The issue of corporate crime i.e. why businessmen as opposed to the working class commit crime has been a largely ignored area by criminologist researchers who have instead preferred to focus on crimes committed by the least powerful in society..

Authors Avatar
The issue of corporate crime i.e. why businessmen as opposed to the working class commit crime has been a largely ignored area by criminologist researchers who have instead preferred to focus on crimes committed by the least powerful in society.. In this essay, the focus will be on the theories (which are often few and far between) and theorists1 who attempt to give reasons for, but not to excuse, this type of crime. A variety of theories, theorists and the answers they give for corporate crime, will be examined throughout this essay.

The first theorist who looked at, and attempted to explain corporate crime was Edwin Sutherland2, who conducted his research in 1920's and '30's America. Sutherland is most famous for his theory of 'differential association'3 i.e. that if we are exposed to more factors which make us criminal then factors which dissuade us from criminality we will become criminal. This theory was applied to delinquents but could just as easily be used to explain, why people choose to commit corporate crime. Sutherland starting point was that he believed that corporate crime (or as Sutherland called it white-collar crime4) was a largely ignored area of criminology when compared to the research on crimes committed by working class or 'blue collar' criminals and/or delinquents. Sutherland essentially believed that there was as much if not more white-collar crime as other types of crime but due to a number of factors this type of crime went largely unnoticed and unpunished5.

In addition, Sutherland also argued that in order to study white-collar crime effectively, the differences between the motivations of the offenders when compared to other offenders e.g. working class, needed to be looked at6. For example, many white-collar criminals are not motivated by poverty; Sutherland's example for this was that white-collar crime was at its peak during the 'boom period' of the twenties. Furthermore, the idea that "the criminals of today was the problem child of yesterday"7 a theory which was advocated by other theorists at the time who studied delinquent crime8 was invalid as many of the businessmen who become white-collar criminals were not brought up in poverty. Finally, Sutherland believe that a theory should be developed which would not only explain white-collar criminality and lower class criminality simultaneously and, that previous theorists had ignored white collar crime and that their studies on lower class crime had been misdirected as they did not relate to a 'general purpose which is found in white-collar and lower class crime'9, in other words there were important elements that were common to both corporate and other types of crime. Sutherland believes that, as a result of this omission that they do not explain the criminality of either class.

In his later essays10, Sutherland debated whether 'white collar crime' was strictly crime i.e. as Sutherland believed that 'white collar crime' may fall outside the traditional definition of crime i.e. that it has a 'legal description' is 'socially injurious' and there is a 'legal provision of a penalty for the act'. Sutherland furthermore stated that white-collar crime was not crime because it was not punished as such11. He believed this was for three reasons. Firstly, the criminal justice system (CJS) adapts its methods of enforcement to the violators of the law e.g. the CJS doesn't believe that businessmen are capable of being criminal, they don't fit the 'criminal' stereotype. Furthermore, as a result of this businessmen are less likely to be punished within the CJS. Finally, Sutherland argues that because white-collar crime often takes place over a number of years and involves a large number of victims it could be said that there are no 'victims' or at the very least this victims are 'faceless' so this leads to people believing that white collar criminal are not 'morally culpable'. As a result of these factors, Sutherland argued that instead of policing of this type of crime, instead of becoming more effective, was becoming less effective because the lawmakers were concealing this type of crime and relaxing its enforcement measures in comparison with traditional crime and criminals. Sutherland's work on white collar encouraged other theorists such as Donald Cressey, who along with developing his own theories12, continued Sutherland's work.

Along with actual theorists, who wrote on the subject of corporate crime, there are a number of theories developed by other criminologists, which can be used as a means to explaining corporate crime and/or why many businessmen 'get away with it'.

One theory, which can be used to help understand corporate crime, is Sykes and Matzas' 'Techniques of Neutralisation'13, as developed by various theorists14. Again, this was originally applied to delinquents, but can equally be applied to corporate crime. Box, found that businessmen often use these techniques to 'neutralise their guilt' when they violate the law and also to 'deny responsibility' for any illegal acts committed in the course of business by saying they were acting under orders or that they didn't know what they were doing was illegal etc. Another criminologist, Bandura15, also found that businessmen as well as using 'denial of responsibility', also used 'denial of a victim', as mentioned by Sutherland above, particularly if the victims are in a different country - continent even. Swartz16 also notes, that where industrial accidents have resulted they have been blamed on the workers rather than their managers who should be responsible for enforcing health and safety regulations. Geis17, also notes that many corporate criminals do not recognise their actions as criminals (denial of harm). Another techniques which is used is 'condemning the condemners' i.e. businessmen who commit crime may well say that the government are as corrupt, if not more corrupt than themselves, and that laws restrict freedom of expression in business e.g. there is a fine line between being an entrepreneur and a criminal.
Join now!


Another theory, which can be adapted to explain corporate crime, is the anomie theory18. Rather than there being five modes of adaptation to a situation of anomie (or lack of norms) it has been argued19 that instead of looking at individuals reactions/adaptations to a state of anomie it should be considered in terms of 'corporate goals'. Box20 believes that corporations have five 'environmental uncertainties', which may prevent a corporation achieving its goal (financial success) legally. These 'uncertainties' are as follows: competitors; the government; employees; consumers; and the public. Box believes that confronted with any one of these five ...

This is a preview of the whole essay