Sociology Compass 5 ⁄ 7 (2011): 499–511, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00381.

‘Green-Collar Crime’: Environmental Crime and Justice in

the Sociological Perspective
Brian Wolf*
Department of Sociology, University of Idaho

Abstract
One of the more neglected areas of research in the field of criminology are the crimes committed
by ‘white collar’ offenders. An even more understudied area is the corporate crimes that are com-
mitted against the environment for profit. Despite this dearth of research, there have been several
sociologically significant examinations into some of the more serious environmental crimes com-
mitted over the last three decades. While some of this research is theoretically underdeveloped,
more recent studies have attempted to develop a coherent framework to study environmental
crime. By linking and synthesizing two literatures in both white-collar criminology and environ-
mental justice, sociologists have begun to develop a framework for examining ‘green crimes’, the
motivations, opportunity context, victimology, and enforcement issues. This article will be a sur-
vey of these studies and development literature along with some typological and definitional issues
relevant to the subfield. This aims to map where criminology has been in the sub-field of envi-
ronmental crime and provides directions for where future research should be headed.

Introduction
The dual public issues of crime and environmental conditions are common subjects con-
cerning the quality of life of individual people. Crime, or the absence thereof, is a long-
standing indicator of wellbeing for people and communities. Similarly, the quality of the
environment is regularly mentioned as a subjective and objective barometer of overall liv-
ing conditions. Crime and environmental degradation are more than mere blights on
communities; they encapsulate central questions of human rights and the overall health of
humanity. Separately, the problems of crime and environmental degradation have
received much attention by scholars, politicians, the media, and individual citizens over
the past four decades. However, only recently have the two areas of crime and the envi-
ronment been strongly linked by sociologists and criminologists. While the dilemma of
crime and the environment remain distinct areas in the minds of most, they are directly
linked in a growing area of criminological inquiry.
The problem of environmental crime was slow to catch on as a viable topic of study for
criminologists. A review of articles and books in the sociological literature found only a
half-dozen studies examining the problem before the year 2000. Prior surveys of research
found a similar paucity of work in the criminological literatures despite a growing interest
in environmental justice research (Zilney et al. 2006). Beginning in the late 1980s,
researchers from a variety of fields, forming what is known as environmental justice, found
a growing body of evidence that indicated that the victims of environmental degradation
were disproportionately poor and racial minorities (Bullard 1990, 1994; United Church of
Christ 1987). These findings pointed to clear environmental injustices and inequalities in
the effects of pollution and likelihood of being a victim of an environmental crime. While

ª 2011 The Author

Sociology Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
500 Environmental Crime in the Sociological Perspective

the patterns of victimization became increasingly clear, relatively little was known about
those responsible for environmental crimes, those who profit from such crimes, and the
patterns of offending among large-scale polluters (Szasz and Meuser 1997). For criminolo-
gists, environmental justice is significant as it points to a clear victimology where people
from underprivileged sociological strata are unequally affected by environmental harms.
Some of the most important contributions criminology can make are in understanding
more about the patterns of illegality in environmental crimes.
Environmental criminology has emerged from a multidisciplinary body of work to spe-
cifically investigate the problem of crimes against the environment. Drawing primarily
from questions and perspectives emergent from the sub-field of white-collar crime, envi-
ronmental criminologists conduct research into the forms, causes, and consequences of
law breaking that harms the environment. This article is a survey of research relevant to
green criminology, the theoretical dilemmas, and methodological issues associated with
studying environmental crime. Accompanying this is a review of recent studies that have
reoriented the field and paved way for future research. Issues in the conceptualization,
definitions, and methodological issues are also presented. Finally, an offender typology
and description is presented to specify what types of social actors may be involved in
environmental crimes.

Definitional issues
Edwin Sutherland first proposed the concept of white-collar crime in 1939 to refer to
the crimes of high status people. Sutherland believed that the existence of white-collar
crime presented a challenge to traditional understandings of crime as such offences lacked
the attention and stigma associated with street criminals (1949). Since Sutherland’s seminal
work, other criminologists have developed the field of white-collar crime to study a
wide-range of corporate wrongdoing. Such studies have detailed the crimes in various
industries such as automobiles and pharmaceuticals while others have looked at various
behaviors such as antitrust and securities fraud. Despite a wide-ranging scope of white-
collar offenses, environmental crimes were largely left unexamined. Only in recent years
has criminology been ‘greened’. In the deep wake left by environmental justice research,
a few criminologists began to investigate the patterns and characteristics of environmental
crime offenders. Conceptualizing the problem within existing criminological discourses,
interwoven with literatures from ecology and environmental justice, environmental crimi-
nology has emerged as a viable research topic.
The term ‘green crime’ was first proposed to describe the behaviors of corporations
that break laws protecting the environment (Frank and Lynch 1992). Others have noted
the significance of the ‘green-collar’ criminal whose actions, akin to white-collar criminals
in motive and characteristics, engage in actions that harm the environment (O’Hear
2004). Criminologists have observed the emergence of ‘environmental criminology’ that
incorporates the imperatives of environmental justice research while reconciling environ-
mental crime as a distinct area of inquiry within criminology (Lynch and Stretesky 2007).
Environmental criminology has not yet been fully established, but common theoretical
frameworks and methodological avenues of research have emerged. Gibbs et al. (2010)
introduced the field of ‘conservation criminology’ demonstrating how a multidisciplinary
perspective can build conceptual foundations within criminology that considers the broad
context and effect environmental crimes have. Our understanding of environmental crime
and the problems associated with this lawbreaking can be greatly enhanced through the
incorporation of contributions from the natural sciences while drawing on the unique

ª 2011 The Author Sociology Compass 5 ⁄ 7 (2011): 499–511, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00381.x

Sociology Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Environmental Crime in the Sociological Perspective 501

perspective of sociology has in the understanding of patterns of law breaking and norm
violations.
The definition of environmental crime is subject to much debate and a source of some
contention among criminologists. The term, environmental crime, may be used to
describe a wide array of behaviors that range from individual acts of littering to the large-
scale emissions of toxics by multinational corporations (Clifford and Edwards 1998).
Indeed, like other forms of crime, environmental crime is a relative term and a social
construct that is the subject of much debate. Laws defining what constitutes an environ-
mental crime can vary spatially and temporally. In fact, a wide-range of harmful corporate
and white-collar behaviors that harm the environment are not criminalized. For example,
many firms are permitted to emit toxins provided they do not exceed specified limits,
while other firms may engage in behaviors in one jurisdiction that may be considered
illegal elsewhere. In addition, like other types of white-collar and corporate crimes, being
labeled an environmental criminal may not carry the same stigma as conventional crimes
(Sutherland 1949 ⁄ 1983).
Just as there is some debate as to what constitutes environmental justice, there is much
debate among criminologists as to how to operationalize the concept of ‘crime’. Some
prefer strict legalistic approaches while others opt for social constructionist definitions
(Goode 2011). Some scholars may opt for a broad and amorphous definition of environ-
mental crime that includes any behaviors that are considered ecologically harmful or
unsustainable. For example, from an environmental justice perspective, green criminology
should include actions that ‘may or may not violate existing rules and environmental reg-
ulations; has identifiable environmental damage outcomes; and originated in human
action’ (Lynch and Stretesky 2003, 227). However, many criminologists have conceptual
and methodological issues with including behaviors that are not prohibited by laws.
Another perspective limits the universe of inquiry to a scope of actions that break specific
environmental laws that carry some form of criminal sanction. Situ and Emmons (2000),
for instance, argue that without a criminal sanction, environmental behaviors cannot be
considered criminal.
Like other areas of crime and deviance, the definition of environmental crime is an
evolving social construction and the subject of some debate among criminologists and
environmental justice researchers. Polluting or unsustainable activities that may be com-
pletely legal in one place may be considered illegal or criminal in another jurisdiction.
Globalization further complicates the concept of environmental crime as large-scale
polluters are known to move manufacturing operations to the global south to avoid
pollution laws in more developed countries (White 2008). This dilemma has led to a
continuum of operational definitions proposed that purviews from wide-ranging and
ecologically damaging categories, to very specific definitions of acts that fall within strict
limitations of legal descriptions. Most white-collar criminologists utilize a definition of
environmental crime that includes actions that break criminal, civil or administrative laws
that require an enforcement response (Clinard and Yeager 1980). This operational defini-
tion enables a relatively objective examination of environmental behaviors prohibited by
specific environmental protection statutes. Conversely, environmental justice scholars urge
researchers to look beyond legalistic conceptualizations of environmental crime and
examine the problem of social inequalities and disparities in how laws are made, applied
and enforced.
Despite the controversy in defining what specifically constitutes an environmental
crime, it is possible to conduct a criminology of environmental law breaking that includes
a victimology, offender typology, and research program. To do this effectively, some

ª 2011 The Author Sociology Compass 5 ⁄ 7 (2011): 499–511, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00381.x

Sociology Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
502 Environmental Crime in the Sociological Perspective

consideration should be made of the context of environmental law making, the complex-
ities of the content of the law and the agencies that are involved in enforcing them.
Additionally, environmental justice researchers advise that good scholarship into environ-
mental problems should include concepts of justice and equality that take into account
broad imperatives of sustainability, ecology, and human rights.

Environmental victimization and environmental justice

Environmental justice research has uncovered a large area of inquiry to which criminolo-
gists could apply their expertise to understand patterns, motives, and explanations as to
how and why environmental laws are broken. This expertise includes an understanding
of factors within and among organizations that may be criminogenic. Furthermore, crimi-
nologists can lend their expertise in investigating the disparities in environmental crime
victimization. This led to calls for research into the perpetrators of environmental crimes
and more specifically for criminologists to conduct environmental justice research on the
patterns of environmental offending by profit-seeking manufacturing corporations and
other organizations (Burns and Lynch 2004; Simon 2000). Since these several calls for
more research, a few criminologists have attempted to take on the task of linking the
ecologically harmful criminal behaviors of organizations and individuals to the overall
problem of environmental degradation. Much of this research has taken the form of sev-
eral important collections of edited volumes (Beirne and South 2007; Clifford 1998) and
books (Burns and Lynch 2004; White 2008) conceptualizing the overall problem of envi-
ronmental corporate crime. Despite more research in the area of environmental crime,
the significance and patterns of environmental crime has not been fully acknowledged in
criminology. There is much more work to be done by criminologists in the area of envi-
ronmental justice research.
The victimology of environmental crime has certain parallels with literatures in other
sub-fields and similarities with other areas of criminology. These connections may also be
found in the environmental justice literatures. For example, criminologists have long
established that the lower classes and racial minorities are much more likely to be victim-
ized by violent crime. Similarly, the risks and victimization rates from environmental
crimes are not distributed evenly throughout the population. Like other crimes, the poor
and minorities have been found to be much more likely to be victims of environmental
crimes than the financially well off (Bullard 1990). Additionally, it is documented that
people who reside in the Third World countries have far greater chances of being
exposed to various toxins and thus environmental crimes (White 2003). These patterns of
victimization demonstrate inequalities in how pollution and environmental crimes impact
the poor, racial minorities, and otherwise less powerful people.
Legalistically, environmental justice would entail equity in the distribution of pollution
and the equal protection from environmental harm under the law. The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) officially defines environmental justice as ‘the fair treatment
and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or
income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environ-
mental laws, regulations, and policies’ (Quoted in Zilney et al. 2006). Law oriented
approaches to environmental justice codify that no group or population would be unfairly
subjected to environmental harm due to economic or political disempowerment. Envi-
ronmentalists would maintain that the concept of environmental justice should extend
beyond these legalistic parameters to include more holistic imperatives of sustainability
and ecology (Zilney et al. 2006). Environmental inequities are part of a complex and

ª 2011 The Author Sociology Compass 5 ⁄ 7 (2011): 499–511, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00381.x

Sociology Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Environmental Crime in the Sociological Perspective 503

entrenched process of history and multiple stakeholders with varying and sometimes con-
tradictory interests (Pellow 2000). It follows that environmental injustices and crimes are
a part of a complex sociological context of laws, human actions, and reactions. For envi-
ronmental justice scholars, the law has been ineffective in offering ‘equal protection’ and
they suggest we examine broader sociological parameters related to power, social inequal-
ities, communities, health, crime, and human rights.
Another important concept to understanding the inequalities of environmental crime
victimology is environmental racism. Corresponding to institutional racism, the term is used
to describe corporate and governmental decisions that results in a structure that unequally
subjects racial and ethnic minorities to the burden of waste and pollution (Bullard 1994).
Environmental racism has been described as policies resulting from corporate and govern-
mental decisions that results in a disproportionate exposure of environmental risks to racial
minorities (Bryant 1995). Neighborhood segregation may also intersect with the likelihood
of being victimized by environmental pollution as toxic releases appear to be racialized.
In violation of equal protection laws, the justice system in the United States appears to
bolster this unequal system of environmental racism. For example, a study on enforce-
ment efforts and penalties against petroleum refiners found that fines for environmental
violations were significantly lower in areas where blacks and other minorities reside
(Lynch et al. 2004). An earlier study found similar results where fines were most severe
against offenders who violated environmental statutes in predominantly white zip codes
(Lavelle and Coyle 1992). Based on these studies and the continued inequities that under-
lie them, criminologists have found evidence that indicates systemic environmental racism
in the patterns of pollution and enforcement of environmental laws.

Environmental law and enforcement

In the United States, environmental laws date back at least 100 years. However, the first
laws were generally designed at the behest of business interests and contained no substan-
tial criminal penalties. It was not until the late 1960s that laws were crafted that effec-
tively criminalized certain environmental offences (Lynch et al.). These laws were passed
amidst a growing consciousness of a public stirred by growing pollution problems in
waterways, atmosphere, and other social commons. This consciousness was mobilized in
1969 as several environmental catastrophes such as the Santa Barbara oil spill in California
and the Cuyahoga River in Cincinnati catching fire. Such events, along with an increas-
ing awareness of ecological problems, spurred a variety of social movements and a public
demanding stronger and more comprehensive environmental legislation. A series of laws
were passed beginning with the Nixon administration in 1970 that extended the federal
regulatory apparatus to protect the air, land, and sea.
In tandem with the passage of environmental laws was the creation of the enforcement
arm of federal environmental laws, the EPA. Despite having a mission as an independent
federal agency, the EPA has a long history of politicization and criticism from vying sides
of the environmental debate. Industry groups often object to most types of oversight and
aggressively lobby to decrease the EPA’s authority, while ecologists and activist groups
have pointed to permissive enforcement, underfunding and regulatory capture of the
agency (Friedrichs 2006). Besides the EPA, other federal agencies may be charged with
regulating environmental emissions and enforcing environmental laws; local authorities
and state departments of environmental quality play a role in policing the environment.
Traditionally, inspections, monitoring, and fines are the main enforcement tool used
by the EPA to ensure regulatory compliance (White 2010). However, lacking the stigma

ª 2011 The Author Sociology Compass 5 ⁄ 7 (2011): 499–511, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00381.x

Sociology Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
504 Environmental Crime in the Sociological Perspective

of other crimes and considering the low dollar amounts of the penalties, the punitive
effect of these actions are questionable. Firms may find it more profitable to pay fines
than to fix the problem. Besides a permissive enforcement structure, there is also evidence
pointing to discontinuity in how fines are issued by the EPA. For example, oil refineries
located closer to white and middle class neighborhoods get more severe fines than refin-
eries located near minority neighborhoods (Lynch et al. 2004). Proposals to increase fines
and inspections may be met with fierce resistance from business groups, leading the EPA
to experiment with alternative measures to gain environmental compliance.
Environmental regulation and enforcement policy in the United States has attempted
to strike a balance between citizens’ demands for the right to know about environmental
toxins, spills, crimes, and policy philosophies of allowing corporations to self regulate
(Grant 1997). The balance between so-called free market imperatives and concerns of
environmental health is often precarious. The result has been a policy and enforcement
structure that encourages voluntary compliance and ‘self-policing’ initiatives (Rebovich
1998). While there is considerable debate about the policy merits of this regulatory struc-
ture, right-to-know policies have resulted in a wealth of information about firms and
organizations that are permitted and regulated by the EPA (see, for example, Burns and
Lynch 2004). Voluntary compliance programs aim to offer an alternative to criminal pros-
ecution and formal punitive actions. This is based on the premise that in principle corpo-
rations and other organizations can be ‘self-policing’. The effect of voluntary compliance
and self-policing policies on pollution and environmental law violations has been dubious.
One important study found that participation in such programs demonstrates no effect on
chemical emissions and that formal enforcement actions are the best way to ensure pollu-
tion reductions (Lynch and Stretesky 2007). While the combined power of industry
groups have appeared to weaken the control response of the state, the establishment of
right-to-know policies have opened up areas for scrutiny by activist groups as well as
researchers.

Methodological issues
Until recently, most accounts of environmental crime have been largely descriptive
accounts of specific crimes taking the form of case studies. Some of the most infamous
instances of environmental crime have been the subject of legal and case studies that detail
the illegal behaviors prompting the crime, the consequences to the community and the
government response. Such case studies include the Love Canal where toxic sludge from
an abandoned dump leaked into a school and homes poisoning hundreds and forcing the
relocation of hundreds more (Brown 1980). The 1989 Exxon Valdez spill has been a
source of many case studies and descriptions (most notably Picou et al. 2008; Ott 2005).
The recent case of the petroleum company, BP’s drilling rig explosion and massive oil spill
in the Gulf of Mexico is undoubtedly full of instances of crimes and actions ripe for analysis
by criminologists. The details from this case suggest that BP had circumvented dozens of
laws and already has a lengthy criminal history as an environmental recidivist. While case
studies are useful in giving rich and detailed descriptions of instances of illegal environmen-
tal behaviors and consequences, they are theoretically and methodologically limited in the
potential to explain and generalize environmental non-compliant behaviors. More infor-
mation is needed that identifies the environmentally criminogenic characteristics of organi-
zational offenders.
The measuring, monitoring, and reporting of corporate environmental crimes and
enforcement represents a bewildering puzzle for many criminologists. There are few reliable

ª 2011 The Author Sociology Compass 5 ⁄ 7 (2011): 499–511, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00381.x

Sociology Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Environmental Crime in the Sociological Perspective 505

and standardized sources of data on most white-collar crimes, as no such database systemati-
cally tracks these crimes the way the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports tracks street crime for
example. This problem has led to some difficulty in formulating dependent variables for
researchers who aim to examine corporate crime using statistical tests and dynamic method-
ologies. Furthermore, criminologists may lack the expertise needed to understand the com-
plex reporting systems of corporate crimes and the econometrics utilized in understanding
firm behavior and performance (Gibbs and Simpson 2009). This problem has been mitigated
in the case of environmental crimes with the advent of systematized reports and data on
environmental violations and made public by the EPA in electronically accessible formats.
In a valuable sourcebook, Burns and Lynch (2004) have explored and attempted to system-
atically aggregate and condense the array of sources of data about environmental crimes that
are available on the Internet and other electronic sources. These materials contain much
information about environmental crimes and pollution sources that have yet to be fully
explored by criminologists, yet they represent much untapped potential for studies on cor-
porate environmental offending that utilize dynamic methodologies.
With the advent of electronic and online sources of data about environmental crimes,
more research is being attempted to link the illegal environmental behaviors of organiza-
tions to a variety of structural, normative, and economic traits. Dependent variables
embedded in environmental crime data can include offenses, sanctions, quantity toxic
releases (TRI), and enforcement actions. Gibbs and Simpson (2009) mention the problem
in measuring environmental crime in terms of simply EPA inspections, sanctions, number
of violations, and quantity of waste. Finding that smaller firms have more violations yet
fewer inspections, they propose that triangulation represents the best approach in the
attempt to construct a barometer of environmental offending.
The problem of globalization presents even more dilemmas for researchers as companies
simply move overseas to avoid regulations. Comparisons between and among industrialized
countries is a possible but hitherto unattempted task. Some have suggested devising indica-
tors to demonstrate levels of toxics per person by country as a proximate indicator of over-
all environmental crime rates (White 2008). Even more data are needed on the transport
of toxics across borders and comparisons between legal statutes of various countries.

Offender typologies
A social constructionist conception of environmental crime directs our attention to a vari-
ety of criminal and non-criminal behaviors of specific social actors. Classifying environ-
mental crimes may vary by offender type and the motivation for the crime. White-collar
criminologists generally distinguish white-collar crimes on the basis of the offender type
and the motivation for the wrongdoing (Friedrichs 2006). Crimes may be committed for
individual gain or on behalf of an organization. These organizations can be legitimate
enterprises or organized crime syndicates. Broadly, a four-actor typology may be con-
structed based on the sort of offender who is committing the act. Types of offenders
include individuals, business organizations, governments, and organized criminals. Each of
these social actors may vary by motives and opportunities or they may interact or collude
with one another in the commission of a crime.

Individuals
Generally, criminology tends to focus on the crimes of individuals, while ignoring the
crimes of organizations and businesses. Individual environmental crimes, however, have

ª 2011 The Author Sociology Compass 5 ⁄ 7 (2011): 499–511, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00381.x

Sociology Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
506 Environmental Crime in the Sociological Perspective

received almost no attention in the criminological literature (Shover and Routhe, 2005).
The underrepresentation of individuals in environmental crime research is most likely
related to the overall paucity in environmental crime research and scarce research interests
directed at crimes of much larger scales and scopes. Individual environmental crimes may
include crimes such as petty littering or the illegal disposal of household waste. It is diffi-
cult to determine the full extent of individual green crimes, but given the large amount
of litter and illegal dumps of household items it is undoubtedly widespread. Laws con-
cerning the disposal of batteries, tires, and other common household items may not be
followed by individual citizens. As many municipalities continue to pass laws to mandate
recycling and eliminate toxics and other wastes from landfills, the environmental crime of
individuals, households, and small businesses should be given greater consideration. Con-
sistent with the findings of environmental justice research, small-scale studies have found
that small and large-scale dumping is concentrated in urban and rural areas disproportion-
ally affected by poverty (Tunnell 2008). Much more research is needed to understand the
full extent and causes of individual environmental crimes.

Corporations
While single acts of environmental crime by individuals may be widespread, the environ-
mental crimes of private corporations are the most devastating in terms of the scale and
scope of their offenses. By far, corporations are responsible for the bulk of pollution and
emissions of toxic materials (Grant et al. 2002). It follows that the illegal environmental
behaviors of corporations are of considerable concern. Criminologists have learned that
environmental non-compliance is a common behavior among manufacturing firms (Simp-
son et al. 2007). However, these studies find that compliance and recidivism may very by
firm characteristics, performance, and enforcement considerations. Prior sociological liter-
atures may help us understand how and why some firms may be more environmentally
non-compliant than others.
Environmental criminologists have adapted several explanations for the green crimes of
corporations that already exist in white-collar crime literatures. These explanations
generally consider material incentives, normative environments, and organizational
complexities. Studies have employed variants of social strain and rational choice theory to
test motivations for environmental law breaking (McKendall and Wagner 1997). The
explanation here is that individuals and companies are motivated to break they law
because environmental crime pays. Others have considered the normative environment of
corporations in addition to the overall regulatory environment (Wolf 2009). Firm com-
plexity may also contribute to the level of corporate offending. (Baucus and Near 1991).
Firm size, management, and subsidiary structure have all been found to be associated with
excess pollution when controlling for other factors (Grant and Jones 2003). The most
comprehensive empirical studies on the factors associated with environmental violations
suggest that a coalescence of industry type, firm size, organizational structure, profit
motives, and strain may be associated with environmental non-compliance (Simpson
et al. 2007). While the material incentives and financial strain remain obvious motives for
a business enterprise to commit an environmental crime, available research shows that the
decisions made leading to an environmental crime may be more complex that simple
rational choice explanations. However, the disregard of laws and harm in the interest of
profit remains a robust and recurring finding in white-collar crime research.
Besides organizational interests, environmental crime may be concentrated in specific
types of corporations and industry groupings. For example, Clinard and Yeager (1980)

ª 2011 The Author Sociology Compass 5 ⁄ 7 (2011): 499–511, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00381.x

Sociology Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Environmental Crime in the Sociological Perspective 507

found that the oil industry was much more likely to violate environmental laws than
manufacturing industries. This has been demonstrated in subsequent studies demonstrating
that not only is oil among the dirtier industries; it is also among the most criminal
(McKendall and Wagner 1997; Wolf 2009). These findings are consistent with prior stud-
ies that have found corporate crimes of all types are disproportionately concentrated in a
handful of a few key industries including autos, petroleum, and pharmaceuticals. The
chemical industry is another industry worthy of attention and scrutiny as the industry’s
past environmental criminal behaviors have caused injury, harm and death from Louisiana
to Bhopal.

Governments
The state is a formidable institutional actor in the production, mitigation and remediation
of environmental harm. Governments from industrialized countries have played a major
role in producing and exacerbating environmental and pollution problems. Furthermore,
government action and inaction in creating and enforcing environmental regulations can
also contribute to environmental harms caused by non-state actors. State-corporate crime
is a theoretical framework proposed by Kramer et al. (1993) to understand the crimes that
result from a collusion between a state and profit-seeking entities. The state may act on
behalf or in tandem with moneyed interests in ways that may harm the environment. For
instance, nations may subvert pollution control treaties for the benefit of private enter-
prise. In addition, the enforcement apparatus for environmental regulations may be
strengthened or weakened by the state. Weak and poor states may not have the resources
to enforce restrictions on logging, poaching endangered species, or dumping toxic materi-
als.
Governments themselves can play a large role in the generation of waste and environ-
mental harms and crimes. The US federal government is the single largest institutional
polluter in the United States and perhaps the world. For example, the US government is
identified as the single largest responsible party in EPA superfund sites (Simon 2000).
While many news stories may focus on ‘government waste’ in reference to expenditures,
very few examine the environmental waste that is generated by large-scale military and
energy projects administered by the government.
Related to the function of the state in generating waste, militaries play a major role in
generating risk and environmental destruction. So-called ‘war crimes’ can significantly
impact the environment. Scorched earth policies of warfare have had devastating environ-
mental consequences that range from defoliating jungles or igniting oil fields. The nuclear
arms race has generated millions of tons of waste and opportunities for the mishandling
of radioactive material. The military is the largest institutional polluter, free from much
of the sanctions and regulations of other organizations (Santana 2002). Key military
research and disposal sites in the western United States such as Hanford in Washington
and Rocky Flats in Colorado have a history of accidents that have resulted in permanent
contamination. Issues of military transparency, deniability, and accountability can exacer-
bate pollution problems. For example, the use of depleted uranium in munitions poses a
clear health risk to soldiers (on both sides) and the environment as a whole, yet this fact
is routinely denied or questioned by military planners (White 2008).
In all, the function of the state plays a central part in both the production of environ-
mental harms and the policing of environmental policy. For these reasons the role of the
state in contributing to environmental crimes merits scrutiny by criminologists. The
apparent alliance between governments and multinational corporations that may commit

ª 2011 The Author Sociology Compass 5 ⁄ 7 (2011): 499–511, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00381.x

Sociology Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
508 Environmental Crime in the Sociological Perspective

environmental crimes is of special concern. Questions of both environmental lawmaking

and lawbreaking are related to the behaviors and inactions of the state.

Organized crime
Organized crime syndicates and cartels have had a long-standing involvement in a variety
of legitimate and illegitimate toxic enterprises. The green crimes of organized criminals
may include the illegal disposal of hazardous waste or the illegal control of legitimate
waste disposal through price fixing and racketeering. Criminologists have noted the his-
tory of green crimes among illegal criminal organizations dating back to the 1950s. For
example, Alan Block (2002) has documented a deep history of involvement of organized
criminals in the waste disposal industry in on the East Coast involving the collusion of
the mob, municipal governments, and business. Such conspiracies featured a variety of
illicit disposal plans including schemes to illegally export toxic materials to Third World
countries.
The intermingling between organized crime and legitimate organizations in the com-
mission of environmental crimes points to disturbing interrelationships between the crim-
inal underworld and governments and industry. For example, news reports have
indicated a long history of infiltration of the mob in the disposal of refuse and toxic
waste in the European Union (Pomeroy 2008). A notable case study of illegal hazardous
waste disposal by the mafia in Italy found that illicit hazardous waste trafficking was a
result of the demand for cheap means of disposal, an uninformed public and unethical
practices of both government and business leaders (Massari and Monzini 2004). It is
noteworthy that organized crime networks collude with governments and business in a
co-conspiratorial fashion to dispose of waste generated from otherwise legitimate sources.
The co-conspiratorial behavior of organized crime and legitimate enterprise was docu-
mented by Andrew Szasz (1986) in demonstrating how legitimate generators of hazard-
ous may benefit from laws that facilitate the intrusion of organized crime into hazardous
waste transit and disposal. Szasz’s research demonstrates that while legitimate enterprise
may not consciously invite the intrusion of organized criminals into environmental
crimes, for profit enterprises benefit from their involvement and encourage laws and reg-
ulatory structures that allow for the intrusion of environmental criminals into hazardous
waste disposal.

Conclusions and direction for new research

Environmental justice has presented a challenge to criminologists concerning the
relationship between ecology, the law, and victimization. This challenge includes the
incorporation of central ecological imperatives concerning both law violations that harm
the environment and environmental practices that victimize people. While criminology
has lagged in including such inquiries into analysis about patterns of environmental law
breaking, the sociological investigation of crime offers a much-needed approach and
insight into environmental problems. This is especially the case where issues of environ-
mental law, enforcement, victimization, and systemic patterns of abuse by organizations
or individuals are concerned. The sub-field of white-collar crime is well equipped to
enhance our understanding of how and why crimes that impact the environment take
place. However, given the wide-ranging scope of environmental problems and
subsequent victimizations, criminology must move beyond just considering legalistic
approaches to environmental crimes. While the theoretical and methodological

ª 2011 The Author Sociology Compass 5 ⁄ 7 (2011): 499–511, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00381.x

Sociology Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Environmental Crime in the Sociological Perspective 509

frameworks of corporate criminology is well suited to explain and examine most types of
environmental crime, to be successful in appreciating the broad scope that environmental
crime and victimization entails, our understanding of the totality of these crimes is best
approached from a multidisciplinary perspective.
Environmental justice research has proposed a dialectic whereby crimes against nature
have both a victim and a perpetrator; however, most research has focused on the former
of these. While environmental justice research has uncovered clear inequalities in the dis-
tribution of harm and risks caused by environmental destruction, very little research has
been conducted on the elites who are responsible for these crimes. Sociologists who seek
to examine patterns of law and norm breaking can fill this gap in our knowledge of
environmental injustices. While individuals may commit widespread acts of environmen-
tal crimes, the vast ecological footprint of large-scale organizations are of chief concern.
The lawbreaking patterns of corporations, governments and organized crime networks
should be of paramount concern to this. While environmental criminology is still in its
genesis, it should adopt a strong research agenda that takes advantage a multitude of new
data existing sources. Besides enhancing our understanding of the perpetrators of envi-
ronmental harms, green criminology can also give further insight into the victims.
Through the merging and combining of several data, pieces of the environmental crime
puzzle will continue to become clearer. For example, environmental justice researchers
have uncovered environmental inequalities by comparing US Census data on race and
household income to toxic releases by zip code. Patterns of environmental crimes would
likely follow similar patterns and the mapping of these offenses can prove just as useful as
mapping other crimes. This is just one area of new inquiry that criminologists could
examine.
As the global environmental crisis intensifies, researchers will need to be more proac-
tive in conducting research into environmental crime. Along with more measures being
adopted in an attempt to curb environmental harms, there will also be more opportunities
for environmental crimes to occur. For example, with the establishment of carbon trading
markets to disincentivize greenhouse gas emissions, opportunities for fraud will fester in
the free market environment. The effects of such crimes are clearly global in nature and
need to be based in a multidisciplinary perspective to encompass the larger context where
these crimes occur. In addition, deep inequalities rooted in the structure of the global
political economic system need to be addressed to examine the totality of environmental
crimes. As the field of ‘green criminology’ becomes more fully developed and recognized
within the discipline, scholars, citizens and ecosystems have much to gain.

Short Biography
Dr Wolf ’s research centers on the intersection between organizations, crime, and social
control. His previous studies have examined issues of corporate crime, environmental jus-
tice, and financial crimes. He has authored several works investigating the issue of envi-
ronmental crime, organizations, and justice. In addition to his work in environmental
criminology, he also has conducted international research exploring the inequalities and
injustices in the Middle East and Southeast Asia.

Note
* Correspondence address: Brian Wolf, Department of Sociology, University of Idaho, PO Box 441110, Moscow,
ID 83843-1110, USA. E-mail: bwolf@uidaho.edu

ª 2011 The Author Sociology Compass 5 ⁄ 7 (2011): 499–511, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00381.x

Sociology Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
510 Environmental Crime in the Sociological Perspective

References
Baucus, M. and J. Near. 1991. ‘Can Behavior be Predicted? An History Analysis.’ Academy of Management Journal
34: 9–36.
Beirne, P. and N. South. 2007. Issues in Green Criminology. Portland, OR: Willan Publishing.
Block, A. A. 2002. ‘Environmental Crime and Pollution: Waste Reflections.’ Social Justice 29(2): 61–81.
Brown, M. 1980. Laying Waste: The Poisoning of America by Toxic Chemicals. New York: Pantheon Books.
Bryant, B. (ed.) 1995. Environmental Justice: Issues, Policies and Solutions. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Bullard, R. 1990. Dumping in Dixie. Race, Class and Environmental Quality. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Bullard, R. 1994. Unequal Protection: Environmental Justice and Communities of Color. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
Burns, R. and M. Lynch. 2004. Environmental Crime. A Sourcebook. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing.
Clifford, M. 1998. Environmental Crime: Enforcement, Policy and Social Responsibility. Gaithersburg, MA: Aspen Pub-
lishers.
Clifford, M. and T. Edwards. 1998. ‘Defining ‘Environmental Crime.’ Pp. 5–30 in Environmental Crime: Enforcement,
Policy and Social Responsibility, edited by M. Clifford. Gaithersburg, MA: Aspen Publishers.
Clinard, M. and P. Yeager. 1980. Corporate Crime: The First Comprehensive Account of Illegal Practices Among America’s
top Corporations. New York: The Free Press.
Frank, N. and M. Lynch. 1992. Corporate Crime, Corporate Violence. Albany, NY: Harrow and Heston.
Friedrichs, D. O. 2006. Trusted Criminals: White Collar Crime in Contemporary Society. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Gibbs, C., M. Gore, E. McGarrell and L. Rivers. 2010. ‘Introducing Conservation Criminology: Towards Interdis-
ciplinary Scholarship on Environmental Crimes and Risks.’ British Journal of Criminology 50(1): 124–44.
Gibbs, C. and S. Simpson. 2009. ‘Measuring Corporate Environmental Crime Rates: Progress and Problems.’
Crime, Law and Social Change 51(1): 87–107.
Goode, E. 2011. Deviant Behavior. 9th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Grant, D. and A. W. Jones. 2003. ‘Are Subsidiaries More Prone to Pollute? new Evidence From the EPA’s Toxics
Release Inventory.’ Social Science Quarterly 84(1): 162–73.
Grant D. S. II, 1997. ‘Allowing Citizen Participation in Environmental Regulation: An Empirical Analysis of the
Effects of Right-to-sue and Right-to-Know Provisions on Industry’s Toxic Emissions.’ Social Science Quarterly
78(4): 859–73.
Grant, D. S. II, A. W. Jones and A. J. Bergesen. 2002. ‘Organizational Size and Pollution: The Case of the U.S.
Chemical Industry.’ American Sociological Review 67(3): 389–407.
Kramer, R. C., R. J. Michalowski and D. Kauzlarich. 1993. ‘The Origins and Development of the Concept and
Theory of State-corporate Crime.’ Crime and Delinquency 48(2): 263–82.
Lavelle, M. and M. Coyle. 1992. ‘Unequal Protection: The Racial Divide in Environmental law.’ The National Law
Journal 21: S1–7.
Lynch, M. and P. Stretesky. 2003. ‘The Meaning of Green: Contrasting Criminological Perspectives.’ Theoretical
Criminology 7(2): 217–38.
Lynch, M. and P. Stretesky. 2007. ‘Green Criminology in the United States.’ Pp. 248–69 in Issues in Green Crimi-
nology, edited by Piers Beirne and Nigel South. Portland, OR: Willan Publishing.
Lynch, M., R. Burns and P. Stretesky. 2008. Environmental Crime Law and Justice: An Introduction. New York: LFB
Scholarly.
Lynch, M. J., P. B. Stretesky and R. G. Burns. 2004. ‘Slippery Business: Race, Class, and Legal Determinants of
Penalties Against Petroleum Refineries.’ Journal of Black Studies 34(3): 421–40.
Massari, M. and P. Monzini. 2004. ‘Dirty Business in Italy: Case Study of Illegal Trafficking in Hazardous Waste.’
Global Crime 6(3): 285–304.
McKendall, M. and J. Wagner. 1997. ‘Motive, Opportunity, Choice, and Corporate Illegality.’ Organization Science:
A Journal of the Institute of Management Sciences 8(6): 624–37.
O’Hear, M. M. 2004. ‘Sentencing the Green Collar Offender: Punishment, Culpability and Environmental Crime.’
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 95: 133–277.
Ott, R. 2005. The Sound Truth and Corporate Myths. Cordova, AK: Dragonfly Sisters Press.
Pellow, D. 2000. ‘Environmental Inequality Formation: Toward a Theory of Environmental Injustice.’ American
Behavioral Scientist 43(4): 581–601.
Picou, J., D. Gill and M. Cohen (eds) 2008. The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Readings on a Modern Social Problem. New
Delhi, India: IA Press.
Pomeroy, R. 2008. ‘Naples Garbage is Mafia Gold.’ Reuters, Jan. 9.
Rebovich, D. 1998. Environmental Crime Research: Where we Have Been, Where Should we go. Pp. 341–52 in
Environmental Crime: Enforcement, Policy, and Social Responsibility, edited by M. Clifford. Gaithersburg, MA: Aspen
Publishers.
Santana, D. 2002. ‘Resisting Toxic Militarism: Vieques Versus the U.S. Navy.’ Social Justice 29(2): 61–81.
Shover, N. and A. Routhe. 2005. ‘Environmental Crime.’ Pp. 321–71 in Crime and Justice: A Review of Research,
edited by M. Tonry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

ª 2011 The Author Sociology Compass 5 ⁄ 7 (2011): 499–511, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00381.x

Sociology Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Environmental Crime in the Sociological Perspective 511

Simon, D. R. 2000. ‘Corporate Environmental Crimes and Social Inequality: New Directions for Environmental
Justice Research.’ American Behavioral Scientist 43(4): 633–45.
Simpson, S. S., J. Garner and C. Gibbs. 2007. Why do Corporations Obey Environmental law? Assessing Punitive and
Cooperative Strategies of Corporate Crime Control. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Situ, Y. and D. Emmons. 2000. Environmental Crime: The Criminal Justice System’s Role in Protecting the Environment.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Pulications.
Stretesky, P. and M. Lynch. 2009. ‘Does Self-Policing Reduce Chemical Emissions?’ The Social Science Journal
46(3): 459–47.
Sutherland, E. 1949 ⁄ 1983. White Collar Crime (The Uncut Version). New Haven CT: Yale University Press.
Szasz, A. 1986. ‘Corporations, Organized Crime, and the Disposal of Hazardous Waste: An Examination of the
Making of a Criminogenic Regulatory Structure.’ Criminology 24(1): 1–28.
Szasz, A. and M. Meuser. 1997. ‘Environmental Inequalities: Literature Review and Proposals for new Directions
in Research and Theory.’ Current Sociology ⁄ La Sociologie Contemporaine 45(3): 99–120.
Tunnell, R. (2008). ‘Illegal Dumping: Large and Small Scale Littering in Rural Kentucky.’ Southern Rural Sociology
23(2): 29–42.
United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice. 1987. Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States. New
York: United Church of Christ.
White, R. 2003. ‘Environmental Issues and the Criminological Imagination.’ Theoretical Criminology 7(4): 483–506.
White, R. 2008. Crimes Against Nature: Environmental Criminology and Ecological Justice. London: Willan Publishing.
White, R. 2010. ‘Prosecution and Sentencing in Relation to Environmental Crime: Recent Socio-Legal Develop-
ments.’ Crime, Law and Social Change 53(4): 365–81.
Wolf, B. 2009. Organized Environmental Crime: The Composition of Corporate Noncompliance. Lewiston, NY: Edwin
Mellen Press.
Zilney, L., D. McGurrin and S. Zahran. 2006. ‘Environmental Justice and the Role of Criminology: An Analytical
Review of 33 Years of Environmental Justice Research.’ Criminal Justice Review 31(1): 47–62.

ª 2011 The Author Sociology Compass 5 ⁄ 7 (2011): 499–511, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00381.x

Sociology Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd