Opportunities for Environmental Crime: A Test of Situational Crime Prevention Theory

Huisman, Wim; Erp, Judith van

doi:10.1093/bjc/azt036

Cited by 87 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the detection rates for environmental crimes are usually somewhat low, and rationalizations to explain away the situation are easy to find (Huisman & van Erp, 2013, p. 1195. Generally speaking, corporations have the motivation such as outperforming rival companies by increasing profits via reducing costs.…”

Section: Strategies Of Preventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At the same time, the likelihood of being prosecuted and convicted of an environmental crime with the imposition of a severe sentence is generally considered to be very low (Bisschop, 2012;Comte, 2006;du Rées, 2001;Emery & Watson, 2004, p. 741;Korsell, 2001;Sahramäki & Kankaanranta, 2014). Moreover, the savings in the cost of compliance are tempting, and it is felt that environmental offences are relatively easy to commit (Huisman & van Erp, 2013, p. 1195. As a result, corporations may actually have disincentive to comply with environmental regulation (Fortney 2003(Fortney , p. 1609.…”

Section: Strategies Of Preventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Environmental crimes can be seen as crimes of omission, where the violation occurs when the parties are not complying with regulatory requirements (Huisman & van Erp, 2013, p. 1185. As such, environmental enforcement has to 'walk a fine line between being overly harsh and overly lax if it is to accomplish its goals' (Fortney, 2003(Fortney, , p. 1609.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Prevention of environmental crime through enforcement—Finland and Sweden compared

Sahramäki

Korsell

Kankaanranta

2015

jssccp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to contribute to the research into prevention of environmental crimes, by comparing the environmental crime enforcement chain in Finland with that in Sweden: detection, prosecution and the punishment with sanctions. We examined (1) what are the main differences and similarities in enforcement between Finland and Sweden? and (2) how can crime prevention through enforcement be developed further based on these findings? The comparison is based on legislation, official documents and statistics. The findings suggest that a high rate of reporting crimes alone does not necessarily indicate more effective prevention of environmental crime, as pre-trial investigations quite rarely lead to prosecution. Most of the sanctions for environmental offences are monetary and quite small. However, in Sweden the use of the corporate fine is significantly more frequent than in Finland. It is concluded that, even though enforcement is essential, prevention of environmental crime, stressing voluntary compliance and administrative sanctions instead may be more effective in the long-run.

show abstract

Section: Strategies Of Preventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Strategies Of Preventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prevention of environmental crime through enforcement—Finland and Sweden compared

Sahramäki

Korsell

Kankaanranta

2015

jssccp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Besides drawing from existing criminological studies on waste crime, this paper builds on the findings of our own studies on the Dutch waste sector (Huisman 2001;Van Erp and Huisman, 2010;Huisman and van Erp, 2013) and the Belgian trade in e-waste (Bisschop 2015). We also pay attention to how these three criminological perspectives are reflected in reports and recommendations on waste crime by NGOs and international governmental organizations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Waste crime from three criminological perspectives

Bisschop¹,

Huisman²

2018

Green Crimes and Dirty Money

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper focuses on the waste-crime nexus. We discuss which implications different criminological approaches to the waste-crime nexus and their respective etiological explanations and views on financial incentives hold for crime control and harm prevention. After all, the criminogenic opportunities of waste as a product and a sector are utilized by corporations as well as criminal organizations. This makes waste crime a topic of research for corporate crime and organized crime scholars. Moreover, waste crime is also a topic of green criminological research. For each of these three perspectives, we discuss what consequences the theories have for controlling and preventing waste crime and whether the contemporary regulation and enforcement answers to these requirements. Besides existing criminological studies on waste crime, this paper builds on the finds of our own studies on the Dutch waste sector and the Belgian trade in e-waste. We also pay attention to how these three criminological perspectives are reflected in reports and recommendations on waste crime by NGOs and international governmental organizations. For each of the three perspectives, we discuss a couple of prominent cases of waste crime that reflect the framing of the nature and the causes of the theoretical perspectives.

show abstract

“…Food Fraud-including the U.S. FDA defined subcategory of economically motivation or EMA-is illegal deception conducted for economic gain (China Daily Newspaper, 2014;DEFRA, 2014;EC, 2014;Food Standards Agency, 2014;FSA/UK, 2006;GFSI, 2014aGFSI, , 2014bISO, 2010ISO, , 2011IUFoST, 2016;Spink et al, 2014;WU, 2017). There is an increased vulnerability to the deception since the global food industry is faced with rapid innovation driven by technology advances and market changes as consumer choices and preferences evolve (Huisman & Van Erp, 2013;Lord, Flores Elizondo, & Spencer, 2017;Silvis, van Ruth, van der Fels-Klerx, & Luning, 2017;Spink, 2019;Spink, Hegarty, Fortin, Elliott, & Moyer, 2019b; van Ruth, Luning, Silvis, Yang, & Huisman, 2018). Regulations and standards covering the safety of food are also evolving to keep up with these changes in the marketplace, all aimed at protecting the consumer.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

International Survey of Food Fraud and Related Terminology: Preliminary Results and Discussion

Spink

Bedard²,

Keogh

et al. 2019

Journal of Food Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The food industry is advancing at a rapid pace and consumer sensitivity to food safety scares and food fraud scandals is further amplified by rapid communication such as by social media. Academia, regulators, and industry practitioners alike struggle with an evolving issue regarding new terms and definitions including food fraud, food authenticity, food integrity, food protection, economically motivated adulteration, food crime, food security, contaminant, adulterant, and others. This research addressed some of the global need for clarification and harmonization of commonly used terminology. The 150 survey responses were received from various food‐related workgroups or committee members, communication with recognized experts, and announcements to the food industry in general. Overall food fraud was identified as a “food safety” issue (86%). The food quality and manufacturing respondents focused mainly on incoming goods and adulterant‐substances (<50%) rather than the other illegal activities such as counterfeiting, theft, gray market/diversion, and smuggling. Of the terms included to represent “intentional deception for economic gain” the respondents generally agreed with food fraud as the preferred term. Overall, the preference was 50% “food fraud,” 15% “economically motivated adulteration” EMA, 9% “food protection,” 7% “food integrity,” 5% “food authenticity,” and 2% “food crime.” It appears that “food protection” and “food integrity” are terms that cover broader concepts such as all types of intentional acts and even possibly food safety or food quality. “Food authenticity” was defined with the phrase “to ensure” so seemed to be identified as an “attribute” that helped define fraudulent acts. Practical Application Food Fraud—illegal deception for economic gain using food—is a rapidly evolving research topic and is facing confusion due to the use of different terms and definitions. This research survey presented common definitions and publication details to gain insight that could help provide clarity. The insight from this report provides guidance for others who are harmonizing terminology and setting the overall strategic direction.

show abstract

Opportunities for Environmental Crime: A Test of Situational Crime Prevention Theory

Cited by 87 publications

References 20 publications

Prevention of environmental crime through enforcement—Finland and Sweden compared

Prevention of environmental crime through enforcement—Finland and Sweden compared

Waste crime from three criminological perspectives

International Survey of Food Fraud and Related Terminology: Preliminary Results and Discussion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About