Author: Sharon Hartles (2017)
To ascertain if corporate crime is better considered through a social harm approach or a crime approach the concept of corporate crime must be defined. There are two distinct types of corporate crime these being occupational and organisational crimes. Corporate crimes; occupational crime also known as white collar crime are committed by people within corporations (Newburn, 2007). In contrast corporate crimes; organisational crime are committed by corporations.
A separate set of regulatory systems have emerged in order to regulate not criminalise business practices/activities (ibid). Corporate harms are governed by a series of regulatory bodies/agencies, such as the Health and Safety Executive (HSE); systems which are referred to as compliance strategies. Organisational deviance (expanded adaption to state crime and state-corporate crime) can be understood through typology which encompasses six broad areas these being: informal rewards, work avoidance, employee deviance against the organisation, employee deviance for the organisation, organisational deviance for the organisation and managerial deviance (Punch, 1996, cited in Newburn, 2007).
The first four categories fall into occupational crime (white collar crime) and the latter two fall into corporate crime (Newburn, 2007). Corporate crime; organisational harms such as killings, maiming, poisoning and polluting perpetrated under the guise of business activity defined as ostensibly that takes place during normal and legitimate conduct of business are aided and facilitated by the concepts of political and economic power. This reveals how state and corporate crime are kept out of the public eye and concealed from criminal acts within the complexities of business law and self regulation procedures.
Friedrichs' (2009) text The Trusted Criminal declares that most serious offences are committed by people in positions of power and authority such as state and corporate representatives, supported by Punch, (2000) who avers that corporations commit far more violence than any serial killer or criminal organisation. The only difference then between criminal and harmful behaviours belongs to the preserve of the powerful such as state and corporate representatives who enact, evoke, evade and criminalise black letter law (Sutherland, 1945). This makes clear why major sources of iniquity and harm are legalised and deemed to be legitimate.
What this demonstrates is crime and justice is not universal it is contingent on social, economic, legal and ideological circumstances. This is important because it can be argued crime and justice is socially constructed. Social constructionism or the exploration of taken for granted or natural social processes, it theorises interpretations of reality including crime and justice are learned through social interactions, expectations and embedded in labelling of people and places. This provides rationale to why 'criminal justice systems, as presently constituted, is simply not a viable forum for tackling corporate wrongdoing' (Gobert and Punch, 2003, quoted in Newburn, 2007, p. 376).
On the other hand there are those who insist the label of crime should only be applied when acts have been successfully prosecuted as violation of criminal laws supporting traditional dominant westernised crime and justice systems (Tappan 1947). What this reveals is why corporate crime viewed through a crime and justice lens is problematic paving the way for the analysis of alternative understandings such as a social harm approach. A social harm approach recognises that harms have a greater social impact than those acts defined as crime. It raises issues of social justice such as why some harms are omitted or concealed within crime and criminal justice domains and who have the power to define crime? (Tombs, 2015). This viewpoint denotes that 'social harms are greater and more differentially distributed than criminal laws allow'.
Hillyard and Tombs (2007) developed a social harm approach, this typology of harm encompasses four broad categories of harm, these being: physical, financial/economic, denial of cultural safety and emotional and psychological harms. The concept of eco crimes or acts of harm against human, non-human and the environment on both local and global levels reinforces a social harm approach (Whyte 2008). In contrast to crime and justice, social harm is not restricted to jurisdiction and can be applied universally. Moreover it brings to attention multitude of harmful actions and behaviours such as corporate crime (re-categorised as corporate activity) which is permitted or legalised by black letter law and made invisible through traditional, dominant westernised systems of crime and justice.
Case study Fashion, flowers and the exploitation of Africa reveals the development of flower farms along the shoreline of Lake Naivasha by multinational corporations in the pursuit of capitalism, transformed Rift Valley from a community of herders, fishermen and farmers destroying their culture and habitats. In addition flower farming (the new livelihood provided by corporations) exposed workers to chemicals which resulted in skin problems and miscarriage. This is important because it evidences physical, financial/economic, denial of cultural safety and emotional harm to Rift Valley and its people through corporate exploitation.
Mokhiber (1988, cited in Friedrichs, 2009) evidenced Pharmaceutical Corporation promoted Thalidomide and the Dalkon shield device which was cleared for mass distribution on a global level by the Food and Drugs Administration (FDA). In 1974 following thousands of recorded cases of harms to woman and newborn babies (marginalised on a global scale) the FDA requested distribution was halted. Corporative representatives proceeded within regulatory administrative bureaucracy to delay the withdrawal because it was highly profitable, during this time thousands more woman and new born babies became victims of corporate harm committed during corporate activity by corporations (transgressors). What this illustrates is how a social harm lens make visible corporate crimes which are not recognised within crime and justice lens.
References
Friedrichs, D. (2009) 'Trusted Criminals: White Collar Crime In Contemporary Society' [Online] Available at
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZQGmgHjovawC&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=Mokhiber+1988&source=bl&ots=m-roGoSiSm&sig=i4YnijK2w0vLeBiPBPViyP3hh1k&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiDyJKYkIvSAhVhB8AKHUjEAIIQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=Mokhiber%201988&f=false
(Accessed 11th April 2017)
Punch, M. (2000) ‘Suite violence: why managers murder and corporations kill’, Crime, Law and Social Change, vol. 33, pp. 243–80. [Online] Available at https://link-springer-com.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/article/10.1023/A%3A1008306819319 (Accessed 14th April 2017)
Newburn, T. (2007) 'Criminology' pp. 258 – pp. 402 in Newburn, T., (ed) (2007). Cullompton, Willan
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Please cite this article as:
Hartles, S (2017) Is corporate crime better considered through a social harm approach rather than through the paradigm of crime [Online] Available at https://sharonhartles.weebly.com/is-corporate-crime-better-considered-through-a-social-harm-approach-rather-than-through-the-paradigm-of-crime.html (Accessed)
ATTRIBUTION
All works are Open Access articles distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original works are properly cited.
© Sharon Hartles 2022.
To ascertain if corporate crime is better considered through a social harm approach or a crime approach the concept of corporate crime must be defined. There are two distinct types of corporate crime these being occupational and organisational crimes. Corporate crimes; occupational crime also known as white collar crime are committed by people within corporations (Newburn, 2007). In contrast corporate crimes; organisational crime are committed by corporations.
A separate set of regulatory systems have emerged in order to regulate not criminalise business practices/activities (ibid). Corporate harms are governed by a series of regulatory bodies/agencies, such as the Health and Safety Executive (HSE); systems which are referred to as compliance strategies. Organisational deviance (expanded adaption to state crime and state-corporate crime) can be understood through typology which encompasses six broad areas these being: informal rewards, work avoidance, employee deviance against the organisation, employee deviance for the organisation, organisational deviance for the organisation and managerial deviance (Punch, 1996, cited in Newburn, 2007).
The first four categories fall into occupational crime (white collar crime) and the latter two fall into corporate crime (Newburn, 2007). Corporate crime; organisational harms such as killings, maiming, poisoning and polluting perpetrated under the guise of business activity defined as ostensibly that takes place during normal and legitimate conduct of business are aided and facilitated by the concepts of political and economic power. This reveals how state and corporate crime are kept out of the public eye and concealed from criminal acts within the complexities of business law and self regulation procedures.
Friedrichs' (2009) text The Trusted Criminal declares that most serious offences are committed by people in positions of power and authority such as state and corporate representatives, supported by Punch, (2000) who avers that corporations commit far more violence than any serial killer or criminal organisation. The only difference then between criminal and harmful behaviours belongs to the preserve of the powerful such as state and corporate representatives who enact, evoke, evade and criminalise black letter law (Sutherland, 1945). This makes clear why major sources of iniquity and harm are legalised and deemed to be legitimate.
What this demonstrates is crime and justice is not universal it is contingent on social, economic, legal and ideological circumstances. This is important because it can be argued crime and justice is socially constructed. Social constructionism or the exploration of taken for granted or natural social processes, it theorises interpretations of reality including crime and justice are learned through social interactions, expectations and embedded in labelling of people and places. This provides rationale to why 'criminal justice systems, as presently constituted, is simply not a viable forum for tackling corporate wrongdoing' (Gobert and Punch, 2003, quoted in Newburn, 2007, p. 376).
On the other hand there are those who insist the label of crime should only be applied when acts have been successfully prosecuted as violation of criminal laws supporting traditional dominant westernised crime and justice systems (Tappan 1947). What this reveals is why corporate crime viewed through a crime and justice lens is problematic paving the way for the analysis of alternative understandings such as a social harm approach. A social harm approach recognises that harms have a greater social impact than those acts defined as crime. It raises issues of social justice such as why some harms are omitted or concealed within crime and criminal justice domains and who have the power to define crime? (Tombs, 2015). This viewpoint denotes that 'social harms are greater and more differentially distributed than criminal laws allow'.
Hillyard and Tombs (2007) developed a social harm approach, this typology of harm encompasses four broad categories of harm, these being: physical, financial/economic, denial of cultural safety and emotional and psychological harms. The concept of eco crimes or acts of harm against human, non-human and the environment on both local and global levels reinforces a social harm approach (Whyte 2008). In contrast to crime and justice, social harm is not restricted to jurisdiction and can be applied universally. Moreover it brings to attention multitude of harmful actions and behaviours such as corporate crime (re-categorised as corporate activity) which is permitted or legalised by black letter law and made invisible through traditional, dominant westernised systems of crime and justice.
Case study Fashion, flowers and the exploitation of Africa reveals the development of flower farms along the shoreline of Lake Naivasha by multinational corporations in the pursuit of capitalism, transformed Rift Valley from a community of herders, fishermen and farmers destroying their culture and habitats. In addition flower farming (the new livelihood provided by corporations) exposed workers to chemicals which resulted in skin problems and miscarriage. This is important because it evidences physical, financial/economic, denial of cultural safety and emotional harm to Rift Valley and its people through corporate exploitation.
Mokhiber (1988, cited in Friedrichs, 2009) evidenced Pharmaceutical Corporation promoted Thalidomide and the Dalkon shield device which was cleared for mass distribution on a global level by the Food and Drugs Administration (FDA). In 1974 following thousands of recorded cases of harms to woman and newborn babies (marginalised on a global scale) the FDA requested distribution was halted. Corporative representatives proceeded within regulatory administrative bureaucracy to delay the withdrawal because it was highly profitable, during this time thousands more woman and new born babies became victims of corporate harm committed during corporate activity by corporations (transgressors). What this illustrates is how a social harm lens make visible corporate crimes which are not recognised within crime and justice lens.
References
Friedrichs, D. (2009) 'Trusted Criminals: White Collar Crime In Contemporary Society' [Online] Available at
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZQGmgHjovawC&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=Mokhiber+1988&source=bl&ots=m-roGoSiSm&sig=i4YnijK2w0vLeBiPBPViyP3hh1k&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiDyJKYkIvSAhVhB8AKHUjEAIIQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=Mokhiber%201988&f=false
(Accessed 11th April 2017)
Punch, M. (2000) ‘Suite violence: why managers murder and corporations kill’, Crime, Law and Social Change, vol. 33, pp. 243–80. [Online] Available at https://link-springer-com.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/article/10.1023/A%3A1008306819319 (Accessed 14th April 2017)
Newburn, T. (2007) 'Criminology' pp. 258 – pp. 402 in Newburn, T., (ed) (2007). Cullompton, Willan
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Please cite this article as:
Hartles, S (2017) Is corporate crime better considered through a social harm approach rather than through the paradigm of crime [Online] Available at https://sharonhartles.weebly.com/is-corporate-crime-better-considered-through-a-social-harm-approach-rather-than-through-the-paradigm-of-crime.html (Accessed)
ATTRIBUTION
All works are Open Access articles distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original works are properly cited.
© Sharon Hartles 2022.