Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice

2014 Edition
| Editors: Gerben Bruinsma, David Weisburd

Naming and Shaming of Corporate Offenders

Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_438



Pressure from the social environment of business is a major explanatory factor for corporate compliance. The threat of negative publicity, reputation damage, and social stigma may prevent business offenses or socially irresponsible or unethical business behavior. Therefore, both public and private regulatory actors attempt to activate social control by naming and shamingfirms that offend legal or social norms. Exposing corporate misbehavior to the public may trigger stakeholders to impose “reputation sanctions” that largely exceed the impact of legal sanctions, such as fines. Public enforcement authorities therefore increasingly make use of publicity in their enforcement strategies, and disclose names of offenders in an attempt to increase the impact of regulatory sanctions. Similarly, NGOs actively “name and shame” firms involved in socially or environmentally harmful behavior to invoke extralegal pressure in...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Recommended Reading and References

  1. Ahmed E, Harris N, Braithwaite J, Braithwaite V (2001) Shame management through reintegration. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Almond P (2009) The dangers of hanging baskets: ‘regulatory myths’ and media representations of health and safety regulation. J Law Soc 36:352–375Google Scholar
  3. Ayres I, Braithwaite J (1992) Responsive regulation: transcending the deregulation debate. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Benson ML (1990) Emotions and adjudication: status degradation among white-collar criminals. Just Q 7:515–528Google Scholar
  5. Braithwaite J (1989) Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Braithwaite J, Drahos P (2002) Zero tolerance, naming and shaming: is there a case for it with crimes of the powerful? Aust NZ J Criminol 35:269–288Google Scholar
  7. Braithwaite J, Ahmed E, Braithwaite V (2006) Shame, restorative justice, and crime. In: Cullen F, Wright J, Blevins K (eds) Taking stock: the status of criminological theory – advances in criminological theory. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, pp 397–417Google Scholar
  8. Fisse B, Braithwaite J (1983) The impact of publicity on corporate offenders. State University of New York Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  9. Fung A, Graham M, Weil D (2007) Full disclosure: the perils and promise of transparency. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Gunningham N, Kagan R, Thornton D (2004) Social license and environmental protection: why businesses go beyond compliance. Law Soc Inq 29:307–341Google Scholar
  11. Harris N (2001) Shaming and shame: regulating drink-driving. In: Ahmed E, Harris N, Braithwaite J, Braithwaite V (eds) Shame management through reintegration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 73–210Google Scholar
  12. Hirschman A (1970) Exit, voice, and loyalty: responses to decline in firms, organizations and states. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Kagan R, Gunningham N, Thornton D (2011) Fear, duty, and regulatory compliance: lessons from three research projects. In: Parker C, Lehman Nielsen V (eds) Explaining compliance. Business responses to regulation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 37–58Google Scholar
  14. Karpoff J, Lott J, Wehrly E (2005) The reputation penalties for environmental violations: empirical evidence. J Law Econ 48:653–675Google Scholar
  15. Karpoff J, Lee D, Martin G (2008) The cost to firms of cooking the books. J Financ Quant Anal 43:581–612Google Scholar
  16. Kraft ME, Stephan M, Abel T (2011) Coming clean, information disclosure and environmental performance. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Levi M (2006) The media construction of financial white-collar crimes. Br J Criminol 46:1037–1057Google Scholar
  18. Makkai T, Braithwaite J (1994) Reintegrative shaming and compliance with regulatory standards. Criminology 32:361–385Google Scholar
  19. Murphy K, Harris N (2007) Shaming, shame, and recidivism: a test of reintegrative shaming theory in the white-collar crime context. Br J Criminol 47:900–917Google Scholar
  20. Parker C (2006) The compliance trap: the moral message in responsive regulatory enforcement. Law Soc Rev 40:591–622Google Scholar
  21. Pawson R (2002) Evidence and policy in naming and shaming. Policy Stud 23:211–230Google Scholar
  22. Thornton D, Gunningham N, Kagan R (2005) General deterrence and corporate environmental behavior. Law & Policy 27:262–288Google Scholar
  23. Thornton D, Kagan R, Gunningham N (2009) When social norms and pressures are not enough: environmental performance in the trucking industry. Law Soc Rev 43:405–436Google Scholar
  24. van Erp J (2010) Regulatory disclosure of offending companies in the Dutch financial market: consumer protection or enforcement publicity? Law & Policy 32:407–433Google Scholar
  25. van Erp J (2011a) Naming and shaming in regulatory enforcement. In: Parker C, Lehman Nielsen V (eds) Explaining compliance. Business responses to regulation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 322–343Google Scholar
  26. van Erp J (2011b) Naming without shaming: the publication of sanctions in the Dutch financial market. Regul Gov 5(3):287–308Google Scholar
  27. Vogel D (2005) The market for virtue: the potential and limits of corporate social responsibility. Brookings Institution Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  28. Wagner-Von Papp F (2011) What if all bid riggers went to prison and nobody noticed? In: Beaton Wells C, Ezrachi A (eds) Criminalising cartels, critical studies of an international regulatory movement. Hart, Oxford, pp 157–182Google Scholar
  29. Weil D, Fung A, Graham M, Fagotto E (2006) The effectiveness of regulatory disclosure policies. J Policy Anal Manage 25:155–181Google Scholar
  30. Williams K, Hawkins R (1986) Perceptional research on general deterrence: a critical review. Law Soc Rev 20(4):545–572Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Erasmus School of Law, Criminology DepartmentRotterdamThe Netherlands