I disagree that responsibility belongs to everyone involved.
When it comes to design / bid / build contracts (in Canada at least), the architect and or engineer would have both sealed the detailed "For Construction" drawings. They are the ones who are supposed to ensure that the design complies with the building code. What may save their hides is IF the Owner said, "I want you to use this cladding" over their objections, or better yet, the Architect and or Engineer specified a superior cladding system and when hearing of the cost, the Owner told them to use an inferior (read cheaper) product. Different story then, though they will still be on the hook since they sealed the drawings. Likewise, if they specified a better quality cladding, and the contractor ordered and installed substandard cladding without telling them, then the Contractor is on the hook (though the lawyers will muddy the waters and still make it everyone's responsibility by saying that some poor inspector should have seen it.)
BUT if the building was retrofitted as per the sealed drawings done by the Architect and or the Engineer, it is the Engineer's or Architects fault (if the cladding was in fact in violation of the building code). If the cladding was code compliant, well, that's a different story.
Lawyers like to spread the blame. I've seen it happen where guys who realistically had no involvement or responsibility in a disaster yet they get proportioned a share in the blame.