>

Why do you think that holding one person responsible will improve the situation in any way besides the personal satisfaction you get of seeing a person punished? 
Not to mention, like. If I dislike whoever is 'responsible' for my company I have an incentive to break the law to get that person punished.
Wouldn't that person simply be a scapegoat? It would be very easy for a large company like Google to simply throw a scapegoat at an issue so that the company itself would be able to avoid consequences. What would the punishment even look like? Would the scapegoat be fined? If so, the company would be avoiding the consequences by putting the fine on the scapegoat. >

No. It would be the CEO >

And if there is no CEO? Say it is a co-op, who gets to be criminally responsible for the actions of others in a co-op? Should this also apply to nonprofit organizations? >

Basically I don't want people to direct bad actions and not be held liable for them. >

The problem is that "direct" is such a soft term. Who is truly at fault when an overworked engineer skips safety tests? His manager, who didn't give him enough resources for the project? Middle management, who didn't hire enough people? The VP who put pressure on management to get the project done by date X? The CEO who, based on bad data, told the Board the project would be done by then? The Board, who in order to make profit pressures the CEO to deliver more and faster? The shareholders behind the board?