Every human being in that company should be held accountable for their actions. Someone, somewhere said "Yes let's do it this way", and they committed an (arguably) immoral act by doing so.
Be careful, you're rejecting the rule of law if you advocate for legal repercussions. What you judge to be immoral may not be judged to be immoral by others. When outrage of the masses is the sufficient condition for legal punishment, we have mob rule.
Apple should be held accountable by whom? The government? The consumer? Apple did not break a law, so law enforcement cannot hold them accountable. The consumer can decide not to buy Apple products though, that is a reasonable response.
[EDIT]
My incorrect interpretation of parent comment who means accountability on an individual basis (see children).
---
I know where you are coming from but this level of extremely inclusive accountability would result in either: Everyone from the janitors to the legal team being held accountable for corporate tax evasion or: a company wide democracy on every decision that could potentially result in legally or morally grey outcomes.
IMO, in addition to individual accountability investigations, the company should be impeded somehow to make scapegoating a less attractive route (the hidden decision makers pushing other peoples buttons still get hurt by proxy).
Why would it be extremely inclusive? The janitor didn't choose to place the money in Ireland. As you go up in management, you typically see pay scale up, and the normal justification for this is that they hold more accountability. You expect more pay to offset the higher risk that a mistake or poor choice will hurt you. If the CFO approves the choice to do X, Y, and Z with the company's money, he should be held accountable on a moral level.
Why are we not allowed to have a minimum level of moral expectations for people just because they paid a small fee and registered under an LLC?
Hmm, I think I've misinterpreted your meaning of "Every human being in that company should be held accountable for their actions" I mistakenly related "their" to the company in the context of the article, but in light of your followup you clearly mean the individual. Anyway, we appear to agree :)
