Socio-legal basis of criminal liability of legal persons and corporate compliance to prevent crimes: Anthropic approach and behavioral game theory
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1830Keywords:
Systems theory, collective action, cross-theoretical compliance, anthropic model, behavioral game theoryAbstract
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
Metrics
Downloads:
14(2)_Aguilera_OSLS 386
XML_14(2)_Aguilera_OSLS 19
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.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Rafael Aguilera Gordillo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
OSLS strictly respects intellectual property rights and it is our policy that the author retains copyright, and articles are made available under a Creative Commons licence. The Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution No-Derivatives licence is our default licence, further details available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 If this is not acceptable to you, please contact us.
The non-exclusive permission you grant to us includes the rights to disseminate the bibliographic details of the article, including the abstract supplied by you, and to authorise others, including bibliographic databases, indexing and contents alerting services, to copy and communicate these details.
For information on how to share and store your own article at each stage of production from submission to final publication, please read our Self-Archiving and Sharing policy.
The Copyright Notice showing the author and co-authors, and the Creative Commons license will be displayed on the article, and you must agree to this as part of the submission process. Please ensure that all co-authors are properly attributed and that they understand and accept these terms.
