Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Corporate environmental responsibility and criminology

  • Published:
Crime, Law and Social Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article addresses corporate environmental responsibility (CER) and aims to present a criminological analysis of it. We studied the opinion of a number of principle actors involved in CER in Europe in order to determine how they perceive it in terms of its definition, aetiology and approaches. For each of these dimensions we relate back to a criminological framework to ascertain how it is positioned in the green criminological debate. We start out by providing information on what corporate environmental responsibility is and how it relates to corporate social responsibility and sustainable development. Then we outline the theoretical framework in accordance with the three central themes for the criminological analysis of CER: definition, aetiology and approaches. We also explain the method that was used (semi-structured interviews). Next, we present the results according to the same threefold structure. Finally we discuss these results in a last part, which is divided in two. First, we look at the challenges that the criminological perspective poses for CER in terms of definition, aetiology and approaches. The second part of the discussion turns the question around and wonders how CER could contribute to greening criminology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Sometimes the concepts corporate citizenship and corporate environmental citizenship are used, which are interchangeable with respectively CSR and CER.

  2. Under this heading a stakeholder is everyone who can be influenced by a corporation’s actions or decisions, which includes management, employees, shareholders, customers, suppliers, but also the local community and society at large.

  3. Communication COM(2006) 136 of 22 March 2006 on the implementing the partnership for growth and jobs: making Europe a pole of excellence on corporate social responsibility.

  4. This is the case when dangerous pesticides are sold in countries where appropriate regulation is lacking or when waste is transported to countries where dumping is still allowed [47].

  5. These explanations concern corporate crime in general, but are applied to corporate environmental crime in particular.

  6. Ethical literature makes a distinction between anthropocentrism, zoo-centrism and ecocentrism/biocentrism. Biocentrism would in fact be referred to as zoo-centrism while the term biocentrism would be used as a synonym for ecocentrism. Content-wise the threefold separation is equal, but criminological literature refers to anthropocentric, biocentric and ecocentric whereas ethics refers to anthropocentrism, zoo-centrism and ecocentrism/biocentrism [8].

  7. Business Europe is the European business organisation and represents 39 national business federations from 33 European countries. It was formerly known as UNICE (Union des industries de la communauté européenne). Their mission and priorities include : implementation of reforms for growth and jobs, integration of the European market, efficient governance of the EU, fighting national protectionism, taking advantage of the opportunities of enlargement and reforming the European social systems to make them sustainable. http://www.businesseurope.eu

  8. Interview with a member of the Cabinet Commission for the Environment, European Commission Directorate General Environment, Brussels, 21 May 2007.; Interview with ‘Friends of the Earth Europe’ and ‘European Coalition for Corporate Justice’, Brussels, 22 May 2007.; Interview with a member of directorate D2 European Employment Strategy, CSR and Local Development, European Commission Directorate General Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, Brussels, 23 May 2007.; Interview with a member of Business Europe, Brussels, 24 May 2007.;Interview with an employee of the Economy and Social Policy Department, International Trade Union Confederation, telephone, 24 May 2007.

  9. In presenting our analysis of the interviews, we name institutions, however it is important to stress that even though these respondents are representatives for their organisation, we cannot exclude their personal opinion.

  10. IP/07/166 of 9 February 2007 Commission strengthens environmental protection through criminal laws abolishing “safe havens” of environmental crime.; Framework Decision 2003/80/JHA of 27 January 2003 on the protection of the environment through criminal law.; Studygroup Meeting NAT 353 on environmental crime, European Economic and Social Committee, 16 May 2007.

  11. Note 10117/06 of 9 June 2006 Review of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy (EU SDS) – Renewed Strategy.

  12. Regulation 761/2001 of 19 March 2001 allowing voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS).

  13. The relative health of the corporation and the economy, the level of competition.

  14. Advantages of self-regulation lie in its proximity, flexibility and ability to generate a higher level of compliance in which competitors might ‘police’ each other. Disadvantages are interest conflicts, inadequate sanctions, monitoring and enforcement and the global competition. Advantages of mandatory standards are credibility, legal certainty, standardization, comparability, the disclosure of negative performance and full reports and the avoidance of free-riders. Mandatory standards have the disadvantage of being inflexible, lack incentives for innovation, pose constraints on efficiency and competitiveness and undermine tailored response.

  15. Decision 2000/479/EC of 17 July 2000 on the implementation of a European Pollutant Emission Register (EPER) according to Article 15 of Council Directive 96/61/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC)

  16. Regulation 1980/2000 of 17 July 2000 on a revised Community eco-label scheme.

  17. In literature these crimes are often called ‘victimless’, but the term ‘unknown’ is preferred over ‘victimless’, because they are not victimless in se.

  18. Framework Decision 2003/80/JHA of 27 January 2003 on the protection of the environment through criminal law.

  19. MEMO 05/437 of 23 November 2005 Commission welcomes Court of Justice judgement recognising the exclusive competence of the Community to adopt criminal law measures to ensure the effectiveness of Community law.

  20. Several Member States were reluctant to give the EU a say over such a sensitive issue as criminal sanctions. Nevertheless, the first crucial steps are taken to do away ‘safe havens’ for environmental crime with the adoption of the Directive on October 24th 2008.

    (IP/07/166 of 9 February 2007 Commission strengthens environmental protection through criminal las, abolishing “safe havens” of environmental crime.; European Parliament legislative resolution of 21 May 2008 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the environment through criminal law (adopted on October 24th 2008) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/seance_pleniere/textes_consolides/2007/0022/EP-PE_TC1-COD(2007)0022_EN.pdf)

References

  1. Brady, H., Collier, D., & Seawright, J. (2006). Toward a pluralistic vision of methodology. Political Analysis, 14(3), 353–368. doi:10.1093/pan/mpj021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Braithwaite, J., & Fisse, B. (1987). Self-regulation and the control of corporate crime. In C. Shearing & P. Stenning (Eds.), Private policing (pp. 221–246). Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Braithwaite, J. (1985). To punish or the pursuade. Albany: University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Box, S. (1983). Power, crime & mystification. London: Tavistock.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Campbell, J. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 946–967.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Carrabine, E., Iganski, P., Lee, M., Plummer, K., & South, N. (1996). Criminology: A sociological introduction. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Clinard, M., & Yeager, P. (1980). Corporate crime. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. De Tavernier, J., & Draulans, V. (2002). Sorge für die Umwelt als Quintessenz öffentlicher Güter in einer Dynamik der Globalisierung. In G. Virt (Ed.), Der Globalisierungsprozess. Facetten einder Dynamik aus ethischer und theologischer Perspektive (Studien zur theologischen Ethik 95) (pp. 152–178). Freiburg: Herder.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Edwards, S., Edwards, T., & Fields, C. (eds). (1996). Environmental crime and criminality: Theoretical and practical issues. London: Garland Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Franklin, N. (1990). Environmental pollution control: the limits of criminal law. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 81–94.

  11. Friedman, M. (2007). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. In J. Ciulla, C. Martin & R. Solomon (Eds.), Honest work: A business ethics reader (pp. 241–245). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Glasbeek, H. (2002). Wealth by stealth. Toronto: Between the Lines Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Guningham, N., Norberry, J., & McKillop, S. (eds). (1995). AIC conference proceedings: Environmental crime. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Grabosky, P., & Gant, F. (2000). Improving environmental performance, preventing environmental crime. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology Research and Public Policy Series.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Haines, F. (1997). Corporate regulation: Beyond ‘punish or persuade’. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Halsey, M. (2004). Against green criminology. The British Journal of Criminology, 44(6), 833–853. doi:10.1093/bjc/azh068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Halsey, M., & White, R. (1998). Crime, ecophilosophy and environmental harm. Theoretical Criminology, 2(3), 345–371. doi:10.1177/1362480698002003003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Herzog, T. (1996). Research methods in the social sciences. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Holme, R., & Watts, P. (2000). Corporate social responsibility: Making good business sense. Geneva: World Business Council for Sustainable Development.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Huisman, W. (2001). Tussen winst en moraal: Achtergronden van regelnaleving en regelovertreding door ondernemingen. Den Haag: Boom Juridische Uitgevers.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Huisman, W., & Niemeijer, E. (1999). Organisatiecriminaliteit. Naar een aanpak op basis van inzicht. Justitiële Verkenningen, 2, 8–34.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Jenkins, R. (2001). Corporate codes of conduct: self-regulation in a global economy. Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.

  24. Lynch, M., & Stresky, P. (2003). The meaning of green: contrasting criminological perspectives. Theoretical Criminology, 7(2), 217–238. doi:10.1177/1362480603007002414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Maguire, M., Morgan, R., & Reiner, R. (2002). The Oxford handbook of criminology. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Mazurkiewicz, P. (2004). Corporate environmental responsibility: Is a common CSR framework possible? Paper presented at the May 2004 IAIA Conference, Vancouver. Available via http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTDEVCOMMENG/Resources/csrframework.pdf Cited 24 December 2006.

  27. McLaughlin, E., & Muncie, J. (2006). The sage dictionary of criminology (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Merton, R. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3, 672–682. doi:10.2307/2084686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Minkes, J., & Minkes, L. (eds). (2008). Corporate and white-collar crime. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Nelken, D. (2007). White-collar and corporate crime. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan & R. Reiner (Eds.), Oxford handbook of criminology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Paton, B. (1999). Voluntary environmental initiatives and sustainable industry, California: Department of Environmental Studies.

  32. Pearce, F. (1976). Crimes of the powerful. London: Pluto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ponsaers, P., & Hoogenboom, B. (2004). Het moeilijke spel van wortel en stok—Organisatiecriminaliteit en handhaving-strategieën van bijzondere inspectie- en opsporingsdiensten. Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, 46(2), 165–181.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Punch, M. (1996). Dirty business. Exploring corporate misconduct, analysis and cases. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Schwendinger, H., & Schwendinger, J. (1975). Defenders of order or guardians of human rights? In I. Taylor, P. Walton & J. Young (Eds.), Critical criminology (pp. 113–146). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Seis, M. (1996). A native American criminology of environmental crime. In S. Edwards, T. Edwards & C. Fields (Eds.), Environmental crime and criminality: Theoretical and practical issues (pp. 121–146). London: Garland.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Shover, N. (2008). Zelfregulering door ondernemingen. Ontwikkeling, beoordeling en bange voorgevoelens. Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, 50(2), 169–181.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Slapper, G., & Tombs, S. (1999). Corporate crime. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Snider, L. (2008). Corporate Economic Crimes. In J. Minkes & L. Minkes (Eds.), Corporate and white-collar crime (pp. 39–60). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  40. South, S. (1998). A green field for criminology: a proposal for a perspective. Theoretical Criminology, 2(2), 211–233. doi:10.1177/1362480698002002004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Sutherland, E. (1940). White collar criminality. American Sociological Review, 5(1), 1–12. doi:10.2307/2083937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Sutherland, E. (1961). White collar crime. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Sutherland, E. (1983). White collar crime: The uncut version. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Tombs, S. (2008). Corporations and health and safety. In J. Minkes & L. Minkes (Eds.), Corporate and white-collar crime (pp. 18–38). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Van De Bunt, H., & Huisman, W. (1999). Het kan ook anders: overwegingen bij de keuze tussen klassiek of alternatief reguleren op milieuterrein. Justitiële Verkenningen, 28(2), 29–43.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Van De Bunt, H., & Huisman, W. (2004). Organisatiecriminaliteit. Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, 46(2), 106–120.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Van Den Anker, M. (1999). Wie betaalt, bepaalt. Over intermediaire organisaties, milieucriminaliteit, organisatiecriminaliteit and integriteit in het complexe milieuveld. Den Haag: Elsevier bedrijfsinformatie.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Van Dijk, J., Sagel-Grande, H., & Toornvliet, L. (1996). Actuele criminologie. Lelystad: Koninklijke Vermande.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Vogel, D. (2005). The market for virtue: The potential and limits of corporate social responsibility. Washington D.C: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  50. White, R. (2003). Environmental issues and the criminological imagination. Theoretical Criminology, 7(4), 483–506. doi:10.1177/13624806030074005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank the representatives of Directorate General Directorate General for the Environment, Directorate General Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, Business Europe, International Trade Union Confederation, Friends of the Earth Europe and European Coalition for Corporate Justice for their cooperation in this research. She also wishes to thank Prof. Paul Ponsaers and the reviewers for providing comments on earlier versions of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Governing and Policing Security, University College Ghent, Ghent, Belgium

    Lieselot Bisschop

  2. Governance of Security, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Lieselot Bisschop

Authors
  1. Lieselot Bisschop
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lieselot Bisschop.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bisschop, L. Corporate environmental responsibility and criminology. Crime Law Soc Change 53, 349–364 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-009-9227-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-009-9227-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation