It is also easy: responsibility + accountability = high levels of safety
I wont argue with that as far as it goes. The problem is that it doesn't go very far. Because the question is not of what but of
who.
Someone has tried to sidetrack the issue by arguing whether the case against the employee was civil or criminal. It doesn't matter from a safety perspective.
An employee by definition is an agent of his or her employer, unless the employee is doing something that has no connection whatsoever with their employment (and some would even debate that caveat).
If the agent commits a wrong the proper person to hold liable for that wrong is not the agent but the employer. It's the employer who holds controlling power over the duties of the agent and the terms and conditions of employment; that's the definition of being an agent and an employee.
As I said before I don't have a problem with holding legal corporation responsible. They chose to do business in France they play by French rules. No one forced them to do business there. But holding the employee in any way responsible for the obligation that properly rested on the employer is garbage. It's bunk. He is indeed a "poor bugger".
Worse, it doesn't promote safety. The agent's wrong did not occur in isolation from his superiors, his training, his education, and the scope and duties of his employment. Holding him accountable does nothing to prevent the next guy in the exact same situation from doing the exact same thing.
Punishing or blaming the wrong person doesn't promote safety in the slightest. It's the opposite of accountability.