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..
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.
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
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 obstacles, which will forbid them obtaining their objective legally; they will develop methods, which allow them to achieve their goals by illegal means (synonymous with Merton's 'innovation' adaptation21). Box further believes that most of corporate crime is initiated by high-ranking officials, which suggests that they are the least likely, to be suspected of being criminal, as they are seen to be too respectable and not fit the criminal stereotype (as above). Furthermore, Box, in a similar vein to Gross22 believes that it is this very characteristics which make them seem less likely to be a corporate criminal which conversely make them more likely to have the personal characteristics which make them prime candidates for committing corporate crime. For instance, most 'heads of corporations' have got to their position in the company, because they are determined, ambitious, have a low moral code etc, all the characteristics it could be argued are require to commit crime of any kind. Hazel Croall23 and others explore these ideas further24 with reference to some of the aforementioned theorists. Another goal other than financial, which is relevant to the anomie explanation of corporate crime, is commitment to their work. For example, a businessman may be so committed to his work that he is unable to accept any failure and so will be willing to employ whatever means necessary legal or illegal e.g. fraud to ensure that his status and reputation are maintained.
Furthermore, there are various stages i.e. the ease with which they are caught and subsequently rehabilitated which can be used to explain corporate crime. This lead to John Braithwaite and Gilbert Geis25 developed six propositions which they believed helped explain all aspects of corporate crime through the effects of a corporate crime to rehabilitation as a response to corporate crime26which outlined their suggested approach to corporate crime.
As mentioned, very little research, has been done on corporate crime and many of the theories suggested above where not designed to explain corporate crime specifically - many of them were designed to explain delinquent crime and have merely been adapted to explain corporate crime to a certain extent. However, quite recently, there has been resurgence in the number of theorists27 who have looked at corporate crime. This has lead to a number of theories being developed which can be described as 'universal theories', in that they can be used to explain/analyse all types of crime. One of these is the 'rationale choice theory' (see below).
This theory, can be used to explain not just corporate crime, but also other types of crime as it could be argued that all criminals before deciding whether to commit a crime 'weigh up the pros and cons' and the likelihood of them getting caught. This has lead to a nine variables28, which are used by corporate criminals when deciding whether to commit a crime. These are perceived certainty/severity of formal legal sanctions, perceived certainty/severity of informal sanctions, perceived certainty/severity of loss of self-respect, perceived cost of rule compliance, perceived benefits of non-compliance, moral inhibitions, perceived sense of legitimacy/fairness, characteristics of the criminal event and prior offending by the person. All of these suggest that far from a criminal being irrational and seizing their opportunity when it presents itself, criminals and corporate criminals, especially, probably spent months weighing up the various elements and the likelihood of them being caught and punished. Many of these factors are equal and opposite of each other and whilst there may be a high chance of one their may be a low chance of another e.g. there may be a low chance they will be subject to formal legal sanctions but a high chance that by committing a crime they bring disappointment/shame on their own immediate family (an informal sanction) which will be a greater deterrent than the harm they will cause to the company and so will be a perceived 'cost' of committing a corporate crime and may reduce the likelihood of an individual turning to corporate crime.
However, this theory has been criticised by other theorists, for example, Diane Vaughn, who believes that 'while rational choice certainly plays an important part in the etiology of corporate crime, there are clearly social and cultural restraints on its exercise'29. In other words, she argues that the organisation of a company may blind an individual to many opportunities that would be attractive rational choices. This has lead to this approach not being widely used in the study of corporate crime.
There has also, in recent years, been an attempt to address a 'general theory of crime'30 as Sutherland, suggested should be developed. Thorough their studies of official crime data they found that there was very little difference between the personal characteristics (age, sex, social class) between white collar offenders and traditional offenders. Furthermore, they argued that the essential ingredients necessary to commit a crime were present in both corporate criminals and traditional offenders. Therefore, corporate crime does not need separate explanations. In essence, they believe that crime of any type is characterised by 'the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain'31 and that criminals have common characteristics, which enable them to be criminal and not feel any remorse for their victims, whoever they may be. However, this theory has been criticised by various other theorists. Firstly, that the data used was heavily biased towards lower class offenders and any form of corporate or elite crime, were excluded as many corporate criminals are not convicted32 and so do not appear in official statistics. Furthermore, this theory is in opposition to sociological and other arguments that an individual's environment, social position and cultural influences shape a human's behaviour33.
The most recent development, has been that of developing an 'integrated theory'34 of corporate crime. Most theories on corporate crime focus on the social psychological forces that make an individual break the law (motivation) whilst others focus on the structural forces (opportunity), which govern whether an individual commits a crime. An integrated theory believes that it is not enough to use strictly criminological explanations in explaining any type of crime and that in order to get a clearer picture as to why people commit corporate crime a combination of all approaches used by the 'social sciences' need to be used. This includes a multi-discipline approach (sociology, psychology and criminology) focusing on combining the socio-psychological approaches with the structural approaches advocated by criminologists, in order, to gain a greater understanding as to why people commit corporate crime. This is because these elements undoubtedly influence a person's decision to commit crime and are inter-related and so cannot be viewed in isolation.
One particular element of the integrated theory is that whilst a person's emotions are a key element in whether a person commits a corporate crime it is also necessary to appreciate that a persons intellect (the rational part of a person's brain) has an influence on whether they choose to commit a crime and these may often work in tandem, with each other when a person is considering whether to commit a crime. In other words it could be argued that various symbols trigger of a certain reaction in an individuals brain and cause them to act in a certain way and this provides the motivation for an individual to possible commit a crime. For example, a certain symbol/idea can stimulate a particular emotion and conversely an emotion can stimulate a particular thought pattern, this is more of a psychological idea but it ties in with the criminological structural theory, in that motivation to commit a crime is just 'a set of symbols and definitions that are charged with varying amounts of emotional investments'35. In this way, there is a combination of all the theories associated with why people commit crime, corporate or otherwise.
Another important element of the integrated theory is that an individuals motivation is influenced by other outside factors e.g. the social structure and cultural orientations. For instance, the majority of people who commit corporate crime do not need to because as mentioned above, by Sutherland, they are more often than not quite wealthy, but still choose to commit crime. Often by committing corporate crime individuals have more to lose, if they are caught, than they have to gain, yet they still, generally choose to commit crime. What is important to note is that many societies in the world do not feel that they need a lot of money or worldly possessions to feel they 'have made it' in their lives. Many societies in the world believe that an egalitarian attitude towards your fellow man is far more important than what material and monetary possessions a person can acquire in their lives as a sign of their status36.
This brings the essay on to a third part/element of the integrated theory. This element it could be argued is similar to the anomie theory mentioned above. For example, there is what is known as a 'culture of competition' in Western society. In other words, financial rewards and material success and the struggle for these goals go to the very heart of a human beings existence, for want of a better phrase it is 'survival of the fittest' in an economic sense. Even the mere thought that someone may be a loser is enough motivation to achieve these defined goals by any means necessary, legitimate or illegitimate, legal or illegal. This it could be argued, if one is taking a radical/Marxist view, is down to the way many societies are structured i.e. capitalism is to blame and the hierarchy of society makes people want what they can't have and to do and this introduces competition between people which motivates them to commit (corporate) crime in a bid to get a 'quick fix' to their inadequacies, be they social, economic etc. This argument is supported by the quote below,
'Market society promotes violent crime by creating...a state of internal warfare...in which a corresponding ethos of unconcern- of non-responsibility for others well-being...pervades the common culture and interactions of daily life'37
Another element of this theory is that of opportunity. It could be argued that everyone in society has the opportunity to commit a crime of sometime at one time or another, in their lives, but most of the time we let these opportunities pass by. This is where this theory becomes like the rational choice theory, in that they believe that an individual weighs up the potential danger and rewards (as above) of committing a crime and then on balance decides whether to commit the offence or not. The position an individual holds within a corporation will have an impact on not only whether they choose to commit a crime but also the particular crime they commit e.g. fraud, embezzlement etc.
So, in conclusion, these are the main theories, which can be used to analyse and explain corporate crime. As mentioned throughout the essay, many of these theories, have not been devised solely as a reaction to and/or explanation of corporate crime. Instead, many of these criminological theories, have been adapted to provide an explanation of corporate crime but these are not always adequate and can lead to gaps, which, no one theory can address, and/or social science explain, a major criticism of many of the approaches. This has, lead to a combination of theories, being used in an attempt to explain corporate crime. More, now than ever, an adequate and all encompassing theory is needed, which addresses the ever-growing problem of corporate crime both nationally and internationally.
Bibliography
References
. 'White Collar Criminality' -Sutherland, E - from American Sociological Review 5:1 (February 1940): Neal Shover and John Paul Wright (2000) in 'Crimes of Privilege: Readings in White Collar Crime' - Oxford University Press Inc, USA - pp1-12
2. 'Is 'White Collar Crime' Crime?' - Sutherland, E - from American Sociological Review 10:132-139 Neal Shover and John Paul Wright (2000) in 'Crimes of Privilege: Readings in White Collar Crime' - Oxford University Press Inc, USA - pp12-20
3. 'On Theory and Action for Corporate Crime Control' - John Braithwaite and Gilbert Geis - from Crime and Delinquency (April 1989) Shover and Wright (2000) in 'Crimes of Privilege: Readings in White Collar Crime' - Oxford University Press Inc, USA - pp361-380
4. 'A Rational Choice Theory of Corporate Crime' Simpson, S and Paternoster, R from Routine Activity and Routine Choice (1992) as in Shover and Wright in Crimes of Privilege: Readings in White Collar Crime'- Oxford University Press Inc, USA - pp194-210
5. 'The Causes of White Collar Crime and the Validity of Explanations in Social Science' -Coleman, J in Lindgren, S-A (2001) ' White-Collar Research: Old views and future potentials' pp55-65
6. 'Understanding White Collar Crime' -- Croall, H (2001) - Open University Press pp2-6, pp78-85
7. Box, and Geis as in Hopkins-Burke (2002) 'An Introduction to Criminological Theory' -- Willan Publishing - pp110-111, p122
8. Bandura as in Hopkins-Burke (2002) 'An Introduction to Criminological Theory' -- Willan Publishing - pp122
9. Swartz as in Hopkins-Burke (2002) 'An Introduction to Criminological Theory' -- Willan Publishing - pp122
0. Geis as in Hopkins-Burke (2002) 'An Introduction to Criminological Theory' -- Willan Publishing p123
1. Denton (1968); (Lee 1979) as in Lindgren, S-A (2001) ' White-Collar Research: Old views and future potentials' p64
2. Sutherland as in Hopkins-Burke, R (2002) 'An Introduction to Criminological Theory' -- Willan Publishing - p176-177
3. Currie as in Croall (2001) 'Understanding White Collar Crime' p93
4. Slapper and Tombs (1999) as in Croall (2001) 'Understanding White Collar Crime' p83
5. Steffensmeiser (1989); Friedrichs (1996) as in Croall (2001) 'Understanding White Collar Crime'
6. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) as in Croall's Understanding White Collar Crime (2001) p82
Sutherland et al
2 White-Collar Criminality American Sociological Review 5:1 (February 1940) Shover and Wright as in Crimes of Privilege Readings in White Collar Crime - pp1-12
3 Principles of Criminology (1947) - 9 point test
4 Named as such because of the 'white collars' many professionals wore
5 As mentioned in White-Collar Criminality American Sociological Review 5:1 (February 1940)
Neal Shover and John Paul Wright as in Crimes of Privilege Readings in White Collar Crime - pp7-10
6 White-Collar Criminality American Sociological Review 5:1 (February 1940) Shover and Wright as in Crimes of Privilege Readings in White Collar Crime pp17-19
7 As above page 11
8 Merton and Cohen
9 as at 3
0 Is "White Collar Crime" Crime? American Sociological Review 10:132:139 as in Shover and Wright Crimes of Privilege Readings in White Collar Crime -p12-20
1 as above p17
2 Methodological Problems in the Study of Organized Crime as a Social Problem, in: The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 374, 1967, pp. 101-112
Theft of the Nation: The Structure and Operations of Organized Crime in America, New York: Harper and Row 1969
3 Sykes, G. & D. Matza. (1957). "Techniques of Neutralization." American Sociological Review 22:664-70
4 Box as in Hopkins Burke 'An Introduction to Criminological Theory' -pp122-123
5 as above p122
6 as above p122
7 as above p123
8 Durkheim as developed by Merton
9 Box as in Hopkins Burke 'An Introduction to Criminological Theory' -pp110-111
20 (1983) as above
21See Merton (1938) "Social Structure and Anomie"
22 (1978) as in Croall (2001) 'Understanding White Collar Crime
23 Croall (2001)
24 Explaining White Collar Crime - Hazel Croall pp 83-85
25 Braithwaite and Geis (1989)
26 see On Theory and Action for Corporate Crime pp361-380 as in Shover and Wright Crimes of Privilege Readings in White Collar Crime
27 Slapper and Tombs (1999) as in Croall (2001) 'Understanding White Collar Crime, Pearce and Tombs (1999) as above , Hazel Croall as above
28 as at 15 p203
29 'The Causes of White Collar Crime and the Validity of Explanations in the Social Sciences - James William Coleman in Lindgren, S-A ' White-Collar Research: Old views and future potentials' (2001) pp55-65
30 Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) as in Croall's Understanding White Collar Crime (2001) p82
31 as above
32Steffensmeiser (1989); Friedrichs (1996) as in Croall (2001) 'Understanding White Collar Crime'
33 Slapper and Tombs (1999) as in Croall (2001) 'Understanding White Collar Crime'
3434 'The Causes of White Collar Crime and the Validity of Explanations in the Social Sciences - James William Coleman in Lindgren, S-A (2001) ' White-Collar Research: Old views and future potentials' p63
35 as above p64
36 Denton (1968); (Lee 1979) as in Lindgren, S-A (2001) ' White-Collar Research: Old views and future potentials' p64
37 Currie as in Croall (2001) 'Understanding White Collar Crime' p93
G20088480