There is much talk surrounding food fraud policy, and while there is convergence around the need to 'do something about it', there can be divergence around how this should be done as seen in the decisions and actions of concerned stakeholders. However, underpinning the policy agendas in relation to food fraud there is an aim to prevent (or at least reduce) food fraud, crime and harms, to improve the integrity of the food system. This article develops a mode of analysis that integrates 'enterprise theory' with 'situational prevention theory' to develop an understanding of how food frauds are situated actions, shaped by contingent enterprise conditions that influence how food frauds are organised and why decisions to offend become rational. We apply this integrated framework to the Spanish olive oil market. Drawing on data collected on market conditions and case study analyses of particular frauds to better understand the situated nature of food frauds we suggest mechanisms that could be used to prevent fraud in particular situations under these conditions. We conclude that this mode of thinking and analysis can be applied to a range of frauds across different food networks.

No abstract

OverviewThis chapter examines an approach to crime reduction which differs from many others in that it focuses, not on the offender or their reasoning for committing an offence, but upon the environment in which an offence takes place. This approach also differs in its consideration of who should hold responsibility for the reduction of crime, with a focus, not solely upon the traditional criminal justice system agencies, but also upon planners, architects, developers and managers of public space. The approach is based on the presumption that offenders will maximise crime opportunities, and therefore, those opportunities must be avoided (in the first place) or removed (following the emergence of a crime problem). In the 2001 publication 'Cracking Crime through Design', Pease introduces the concept of design as a means of reducing crime, but more importantly, the premise that it is the moral responsibility of many different actors and agencies to improve the lives of those who may fall victim to crime, those who live in fear of crime, and (less obviously) those who will, through the presentation of unproblematic opportunities, be tempted into offending. In the case of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED), it is the planners, designers, developers and architects who risk acting (as Pease paraphrases the poet John Donne) as the gateway to another man's sin. 2CPTED is an approach to crime reduction (that may be described as a measure, programme or intervention) which aims to reduce crime through the design and manipulation of the built (and sometimes natural) environment. It focuses predominantly upon 'designing out' opportunities for crime before they occur -for example at the pre-planning or planning stage -although some interventions take place post-development, in response to a crime problem which has emerged.A commonly used formal definition is that used by Tim Crowe who defines CPTED as:"The proper design and effective use of the built environment, that can lead to a reduction in the fear of incidence of crime and an improvement in quality of life...The goal of CPTED is to reduce opportunities for crime that may be inherent in the design of structures or in the design of neighbourhoods" (Crowe, 2000, p. 46). Ekblom (2011) proposes a redefinition and presents the following alternative, which introduces several points not included within Crowe's definition, including the balance between security and contextually appropriate design and the possibility of intervening at different stages between pre-planning and post construction. Ekblom states that CPTED is: "Reducing the possibility, probability and harm from criminal and related events, and enhancing the quality of life through community safety; through the processes of planning and design of the environment; on a range of scales and types of place, from individual buildings and interiors to wider landscapes, neighbourhoods and cities; to produce designs that are 'fit for purpose', contextually appropriate in all other respects and not 'vulnerab...

No abstract

This study examines the assumption that crime-prone individuals or organizations move to exploit changing criminal opportunities. A competing explanation holds that new criminal opportunities (e.g., Internet access, money laundering, political upheaval, etc.) provide motivation for individuals who formerly were not connected with criminal activity. Detailed case studies of organized crime groups and activities are used to examine the nexus between criminal opportunities and criminal groups. A model that employs both opportunity and offender-availability factors is proposed to predict the incidence of organized crime activity. Such a model also has implications for the extent to which law enforcement agencies and public policy should focus on surveillance of known criminal groups versus proactive strategies to reduce criminal opportunities that emerge from social and technological changes.