Crime, Ecophilosophy and Environmental Harm

Abstract

This article sketches out three broad philosophical frameworks relating to the human/environment nexus—the anthropocentric, biocentric and ecocentric perspectives. It is argued that acknowledgement of these different perspectives is essential in any analysis of environmental harm. To illustrate the importance of an `ecological imagination', each philosophy is considered in relation to the regulation and use of old-growth forest.

Corporate environmental responsibility and criminology

“…The European Union realised there was a deficiency in the punishment of environmental offences and tried to answer to this problem by means of creating minimum standards for definitions and sanctions of environmental harm. 18,19 However, there is still a long way to go in order to have an effective and efficient sanctioning across the EU. 20 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 Criminology offered an interesting frame of analysis as a starting point for the analysis of corporate environmental responsibility. We note the perspectives on CER reside on different continuums: (1) from being beyond (excluding) to going beyond (including) all notions of criminality; (2) from being ethical to being profitable; and (3) from voluntary to obligatory.…”

“…These explanations for corporate environmental crime or harm are rooted in a broader philosophical perspective on the nature of humanenvironment interaction: a view on the world and on humanity. Many green criminologists have implicitly or explicitly drawn upon three main environmental perspectives: anthropocentrism, biocentrism and ecocentrism 6 [17,18]. Anthropocentrism views the non-human environment for its instrumental worth and not for its intrinsic value, decisions about the environment are weighed on their economic outcome and it is therefore sometimes referred to as liberal ecology.…”

The Conceptual Compatibility Between Green Criminology and Human Security: A Proposed Interdisciplinary Framework for Examinations into Green Victimisation

“…Ecocentrism views humans as one component of a complex ecosystem and recognises the intrinsic value of the ecosystems, emphasising that ''human and their activities are inextricably integrated with the rest of the natural world in communal or communal-like arrangements '' (Steverson 1994:71). Ecocentrism does not prohibit use of the environment, but it must be done in a manner that is sustainable (Halsey and White 1998;White 2008White , 2011.…”

“…At the extreme, biocentrism also considers 'crime' to be environmental destruction and goes further than ecocentrism in regarding any actions disrupting biotic systems to be harmful and therefore prohibited (Gibbs et al 2010;Halsey 2004;Halsey and White 1998). To define a green crime, biocentrism bases on the concepts of species justice and speciesism (Beirne 2007(Beirne , 2009White 2008;Wyatt 2012).…”