What are the main criteria for a typology of corporate crime? 

Which criteria do you regard as most significant, and which as least significant? 

What are the benefits and limitations of discussing and studying corporate crime without relying upon a typological approach?

    

 

A TYPOLOGY OF CORPORATE CRIME How can we best categorize the many different activities that can be encompassed by the term cor- porate crime? One approach is to adopt a typology emphasizing the primary victims: for example, the general public, consumers, employees, or a corpo- ration's competitors. A second approach is to focus on the nature of the harmful activity: for example, corporate violence, corporate corruption, corporate stealing, or corporate deceptions. A third approach emphasizes the size or scope of the corporate entity: for example, crimes of transnational corporations; crimes of major domestic corporations; crimes of small, locally based corporations; or crimes of incor- porated individual enterprises. A fourth approach has classified corporate crime according to the type of product or service involved: for example, crimes of the automotive industry, crimes of the pharmaceutical industry, crimes of the banking industry, or crimes of health care providers. Other criteria can be taken into account in differentiating among corporate crimes. One crite- rion is the primary corporate agent of the criminal activity, such as the chief executive officer or prin- cipal executives, the middle managers, the corpo- rate supervisors, or employees. One can ask which instrument or mechanism is used to initiate and commit the crime. Other criteria for classifying corporate transgressions emphasize the type of law invoked (criminal, civil, or administrative) or the specific legal class involved (e.g., antitrust, consu- mer protection, environmental).