Bangladesh's rapid industrialisation has come at a high human cost, with weak legal frameworks allowing corporations to escape accountability for workplace fatalities. In contrast, countries like the United Kingdom and Australia prosecute corporate homicide, recognising systemic negligence as a homicide offence. Bangladeshi law, however, remains focused on individual liability under the Labor Act 2006 and Penal Code 1860 , leaving corporate misconduct largely unchallenged. This study argues that simply transplanting foreign corporate criminal liability laws will not suffice. Instead, it calls for context-sensitive reforms that confront the structural flaws of the ‘identification doctrine’ and adopt both derivative and non-derivative liability models. These models support criminal sanctions for individuals within corporations, fines and remedial orders against corporations themselves. Such legal mechanisms can deter negligence, deliver justice and offer direct compensation to victims’ families, bypassing the limitations of civil litigation. By introducing a tailored corporate homicide law, Bangladesh can shift prosecutorial power to the state, improve workplace safety and align its legal system with global standards, preventing future tragedies like Rana Plaza, Tazreen Fashion and Hashem Food.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Syed et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: