Search Results

This essay examines the distinctiveness of white-collar crime scholarship from the perspective of an academic located in the United States. Drawing on personal experiences and a review of white-collar crime articles published in 21 peer-reviewed criminology/sociology journals over a 14-month period, the author finds that traditional assumptions about white-collar crime research as a generally American endeavour are no longer accurate. In fact, European white-collar crime scholarship is overrepresented compared to other regions of the world, although the veneration of quantitative methods over qualitative methods often means that European scholarship is left out of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which purport to assess the state of research. This neglect is much to the detriment of the field. All consumers of white-collar crime scholarship would benefit from efforts to delve into the European perspective, but American white-collar crime scholars in particular would benefit greatly by looking to organizations like the European Working Group on Organizational Crime (EUROC) for opportunities to network with these scholars.

This essay introduces the book’s rationale and purpose, foregrounding the need for analysing what is distinctly European about the nature of white-collar and corporate crimes in Europe. The essay argues for European perspectives on white-collar and corporate crimes, and for exploring white-collar crime related dynamics and tensions that exist within and between the nation-states of Europe, and with the institutions of the European region. By speaking to the common theme of what is “European” about the realities of white-collar crimes in Europe, the essay discusses how the contributors encourage and engage in cross-European dialogue and collaboration as they seek to put forward key provocations about how we can better understand and examine the intricacies of associated offending and its control.

This essay presents the building blocks for a theoretical framework to address the question ‘what works in the prevention of corporate and occupational crime?’, arguing that the EU provides a promising environment to test and further develop such a framework. The essay starts with the presentation of two common classifications to map variation in corporate and occupational crime prevention: a classification of approaches to ethics management at organizational level and a classification of approaches to regulation at industry level. It argues that a more generic classification drawn from grid-group cultural theory (originally developed by Mary Douglas) is more fruitful. It then shows how grid-group cultural theory, combined with the conceptual framework of Pawson and Tilly’s realist evaluation, offers the building blocks of a theoretical framework that could guide research on the impact of efforts to prevent corporate and occupational crime. The paper concludes with some designs for empirical research within the EU to test and further develop the proposed theoretical framework.

This essay elucidates the characteristics of cartels as a type of corporate crime in Hungary and consider the implications of such corporate crimes for the European region. To this end, the essay analyses cartel cases from the Hungarian Competition Authority to answer the following core question: what is the role of the state in responding to cartel cases and in ensuring the freedom of competition in the market? The analysis reveals that the state has different approaches to dealing with corporate crime, like cartels. In some cases, the state itself initiates the cartel (see the watermelon case below), in other incidents, the state facilitates the process (see the cash register case below). In these terms, the conceptual framework of state-corporate crime is used to interrogate the Hungarian context.

This introduces the reader to the argument in this monograph. It outlines the need for this project by locating it within the existing literature on corporate and white-collar crime and regulatory jurisprudence. Finally, it briefly summarises the structure of the monograph.

This essay explores the topic of strategic libel and defamation suits by corporate actors against NGOs and journalists in Europe in relation to corporate environmental crime and corruption – issues that are often related. This essay adopts a criminological perspective by placing strategic litigation in the broader context of corporate strategies to conceal corporate crimes and harms. Corporations employ a variety of tactics to shield themselves from critiques about their harmful behaviour, ranging from reputation management; manipulation of information; and litigation; to straightforward threats and attacks against critics (Bradshaw 2015; Wahlin 2019). Criminologists also emphasize the role of social control of crime in addition to state control. This essay therefore first discusses the role of civil society in social control of corporate harm, and the importance of open debate about corporate actions. The essay continues by reviewing a variety of ‘SLAPP’ (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) cases that have emerged in Europe to identify some of the forms and consequences of SLAPPS in the European context, although by no means providing an extensive overview. Last, the essay discusses recent legislative reforms in North America to protect free speech and public interest litigation, as well as calls for such reforms in the EU.

The significance of ‘corruption’ in Europe is recognised a priority area for both social science research and state and non-state organisations seeking to reshape anti-corruption policy and practice within individual nation-states and the European Union more generally. Corruption is variously defined, but the European Commission (EC) suggests corruption takes many forms including bribery, trading in influence, abuse of functions alongside nepotism, conflicts of interest, or revolving doors between the public and the private sectors. However, the EC is not in a position to impose a common legal definition on what (other than fraud against the EU) remains a national issue for each Member and non-Member State. Given the cultural and legal diversity across the European region, this essay poses the question: how and what do we know about ‘corruption’, domestically and transnationally, across Europe? The essay outlines what four main research traditions in criminological research in Europe (surveys and experiments; qualitative studies; national case studies; and analysis of specific cases) before arguing for the need to cultivate theoretically-driven comparative methods of research that can stimulate interactive dialogue, deliberation and argument across European countries, regions and localities with a view to establishing robust empirical and theoretical insights.

When considering what is ‘European’ about white-collar and corporate crime, this essay examines exploitative labour practices in the European construction industry, especially in relation to the notion of ‘posted workers’, which is a distinct EU phenomenon. Since employers arrange temporary posting of workers to another country under free movement of services rules, this leaves workers dependent on arrangements made by their employers, which exposes them to poor accommodation provisions, lower pay than local workers receive, as well as increased segregation from local populations. Companies often use worker posting as a way to avoid regulatory oversight, thereby reducing their own costs. Given that companies are in a prime position to mistreat employees and posted workers while worsening their workplace conditions, these distinctly European processes are relevant to contemporary discussions in corporate criminology, which may not traditionally view the harmful consequences of posted working as ‘crimes’.