黑洞社区

Legal frameworks for corporate accountability must be reformed to prevent another Grenfell, a think tank has argued.

In a briefing released to mark the eight anniversary of the fire, which killed 72 people, Common Wealth said stronger sanctions and stricter tests for breaches of the law needed to be introduced.

The briefing addressed the 鈥渄ifficulty in holding corporate actors accountable within current English law frameworks鈥�.

It suggested a different approach, which it said might prove 鈥渕ore effective both for Grenfell, and for future contexts of corporate misconduct鈥�.

Common Wealth, a progressive research organisation, said the difference in scale between the 拢150m settlement, agreed between 22 defendants and the survivors and bereaved in 2022, and Arconic鈥檚 annual turnover of 拢6.6bn in the same year.

Arconic was one of three manufacturing firms, along with Celotex and Kingspan, that was slammed in the Grenfell Inquiry report for its actions prior to the fire.

鈥淎 lack of robust corporate accountability mechanisms in English law makes it difficult to draw direct links between implicated firms and the fire, obscuring their involvement, relations and responsibility,鈥� said Common Wealth.

It contrasted corporate accountability law with the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) introduced in the European Union, as well as a mandatory due diligence law adopted in Thailand and supply chain legislation implemented in France, Germany and Norway.

Currently, three causes of action can be used to pursue corporations for misconduct in the UK: corporate negligence, corporate manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter.

Common Wealth identified a number of problems with the existing set up, including the lack of duty of care owed for upstream harms, the evidential hurdles required to prove grossly negligent conduct within complex organisations, and the difficulty in identifying responsible actors.

>> Read more: Kingspan, Celotex and Arconic settle civil claims with 900 people affected by Grenfell fire

>> Read more: Manufacturers knowingly misled the market over combustible construction materials, Grenfell Inquiry concludes 

With regard to the second point, the think tank noted that in some cases, 鈥渟maller, acceptable action鈥� can 鈥渃umulatively amount to an overall breach鈥�.

鈥淟egal frameworks that aim to pinpoint exactly when and how a certain threshold was crossed (鈥渨hat was the 鈥榖reach鈥� of the duty of care鈥�) therefore focus too much on the scale of the individual act, and, as a result, do not always capture the more systemic orientation of corporate malpractice,鈥� it said.

Better accountability would require legal frameworks that more accurately map corporate structures, intervene sooner and provide more effective sanction for breach, according to the think tank.

For instance, the EU鈥檚 CSDDD requires companies to install a complaints procedure so that trade unions and worker representatives can submit concerns regarding adverse supply chain impacts.

It also suggested that rewards for whistleblowers, which are currently available for those reporting on tax issues, could incentivise actors to 鈥減lay by the rules鈥�.

It said severe sanctions already exist for certain corporate breaches, giving the example of the Bribery Act 2010, which allows corporate debarment, unlimited fines and disqualification of directors for two to fifteen years.

鈥淓xtending such penalties to contexts like Grenfell, without the high threshold required by corporate manslaughter, would significantly deter corporations from activities that fall within their scope,鈥� it said, recommending a fine of up to 10% of an organisation鈥檚 global turnover.

It also suggested that more 鈥渋nvasive鈥� tests for breaches of law could be introduced, again citing the Bribery Act, which adopts a 鈥榝ailure to prevent鈥� model.

Such a standard would require firms to take a proactive approach in order to avoid penalties.