Keywords: CORPORATE KILLING ACCOUNTABILITY HEALTH SAFETY
Description: This week's editorial discusses the accountability-or rather the lack of it-of UK company directors for the health and safety of their employees and customers. (Lancet, 7-Jun-2003)
THE LANCET
360 Park Avenue South - 6th Floor
New York, NY 10010-1710, USA
Tel: 212-633-3810
Issue 7 June 2003
Embargoed 0001 h (London time) 6 June 2003. In North America, the embargo time for LANCET press material is 6:30pm ET Thursday 5 June 2003.
WHO WILL TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR CORPORATE KILLING? (p 1921)
This week's editorial discusses the accountability-or rather the lack of it-of UK company directors for the health and safety of their employees and customers.
It comments: 'The issue of how far companies are responsible for the health and safety of their employees and the public was raised again last week with the independent investigators' interim report to the HSE into the 2002 rail crash at Potters Bar in Hertfordshire, UK, in which seven people died, and 76 were injured. It suggests that poor maintenance of track was the likely cause and was part of a wider problem. In the UK, the HSE and local authorities can prosecute companies who fail to comply with health and safety law but most convictions result in fines-the average for 2001-02 being around £8000. Prosecutions for manslaughter are rare, and since 1997, no large company or its directors have been successfully prosecuted.'
In April 2000 the UK Government proposed radical legislation for health and safety, including a new law on corporate killing. However the editorial is critical of the UK Government's latest position: 'Unfortunately it seems that this sentence in the [UK Government's] 2000 proposals indicates its thinking. "In considering the potential liability of corporations in the criminal law, the Government has borne in mind the reason why the corporations were established in the first place"-ie to generate profits for largely unaccountable shareholders. It seems that the law on corporate killing will not target individual directors, but will be directed at companies, with financial penalties imposed. Intense lobbying by the business community has apparently been fruitful; the Government conceding that a failure to act responsibly in matters of health and safety should not have consequences for those who otherwise benefit from a company's financial success.'
This issue is not confined to the UK. The editorial concludes: 'The UK is not alone in having difficulty with reconciling the priorities of business with those of the health and safety of the workforce and the general public. In the USA, the current Republican Administration has supported employers that are unwilling to take responsibility for repetitive-strain injuries. The UK Government's new law may well be a step towards making companies more financially accountable for their actions, but until chief executives are made directly responsible for decisions that lead to injury, it is unlikely that the huge toll of work-related injuries will fall.'
This press release issued by Joe Santangelo at THE LANCET: j.santangelo@elsevier.com , or tel: 212-633-3810.
[Include:'/includes/lasso/article_footer.lasso']
Library: MED
Keywords: CORPORATE KILLING ACCOUNTABILITY HEALTH SAFETY
Description: This week's editorial discusses the accountability-or rather the lack of it-of UK company directors for the health and safety of their employees and customers. (Lancet, 7-Jun-2003)
THE LANCET
360 Park Avenue South - 6th Floor
New York, NY 10010-1710, USA
Tel: 212-633-3810
Issue 7 June 2003
Embargoed 0001 h (London time) 6 June 2003. In North America, the embargo time for LANCET press material is 6:30pm ET Thursday 5 June 2003.
WHO WILL TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR CORPORATE KILLING? (p 1921)
This week's editorial discusses the accountability-or rather the lack of it-of UK company directors for the health and safety of their employees and customers.
It comments: 'The issue of how far companies are responsible for the health and safety of their employees and the public was raised again last week with the independent investigators' interim report to the HSE into the 2002 rail crash at Potters Bar in Hertfordshire, UK, in which seven people died, and 76 were injured. It suggests that poor maintenance of track was the likely cause and was part of a wider problem. In the UK, the HSE and local authorities can prosecute companies who fail to comply with health and safety law but most convictions result in fines-the average for 2001-02 being around £8000. Prosecutions for manslaughter are rare, and since 1997, no large company or its directors have been successfully prosecuted.'
In April 2000 the UK Government proposed radical legislation for health and safety, including a new law on corporate killing. However the editorial is critical of the UK Government's latest position: 'Unfortunately it seems that this sentence in the [UK Government's] 2000 proposals indicates its thinking. "In considering the potential liability of corporations in the criminal law, the Government has borne in mind the reason why the corporations were established in the first place"-ie to generate profits for largely unaccountable shareholders. It seems that the law on corporate killing will not target individual directors, but will be directed at companies, with financial penalties imposed. Intense lobbying by the business community has apparently been fruitful; the Government conceding that a failure to act responsibly in matters of health and safety should not have consequences for those who otherwise benefit from a company's financial success.'
This issue is not confined to the UK. The editorial concludes: 'The UK is not alone in having difficulty with reconciling the priorities of business with those of the health and safety of the workforce and the general public. In the USA, the current Republican Administration has supported employers that are unwilling to take responsibility for repetitive-strain injuries. The UK Government's new law may well be a step towards making companies more financially accountable for their actions, but until chief executives are made directly responsible for decisions that lead to injury, it is unlikely that the huge toll of work-related injuries will fall.'
This press release issued by Joe Santangelo at THE LANCET: j.santangelo@elsevier.com , or tel: 212-633-3810.
[Include:'/includes/lasso/article_footer.lasso']