Socio-legal basis of criminal liability of legal persons and corporate compliance to prevent crimes: Anthropic approach and behavioral game theory

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1830

Keywords:

Systems theory, collective action, cross-theoretical compliance, anthropic model, Teoría de sistemas, acción colectiva, cumplimiento transteórico, modelo antrópico, teoría del juego conductual

Abstract

Systems theory has garnered significant criticism from internationally recognized experts in the field of organizational analysis. However, a sector of criminal doctrine is adopting a strict approach to this theory to justify socio-legally the application of corporate criminal liability (this is a trend that has been embraced by the Spanish Supreme Court and is spreading throughout Latin America). The systemic idea of organization excludes the individuals who constitute and manage the company, dehumanizing it, separating corporate governance from the role played by individuals and even attributing human attributes to the company. In other words, the members that make up the organization, as well as the influences or constraints they generate in the context of the interaction of individuals within a corporation, are disregarded in the analysis. As an alternative, this text proposes the essential outlines of an "anthropic model" of corporate criminal liability, which is built on theoretically and experimentally validated notions and methodologies: neo-institutionalism, game theory and behavioral compliance. In this anthropic model, the adoption and implementation of an effective and adequate governance system to prevent irregularities (or crimes) does not depend on the system itself, but depends directly on the commitment and implementation of the "human component" of the organization.

La teoría de sistemas ha recibido críticas significativas por parte de expertos internacionalmente reconocidos en el campo del análisis de las organizaciones. Sin embargo, cierto sector de la doctrina penal está adoptando un enfoque estricto de esta teoría para justificar sociojurídicamente la aplicación de la responsabilidad penal de las empresas (una tendencia que ha sido aceptada por el Tribunal Supremo español y se está extendiendo por América Latina). La idea sistémica de la organización excluye del análisis a los individuos que constituyen y gestionan la empresa, deshumanizándola, separando la gobernanza corporativa del papel desempeñado por los individuos e incluso atribuyendo atributos humanos a la empresa. En otras palabras, se desestiman en el análisis penal tanto a los miembros que conforman la organización como a las influencias o constricciones que originan en ese contexto de interacción de individuos que configura la corporación. Como alternativa, se proponen los lineamientos esenciales de un “modelo antrópico” de responsabilidad penal corporativa, construido sobre nociones y metodologías teórica y experimentalmente validadas: neoinstitucionalismo, teoría de juegos y “behavioral compliance”. En este modelo antrópico, la adopción e implementación de un sistema de gobernanza efectivo y adecuado para prevenir irregularidades (o delitos) no depende del sistema en sí, sino que pende directamente del compromiso e implementación efectiva por parte del “componente humano” de la organización.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

        Metrics

Views 111
Downloads:
14(2)_Aguilera_OSLS 57
XML_14(2)_Aguilera_OSLS 0


Author Biography

Rafael Aguilera Gordillo, Loyola University

Director of the Diploma of Specialization in Compliance and associate professor of Criminal Compliance and International Security, Loyola University. Co-director of the postgraduate program on Criminal Liability of Legal Entities, Forensics, and Compliance Systems in International and National Frameworks, University of Valladolid. Academic visitor at Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Oxford. Academic member of the Anti-Corruption Academic (ACAD) initiative and GRACE initiative, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Co-director of the Compliance Advisory LAB, Grant Thornton. Academia.edu: https://uniloyola.academia.edu/RafaelAguileraGordillo Email: raguilera@uloyola.es

References

Abell, P., 2014. Rational Choice Rational Choice Theory and the Analysis of Organizations. In: P. Adler et al., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Sociology, Social Theory, and Organization Studies. Oxford University Press, pp. 318–345.

Adler, P., et al., eds., 2014. The Oxford Handbook of Sociology, Social Theory, and Organization Studies: Contemporary Currents [online]. Oxford University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199671083.001.0001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199671083.001.0001

Aguilera Gordillo, R., 2022. Manual de Compliance Penal en España, 2nd ed. Cizur Menor: Aranzadi.

Ambrose, M., Arnaud, A., and Schminke, M., 2008. Individual development and ethical climate: the influence of person-organization fit on job attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics [online], 77(3), pp. 323–333. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9352-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9352-1

Ariely, D., 2010. Predictably irrational: the hidden forces that shape our decisions. New York: Harper Perennial. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/e653632011-003

Bacigalupo Saggese, S., 1997. La responsabilidad penal de las personas jurídicas: un estudio sobre el sujeto del Derecho Penal [online]. PhD thesis. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Available at: https://repositorio.uam.es/handle/10486/4345

Banaji, M.R., and Greenwald, A.G., 2016. Blindspot: hidden biases of good people. New York: Delacorte Press.

Bell, D., Raiffa, H., and Tversky, A., 1988. Decision making descriptive, normative, and prescriptive interactions [online]. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511598951 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511598951

Bermejo, M.G., 2015. Elección racional, oportunidad para delinquir y prevención situacional: la utilidad de este enfoque para el estudio de la delincuencia empresarial. In: J.E. Medina and L. Summers, eds., Crimen, oportunidad y vida diaria, libro homenaje al Prof. Marcus Felson. Madrid: Dykinson, pp. 305–327.

Blanton, R.E. (with L.F. Fargher), 2016. How humans cooperate: confronting the challenges of collective action [online]. Denver: University Press of Colorado. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5876/9781607325147 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5876/9781607325147

Blount, J., and Markel, S., 2012. The End of the Internal Compliance World as we know it, or an Enhancement of the Effectiveness of Securities Law Enforcement? Bounty Hunting Under the Dodd-Frank Act’s Whistleblower Provision. Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law [online], 17(4), pp. 1023–1062. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1925463 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1925463

Bradshaw, E.A., 2014. “Obviously, we’re all oil industry”: The criminogenic structure of the offshore oil industry. Theoretical Criminology [online], 19(3), 376–395. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480614553521 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480614553521

Bruijn, A.L., et al., 2022. Cross-Theoretical Compliance: An Integrative Compliance Analysis of COVID-19 Mitigation Responses in Israel. Administration & Society [online], 55(4), pp. 1–36. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997221140899 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997221140899

Congregado Ramírez de Aguilera, E., Pomares Hernández, I., and Rama Matías, E., 2001. Análisis económico del Derecho: una revisión selectiva de la literatura reciente. Derecho y Conocimiento, nº 1, pp. 331–340.

Deci, E.L., and Ryan, R.M., 2012. Self-determination theory. In: P.A.M. van Lange, A.W. Kruglanski and E.T. Higgins, eds., Handbook of theories of social psychology [online]. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 413–436. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n21 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n21

Deephouse, D.L., and Suchman, M., 2008. Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. In R. Greenwood et al., eds., The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism [online]. London: Sage, pp. 49–77. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200387.n2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200387.n2

Del Rosal Blasco, B., 2015. Responsabilidad penal de las personas jurídicas: títulos de imputación y requisitos para la exención. In: L. Morillas Cueva, ed., Estudios sobre el Código Penal reformado (Leyes Orgánicas 1/2015 y 2/2015). Madrid: Dykinson, pp. 81–125.

Del Rosal Blasco, B., 2018. Manual de responsabilidad penal y defensa penal corporativas. Madrid: La ley.

Durlauf, S.N., and Blume, L.E., 2010. Behavioral Game Theory. In: S.N. Durlauf, ed., Game Theory [online]. London, pp. 29–37. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230280847_3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230280847_3

Elster, J., 1989. The cement of society: a study of social order [online]. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511624995 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511624995

Fernández-Alles, M., and Valle-Cabrera, R., 2006. Reconciling institutional theory with organizational theories: How neoinstitutionalism resolves five paradoxes. Journal of Organizational Change Management [online], 19(4), pp. 503–517. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810610676699 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810610676699

Foss, N.J., and Klein, P.G., 2014. Hayek and Organization Studies. In: P. Adler et al., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Sociology, Social Theory, and Organization Studies. Oxford University Press, pp. 467–486.

Fuchs, C., and Hofkirchner, W., 2009. Autopoiesis and Critical Social Systems Theory. In: R. Magalhães and R. Sanchez, eds., Autopoiesis in Organization Theory and Practice, Advanced Series in Management vol. 6 [online]. Leeds: Emerald, pp. 111–129. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/S1877-6361(2009)0000006007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/S1877-6361(2009)0000006007

Gómez-Jara Díez, C., 2005. Teoría de sistemas y derecho penal: culpabilidad y penal en una teoría constructivista del derecho penal. In: C. Gómez-Jara Díez, Teoría de sistemas y derecho penal: Fundamentos y posibilidades de aplicación. Granada: Comares, pp. 417–467.

Gómez-Jara Díez, C., 2006. Autoorganización empresarial y autorresponsabilidad empresarial: Hacia una verdadera responsabilidad penal de las personas jurídicas. Revista Electrónica de Ciencia Penal y Criminología [online], núm. 08–06, pp. 05:1–05:27. Available at: http://criminet.ugr.es/recpc/08/recpc08-05.pdf

Gómez-Jara Díez, C., 2016. Capítulo. VI. El injusto típico de la persona jurídica (tipicidad); Capítulo VII. La culpabilidad de la persona jurídica. In: M. Bajo Fernández, B. Feijoo Sánchez y C. Gómez-Díez, eds., Tratado de responsabilidad penal de las personas jurídicas. 2nd ed. Cizur Menor: Aranzadi, pp. 121–220.

Gómez-Jara Díez, C., 2019. El Tribunal Supremo ante la responsabilidad penal de las personas jurídicas. El inicio de una larga andadura. Cizur Menor: Aranzadi.

Górriz Arroyo E., 2019. Criminal compliance ambiental y responsabilidad de las personas jurídicas a la luz de la LO 1/2015, de 30 de marzo. Revista para el análisis del Derecho InDret [online], 4/2019, pp. 1–66. Available at: https://indret.com/criminal-compliance-ambiental-y-responsabilidad-de-las-personas-juridicas-a-la-luz-de-la-lo-1-2015-de-30-de-marzo/

Gracia Martín, L., 2016. Crítica de las modernas construcciones de una mal llamada responsabilidad penal de las personas jurídicas. Revista Electrónica de Ciencia Penal y Criminología [online], núm. 18–05, pp. 1–95. Available at: https://zaguan.unizar.es/record/63547/files/texto_completo.pdf

Hodges, C., and Steinholz, R., 2017. Ethical business practice and regulation: a Behavioral and Values-Based Approach to Compliance and Enforcement. Oxford: Hart/Beck.

Holahan, R., and Lubell, M., 2009. Chapter 2: Collective action theory. In: C. Ansell and J. Torfing, eds., Handbook on Theories of Governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 18–28.

Jancsics, D., Espinosa, S., and Carlos, J., 2022. Organizational noncompliance: an interdisciplinary review of social and organizational factors. Management Review Quarterly [online], vol. 73. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-022-00274-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-022-00274-9

Kahneman, D., 2012. Pensar rápido, pensar despacio. Trans.: J. Chamorro Mielke. Madrid: Debate.

Kahneman, D., Sibony, O., and Sunstein, C.R., 2021. Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment. London: William Collins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53776/playbooks-judgment

Knudsen, M., 2005. Displacing the Paradox of Decision Making: The Management of Contingency in the Modernization of a Danish County. In D. Seidl and K.H. Becker, eds., Niklas Luhmann and Organization Studies. Copenhagen Business School Press, pp. 107–126.

Langevoort, D.C., 2018. Behavioral Ethics, Behavioral Compliance, Ch.11. In: J. Arlen, ed., Research Handbook on Corporate Crime and Financial Misdealing [online]. Oxford University Press, pp. 263– 281. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783474479.00020 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783474479.00020

León Alapont, J., 2020. Compliance Penal: especial referencia a los partidos políticos. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch.

Luhmann, N., 2005. Organización y decisión. Autopoiesis, acción y entendimiento comunicativo. Barcelona: Anthropos.

MacKaay, E., 1991. La Teoría de los Juegos se apodera del Derecho. Droit et Société [online], 17/18, pp. 1–31. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3406/dreso.1991.1103 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/dreso.1991.1103

Maturana, H.R., and Varela, F.J., 1980. Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living [online]. Dordrecht: Springer. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-8947-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-8947-4

Maturana, H.R., and Varela, F.J., 1984. El árbol del conocimiento. Santiago de Chile: Editorial Universitaria/Lumen.

Mayer, C., 2013. Firm Commitment: Why the corporation is failing us and how to restore trust in it. Oxford University Press.

McCarthy, B., 2002. New Economics of sociological Criminology. Annual Review of Sociology, 418–423.

McCarthy, B., and Hagan, J., 1991. Homelessness: a criminogenic situation?. The British Journal of Criminology [online], 31(4), pp. 393–410. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a048137 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a048137

Miller, G.P., 2018. An economic analysis of effective compliance programs. Ch. 10. In: J. Arlen, ed., Research Handbook on Corporate Crime and Financial Misdealing [online]. Oxford University Press, pp. 247–262. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783474479.00019 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783474479.00019

Mingers, J., 2002. Can Social Systems Be Autopoietic? Assessing Luhmann’s Social Theory. Sociological Review [online], 50(2), pp. 278–299. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.00367 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.00367

Mingers, J., 2004. Observing Organizations: An Evaluation of Luhmann’s Organization Theory. In: T. Bakken and T. Hernes, eds., Autopoietic Organization Theory: Drawing on Niklas Luhmann’s Social Systems Perspective. Copenhagen Business School Press, pp. 103–122.

Ostrom, E., 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity [online]. Princeton University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400831739 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400831739

Ostrom, E., 2009. Collective Action Theory. In: C. Boix and S. Stokes, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics [online]. Oxford University Press, pp. 186–208. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199566020.003.0008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199566020.003.0008

Palma Herrera, J.M., and Aguilera Gordillo, R., 2017. Compliances y responsabilidad penal de la persona jurídica. Cizur Menor: Aranzadi.

Palmer, D., 2012. Normal organizational wrongdoing: a critical analysis of theories of misconduct in and by organizations [online]. Oxford University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199573592.001.0001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199573592.001.0001

Rao, H., Morrill, C., and Zald, N., 2000. Power Plays: how social movements and collective action create new organizational forms. Research in Organizatioanl Behavior [online], vol 22, pp. 237–281. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(00)22007-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(00)22007-8

Satz, D., and Ferejohn, J.A., 1994. Rational choice and social theory. Journal of Philosophy [online], 91(2), pp. 71–87. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/2940928 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2940928

Seidl, D., and Mormann, H., 2014. Niklas Luhmann as Organization Theorist. In: P. Adler et al., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Sociology, Social Theory, and Organization Studies. Oxford University Press, pp. 125–157.

Takahashi, H., 2013. Molecular neuroimaging of emotional decision-making. Neuroscience Research [online], 75(4), pp. 269–274. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neures.2013.01.011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neures.2013.01.011

Van Rooij, B., 2023. Holistic Behavioral Jurisprudence: Unpacking the Complexity of Law and Behavior. Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies [online], 28(1), pp. 95–111. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/jrls/jlad024 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jrls/jlad024

Wick, F.A., et al., 2019. Perception in dynamic scenes: What is your Heider capacity? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General [online], 148(2), pp. 252–271. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000557 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000557

Wu, J.J., et al., 2014. The role of institutional incentives and the exemplar in promoting cooperation. Scientific Reports [online], 4, article number 6421. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep06421 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep06421

Zugaldía Espinar, J.M., 2003. Bases para una teoría de la imputación de la persona jurídica. Cuadernos de Política Criminal, n.º 81, pp. 537–554.

Published

01-04-2024

How to Cite

Aguilera Gordillo, R. (2024) “Socio-legal basis of criminal liability of legal persons and corporate compliance to prevent crimes: Anthropic approach and behavioral game theory”, Oñati Socio-Legal Series, 14(2), pp. 530–553. doi: 10.35295/osls.iisl.1830.