But why are businesses given the benefit of the doubt? Surely if crimes like these are core to their business, that business is a criminal organization, and its members should be locked up?

Could any criminal organization decide to incorporate and file taxes and get just a slap on the wrist and a fine for their drug trade, mugging, etc? Reminds me of HSBC's minor fine for laundering billions of drug dollars. Why do corporations get that kind of immunity?

Capitalism?

More generally, people have prejudices about what crime "looks like", which isn't an office, and there is a huge pro-business bias generally in the West based on the idea of "creating jobs".

I don't think that's a good answer; in general governments get even more latitude to screw up than businesses do.

I think it's just that groups with diffused responsibility get more latitude, because for a given act, who are you going to put in jail exactly? That turns out to be a hard question, especially when you consider not just the local consequences but the global ones. For instance, take a hard line "I'm putting the CEO/Secretary of X/Whatever the highest plausible person is in jail" stance and you just created an extraordinary incentive for pervasive, total micromanagement, and probably in the end worse results for society than even what we have now. It's a hard problem.

Interesting that you say "screw up", which implies error rather than malice. Maybe that's an important part of it that we look at intent of individuals and then label them "bad", whereas the intent of a business decision is harder to label?

I intend screw up here to represent both innocent error and deliberate malice. Teasing apart which is which in groups is hard, especially since it may well be both at the same time with different people in various roles.

It often gets hard to pinpoint who actually made the call. Once you start scrutinizing a company, it turns into endless finger-pointing. I agree with your point, someone should be punished for this, but implementation is hard.