What Works?

Abstract

Research SummaryWe conducted a meta-analysis of corporate crime deterrence strategies by using 80 effect sizes calculated from 58 studies in four treatment areas-Law, Punitive Sanctions, Regulatory Policy, and Multiple Treatments. Of the single-treatment strategies, only Regulatory Policy produced a significant deterrent impact at the company level, but the results were not consistent across all study and effect size types. Studies examining multiple treatments, though, produced a consistent, significant deterrent effect on offending at both the individual and company levels. Policy ImplicationsOur results suggest that regulatory policies that involve consistent inspections and include a cooperative or educational component aimed at the industry may have a substantial impact on corporate offending. However, a mixture of agency interventions will likely have the biggest impact on broadly defined corporate crime. The variety of offenders and behaviors included in corporate crime and its relative complexity likely necessitate multiple intervention strategies, which is similar to the "pulling levers" approach Research ArticleCorporate Crime Deterrence developed to deter gang violence and the responsive regulation strategy advocated by Braithwaite (2011). However, given some of the shortcomings in the literature, we also recommend that scholars and practitioners more clearly and consistently define the phenomenon of "corporate crime" and target evaluation research toward specific programs and interventions.

Regulating for integration by behavioral design: An evidence‐based approach for culturally responsive regulation

“…Schell‐Busey et al . 2016). In contrast, the behavioral approach emerged bottom‐up, based on thousands of experimental studies that meticulously mapped various factors that influence behavior.…”

“…It took time before scholars began examining empirically whether responsive regulation "works," in the sense of increasing compliance (e.g. Schell-Busey et al 2016). In contrast, the behavioral approach emerged bottom-up, based on thousands of experimental studies that meticulously mapped various factors that influence behavior.…”

Behavioral responsive regulation: Bringing together responsive regulation and behavioral public policy

“…However, as the authors conclude, “with the general weaknesses in the literature, we cannot artfully construct the layers and actions of the enforcement pyramid” (Schell‐Busey et al . 2016). In addition, several interview‐based studies argue that regulators find RR ambiguous and complicated and are often pressured by politicians to take a particular approach toward regulatees, regardless of the pyramid (Mascini & Wijk 2009; Nielsen & Parker 2009).…”

Stealing Like Artists: Using Court Records to Conduct Quantitative Research on Corporate Environmental Crimes

“…Lynch et al, 2016;Simpson, 2019). Rather than responding with calls for more criminal indictments, fines and prison terms for corporate executives, some legal scholars have argued that the street crimes should be handled more like white-collar crimes, with a variety of deterrence options (Schell-Busey et al, 2016), and that smart policing shown to be effective with street crime could be scaled to address corporate crimes (Brown, 2001;Laufer, 2017). A recent study analyzing the "hot spots" for environmental crime across U.S. states is a promising start in this direction .…”