Developing an organizational typology of criminals in the meat supply chain

Abstract

The European Horsemeat Scandal of 2013 highlighted the increasing organization and sophistication of the contemporary food criminal. This study aims to develop a more sophisticated understanding of the typology of the food criminal in terms of their modus operandi and how individuals and organized crime groups develop criminal business models and networks in the context of meat supply. This research initiates a synthesized literature review across the seemingly disparate academic disciplines of food and agricultural policy, business theory and criminology in order to characterize the modes of operation at work in such networks. A conceptual framework is developed that considers the actors and drivers involved in criminal activity using the meat supply chain as an example.

The seafood supply chain from a fraudulent perspective

“…financial or social pressure), employment (corporate or management derived pressure) and external pressure (business or stakeholder pressure to incur financial return, social environmental and market price pressure) (Gbegi and Adebisi 2013;Kleboth et al 2016); opportunity to commit fraud, influenced by the extent of formal control systems (countermeasures) and/or the potential for weaknesses or gaps in the business network (Gbegi and Adebisi 2013;Tähkäpää et al 2015;Kleboth et al 2016;Manning et al 2016); rationalisation, the ability of the individual to assess their behaviour as acceptable, if excusable to themselves or others (Gbegi and Adebisi 2013;Kleboth et al 2016;Manning et al 2016;TiFSiP 2016), the lack of a strong deterrent i.e. penalties (Tähkäpää et al 2015;Manning et al 2016;TiFSiP 2016); capability, the power or ability to undertake the fraud (Wolfe and Hermanson 2004;Gbegi and Adebisi 2013), the motivation or benefit of undertaking the fraud (e.g. guaranteed economic benefit) (Canter 2000;Williams 2001;Dennis and Kelly 2013;Smith and Laing 2013;Spink et al 2013;Elliott 2014;Tähkäpää et al 2015;Manning et al 2016), and the personal integrity or category of offender (Canter 2000;Williams 2001;Smith and Laing 2013;Spink et al 2013Manning et al 2016).…”

“…penalties (Tähkäpää et al 2015;Manning et al 2016;TiFSiP 2016); capability, the power or ability to undertake the fraud (Wolfe and Hermanson 2004;Gbegi and Adebisi 2013), the motivation or benefit of undertaking the fraud (e.g. guaranteed economic benefit) (Canter 2000;Williams 2001;Dennis and Kelly 2013;Smith and Laing 2013;Spink et al 2013;Elliott 2014;Tähkäpää et al 2015;Manning et al 2016), and the personal integrity or category of offender (Canter 2000;Williams 2001;Smith and Laing 2013;Spink et al 2013Manning et al 2016). A number of academics have attempted to construct models to illustrate these factors.…”

“…For HACCP very capable practices and governance already exist, but the ever evolving and emerging nature of opportunistic fraud introduces new VACCP gaps (TiFSiP 2016;Manning et al 2016). There has been a range of different detection methods applied to food authenticity, including spectroscopy (ultraviolet-visible (UV), near infrared (NIR) and mid infrared (MIR), Raman), isotopic analysis, chromatography, electric nose, polymerase chain reaction, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and thermal analysis, and their combination with multivariate data analysis software (Reid et al 2006;Ellis et al 2012;Black et al 2016).…”

“…These methods must be evaluated in full for ease of use, rapidity and cost whilst surviving the rigours of a legal process to provide a sufficient deterrent (Black et al 2016). Similarly, the literature and the persistence of food-borne illnesses and scandals has raised significant concern on the functioning of the supply chain and the monitoring methods employed for their supervision, particularly exposing weaknesses in current traceability and audit systems (Folinas et al 2006;Aven 2012;Powell et al 2013;FAO 2016b;Ringsberg 2014;Lidskog et al 2015;NFCU 2016;Stamatis et al 2015;Kleboth et al 2016;Manning et al 2016). A preliminary review of the data suggests that the underlying cause of such events is shortcomings in audits, enforcement and current countermeasures within the industry, as opposed to the HACCP, VACCP and TACCP tools.…”

Halal Meat Fraud and Safety Issues in the UK: a Review in the Context of the European Union

“…Some researchers have described food fraud as an ancient practice usually driven by profit (Manning et al 2016). The fraudulent trading in meat that is claimed to be Halal can take many forms, from the sale of illegally slaughtered animals generally associated with poor animal welfare, to the sale of unwholesome meat for human consumption, which poses a risk to human health.…”