Explanations of corporate crime

Question 1

Strain theory

Answer 1

Box (1983):
-If a company cannot achieve their goals legally they turn to illegal methods
Clinard and Yeager (1980):
-Found law violations by large companies increased, as their financial performance decreased, suggests a willingness to innovate to achieve their profit goals

Question 2

Differential association

Answer 2

Sutherland (1949):
-Sees crime as behaviour learned from others in a social context
-Those we associate ourselves with, we’ll become more likely to be apart of their culture
Geis (1976):
-Found that individuals who joined companies where illegal price-fixing was practiced became involved too

Sykes + Matza (1957):
-Techniques of neutralisation, individuals will deviate more easily if they can produce justifications to their actions and neutralise moral objections by blaming others, claiming they were just following orders.

Question 3

Labelling theory

Answer 3

Nelken (2012):
-Non-labelling- unlike the w/c, businesses and professionals can avoid labelling and won’t experience the knock on effects of it
-They can afford expensive lawyers and accountants to help them avoid activities which they’re involved in—> negotiation of justice, Cicourel

Question 4

Marxism

Answer 4

-Corporate crime is a result of a dog eat dog society
Box (1983):
-Capitalism has created ‘mystification’, the spread of the view that corporate crime is less widespread and harmful than w/c crime

Question 4

Evaluation

Answer 4

Nelken (2012):
-Argues that strain theory and Marxism is over-estimating the amount of business crime
-Unrealistic to assume that all businesses would commit crimes if not for the punishments as maintaining a good relationship with other businesses you may collaborate with may deter them from resorting to crime
-Doesn’t explain crime in non-profit making state agencies such as the police or civil service