In this essay I discuss if groups can be morally responsible agents over and above the responsibility of their individual members. I consider an important collectivist theory given by List and Pettit arguing that groups can be responsible over its members. I offer some desiderata that a collectivist theory should fulfil and argue that the List and Pettit theory fail to fulfil some of these. Primarily I argue that their theory could come into conflict with a basic ethical and legal principle and that it fails to give a unified account of agency. I draw two conclusions. First, the List and Pettit theory fails to provide a satisfactory collectivist account. And second, a satisfactory collectivist theory ought to give a unified account of agency explaining how the agency side and normative side of responsible group agents fit together.