The CEO runs the company. If the company does stupid things on their watch, it is their negligence that let it happen. Given that they get paid so much, taking responsibility for things that happen under them is an earned hazard.

saying "Given that they get paid so much, taking responsibility for things " sounds exactly like a paid scapegoat. Also what constitutes a "watch"? CEOs aren't omniscient, they aren't observing everything their execs do.

Being responsible for the company under them is far more than just being a scapegoat, but yes, it includes taking ample blame when things go terribly wrong. No one needs to be omniscient, and maybe Bobby earned his salary through concentrating on other things, but he certainly didn't earn it by shaping company culture. The chief executive is supposed to see risks and mitigate them, or hire people that can, and if they don't, it's their screw-up regardless of who elses it is. I'm feeling repetitive here, but the difficulty and importance of the job is why they get paid many multiples of other employees, ostensibly.