Introduction

Environmental harm and social harm approaches

Environmental harm is a highly contested concept. This is because

much actual harm is perceived to be legitimate and lawful. This is
achieved through a combination of embedding harmful practices
into everyday activities (such as animal food production and clearfell-
based forestry), pervasive propaganda efforts about the value of certain
types of environmental and human exploitation (such as income
generation and job opportunities), and political manoeuvring around
All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.

and manipulation of legislation, regulations and rules that allow the

destruction and degradation of the environment (such as exceptions
that deny animal cruelty provisions being applied to farm animals).This
conjunction of forces results in many transgressions against humans,
specific biospheres, and animal and plant species to assume the status
of simply being ‘the way things are’.
One of the hallmarks of the development of ‘social harm’ as a
concept is that it directs writers critically to consider wider social
contexts and the limitations of conventional approaches, particularly
criminological, to harm (Hillyard and Tombs, 2007; Hillyard et al, 2004;
Hillyard et al, 2005). For some, a standard criminological approach to
harm is inherently limiting and should be eschewed in favour of an
alternative discipline, sometimes referred to as ‘zemiology’ (Hillyard
and Tombs, 2007). Others are less convinced that criminology ought
to be left behind, highlighting the long tradition within criminology of
challenges to legalistic, narrow definitions of crime and harm (Matthews
and Kauzlarich, 2007; Friedrichs and Schwartz, 2007). For present
purposes, the concern is not to directly address the fraught relationship
between criminology and social harm except to acknowledge that a
social harm approach lends itself well to the study of environmental
harm. This is so for several reasons.
As outlined by Pemberton (forthcoming), the analytical focus on
social harm has tended to highlight three important issues. First, social
harms are ubiquitous precisely because they stem from and are ingrained
in the structures of contemporary societies. Second, social harms are
generally not caused by intentional acts as such, but result from the
omission to act or societal indifference to suffering and exploitation.
Copyright 2013. Policy Press.

Third, such harms are entirely preventable in that the consequences of

1
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 5/1/2022 2:28 PM via COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY - MAIN
AN: 643520 ; White, Rob.; Environmental Harm : An Eco-Justice Perspective
Account: s2953473.main.ehost
 Environmental harm

certain social actions or inactions are generally foreseeable.What makes

a social harm ‘social’ is the fact that it does not stem from natural causes
(for instance, a cyclone or an earthquake causes harm). It is intrinsically
caused by humans. It is humans, in concert, who are responsible for the
harm. How they do so, however, is a social process embodying relations
of power, domination and resistance.
As an overarching approach, therefore, social harm analysis makes sense
in regards to the study of specific types of harm such as environmental
harm. Indeed, much of the discussion and debate presented in this book
is implicitly if not explicitly grounded in a social harm approach. The
concern is with the health and wellbeing – the needs and ontological
integrity – of humans, specific environments and animals. From the
point of view of intervention, the question is how best to achieve
justice by ensuring that potential to grow and develop (as defined in
relation to the nonhuman as well as the human) is realised as far as is
practicable, and suffering and degradation diminished.This frequently
requires going beyond conventional definitions of harm and legal
definitions of crime. As highlighted in social harm analysis, it is also
important to discuss issues surrounding the measurement of harm and
as part of this to concretise analysis by developing suitable indicators
and audit processes that allow for evaluation and quantification of harm
(Pantazis and Pemberton, 2009; Pemberton, forthcoming).
What complicates and distinguishes the following account, however,
is that whereas social harm is generally defined in terms of human needs,
rights and being, the subject matter of the present work is concerned
with the nonhuman as well as the human. To approach and appreciate
this demands a different kind of analytical framework than is usually
provided within the social harm literature. While resonating with and
sharing common concerns with the usual social harm approach, some
variation is also necessary.
Accordingly, this book provides an overview of differing approaches
to understanding environmental harm from beneath the umbrella
of green criminology rather than social harm per se. At the core of
the book lie three interconnected justice-based approaches to harm,
pertaining to humans, eco-systems and animals. These approaches are
the main components or elements that together constitute a broader
eco-justice perspective. Each approach is presented in terms of how
harm is defined, how harm is measured, and what needs to be done to
promote justice.The tensions within and between the three approaches
are systematically explored and analysed throughout the book.
The present work builds upon the theoretical foundations provided in
Crimes against nature: environmental criminology and ecological justice (White,

EBSCOhost - printed on 5/1/2022 2:28 PM via COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY - MAIN. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
 Introduction

2008a).The purpose of that book was to provide an overview of green

criminology. Green criminology refers to the study by criminologists
of environmental harms (that may incorporate wider definitions of
crime than that provided in strictly legal definitions), environmental
laws (including enforcement, prosecution and sentencing practices)
and environmental regulation (systems of civil and criminal law that
are designed to manage, protect and preserve specified environments
and species, and to manage the negative consequences of particular
industrial processes).The key focus of green criminology is environmental
crime. This is, however, conceptualised in several different ways within
the broad framework of green criminology. For some scholars,
environmental crime is defined narrowly within strict legal definitions
– it is what the law says it is. For others, environmental harm is deemed
to be a (social and ecological) crime, regardless of legal status: if harm is
done to environments or animals, then from the point of view of the
critical green criminologist this ought to be considered a ‘crime’.This
is a crucial area of overlap with the social harm approach.
This present book is dedicated to discussing how ‘justice’ (and thereby,
‘harm’) is framed differently within green criminology, although each
approach in its own way contributes to a wider eco-justice perspective.
Environmental injustice (or victimisation) is considered from the
point of view of transgressions against humans, specific bio-spheres or
environments, and nonhuman animals.This is conceptualised in terms
of three broad areas of analytical interest: environmental justice (here the
main focus is on differences within human populations: social justice
demands access to healthy and safe environments for all, and for future
generations); ecological justice (here the main focus is on ‘the environment’
as such, and to conserve and protect ecological wellbeing, for example,
forests, is seen as intrinsically worthwhile); and species justice (here the
main focus is on ensuring the wellbeing of both species as a whole,
such as whales or polar bears, and individual animals, which should be
shielded from abuse, degradation and torture).
Strategic and policy responses to environmental harm have generally
been inadequate. In terms of government action, for instance, the
criminal justice system generally has a highly circumscribed role in
addressing the harms described in this book, and there are major
limitations and contradictions in the existing mechanisms of conflict
resolution and harm reduction in relation to eco-justice considerations.
These issues are discussed at length in the book Transnational
environmental crime: toward an eco-global criminology (White, 2011). It is
important to acknowledge that while most pressures for change in
regards to environmental reform have emanated from civil society,

EBSCOhost - printed on 5/1/2022 2:28 PM via COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY - MAIN. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
 Environmental harm

much of this activity rests upon fairly narrowly delineated political eco-
justice agendas. As demonstrated in the present book, environmental
social action has been accompanied by profound differences between
and within different activist groups, many of which hinge upon how
‘harm’ is conceptualised in the first place.A basic argument of the book
is that effective action on matters pertaining to environmental harm
demands clarity as to the substantive nature of the harm (for example,
who or what is being harmed) and the interrelationships between
different harms (for example, human and nonhuman).

Green criminology and environmental harm

Green criminology is premised on the need to take environmental harm
seriously. For some exponents, this translates into conceptualisations of
harm that go beyond conventional understandings of crime (see Beirne
and South, 2007; South and Brisman, 2013). Green criminologists
generally agree that destructive and damaging human activities that
harm environments warrant greater attention than has hitherto been
the case within criminology. There are already a plethora of laws and
conventions that deal with environmental crimes and harms.Yet, until
recently, very little criminological attention had been given to analysis
of how these are actually working, or how best to apply criminological
insights from areas such as crime prevention to environmental crime
matters.
As noted above, if ecological (and social and economic) welfare
is to be maximised, then there is a need to expand notions of what
actually constitutes environmental crime. Harm, as conceived by critical
green criminologists, demands more encompassing definitions than
that offered by mainstream law and criminology. This is so insofar as
the most ecologically destructive activities such as clearfelling of old
growth forests remain quite legal, while more benign practices such
as growing of hemp for fibre are still criminalised.
Green criminology therefore provides an umbrella under which
to theorise and critique both illegal environmental harms (that is,
environmental harms currently defined as unlawful and therefore
punishable) and legal environmental harms (that is, environmental
harms currently condoned as lawful but which are nevertheless socially
and ecologically harmful). How harm is conceptualised is thus partly
shaped by how the legal–illegal divide is construed within specific
research and analysis.
Overall, green criminology does encompass environmental harms
as described in law. Specific types of harms include activities such as

EBSCOhost - printed on 5/1/2022 2:28 PM via COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY - MAIN. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
 Introduction

the illegal transport and dumping of toxic waste, the transportation of

hazardous materials such as ozone depleting substances, the illegal traffic
in real or purported radioactive or nuclear substances, the proliferation
of ‘e’-waste generated by the disposal of tens-of-thousands of computers
and other equipment, the disposal of old ships and airplanes, the illegal
trade in flora and fauna, and illegal fishing and logging.
Within green criminology there is a more expansive definition of
environmental crime or harm that includes (White, 2011):

• transgressions that are harmful to humans, environments and nonhuman

animals, regardless of legality per se; and
• environmental-related harms that are facilitated by the state, as well as
corporations and other powerful actors, insofar as these institutions have
the capacity to shape official definitions of environmental crime
in ways that allow or condone environmentally harmful practices.

The definition of an environmental ‘wrong’ therefore varies. Much

depends upon who is defining the harm, and what criteria are used
in assessing the nature of the activities so described. This is one of the
key themes of the present book.
Another factor that influences the study of environmental harm relates
to the specific interests that count the most when conceptualising the
nature and seriousness of the harm. For example, when criminalisation
does occur, it often reflects human-centred (or anthropocentric) notions
of what is best (for example, protection of legal fisheries, legal timber
coups) in ways that treat ‘nature’ and ‘wildlife’ simply and mainly
as resources for human exploitation. The intrinsic value of specific
ecological areas and particular species tends to be downplayed or
ignored. Nevertheless, recent years have seen greater legislative and
judicial attention being given to the rights of the environment per
se, and to the rights of certain species of nonhuman animal to live
free from human abuse, torture and degradation. This reflects both
the efforts of eco-rights activists (for example, conservationists) and
animal rights activists (for example, animal liberation movements) in
changing perceptions, and laws, in regards to the natural environment
and nonhuman species.This, too, is of substantial interest to this book.
Drawing upon wide-ranging ideas and empirical studies, green
criminology has ventured across many different areas of concern. For
example, it has documented the existence of law-breaking with respect
to pollution, disposal of toxic waste and misuse of environmental
resources (White, R., 2009; Gibbs et al, 2010a, b). Other work has
examined the distribution of environmental ‘risk’ particularly as these

EBSCOhost - printed on 5/1/2022 2:28 PM via COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY - MAIN. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
 Environmental harm

affect poor and minority populations (Bullard, 1994, 2005a, b; Julian,

2004), and the claims of nonhuman nature to ecological justice (Halsey,
1997; Halsey and White, 1998). Scholars have also considered the
specific place of animals in relation to issues of ‘rights’ and human–
nonhuman relationships on a shared planet (Benton, 1998; Beirne,
2009, 2007, 2011). Environmental victimisation is similarly a growing
area for concerted analytical and practical attention (Williams, 1996;
White, 2010a; Hall, 2013).

An eco-justice perspective
An eco-justice perspective refers to the broad orientation of green
criminology directed at exposing different instances of substantive
social and environmental injustice. From an eco-justice perspective,
environmental harm is best framed in terms of justice, which in turn is
based upon notions of human, ecological and animal rights, and broad
egalitarian principles. A key issue is the weighing up of different kinds
of harm and violation of rights, that involves stretching the boundaries
of conventional criminology to include other kinds of harm than those
already deemed to be illegal.
As previously indicated, within green criminology there are three
broad approaches to justice, each with their own specific conceptions
of what is harmful (see White, 2008a). These include:

• human rights and environmental justice – in which environmental rights

are seen as an extension of human or social rights so as to enhance
the quality of human life, now and into the future.
• ecological citizenship and ecological justice – in which it is acknowledged
that humans are merely one component of complex ecosystems that
should be preserved for their own sake via the notion of the rights
of the environment.
• animal rights and species justice – in which environmental harm is
constructed in relation to the place of nonhuman animals within
environments and their intrinsic right to not suffer abuse, whether
this be one-on-one harm, institutionalised harm or harm arising
from human actions that affect climates and environments on a
global scale.

For many green criminologists the greatest threat to environmental

rights, ecological justice and nonhuman animal wellbeing are system-
level structures and pressures that commodify all aspects of social
existence, that are based upon the exploitation humans, nonhuman

EBSCOhost - printed on 5/1/2022 2:28 PM via COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY - MAIN. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
 Introduction

animals and natural resources, and that privilege the powerful over
the interests of the vast majority. These considerations are intrinsic
to a social harm approach and likewise feature throughout the book.
Language shapes how ‘harm’ and ‘value’ are constructed in regards to
(specific groups of) humans, specific biospheres and specific nonhuman
animals, so a word about terminology is warranted before proceeding.
To take one example of the importance of language consider how
criminologists and others speak about ‘animals’. From a conservation
criminology perspective (see for example, Gibbs et al, 2010a; Herbig
and Joubert, 2006) the language used in referring to animals tends to
be anthropocentric and instrumental (see Chapter Four).Thus, animals
are categorised in terms of ‘wildlife’ and ‘fisheries’. Environmental laws
and laws specifically about animals likewise tend to define animals in
ways that describe their existence and ‘value’ through reference to
human conceptions and human uses (Sankoff and White, 2009). By
contrast, those criminologists who write primarily about animal rights
and animal welfare issues describe such anthropocentric descriptions
as a form of ‘speciesism’ (see Beirne, 2007; Sollund, 2008). From
their perspective, it is the suffering of nonhuman animals – whether
construed as wild, domestic or commercial – that is of central concern,
not whether the suffering stems from illegal criminal acts or not (since
much animal suffering is linked to legal activities such as abattoirs and
factory farms that rely upon animals as food sources). Accordingly, the
language they use to frame the issues is informed by animal-centred
rather than human-centred considerations.

Conflicting views and moral dilemmas

A number of intersecting dimensions need to be considered in any
analysis of environmental harm. These include consideration of who
the victim is (human or nonhuman); where the harm is manifest (global
through to local levels); the main site in which the harm is apparent
(built or natural environment); and the timeframe within which harm
can be analysed (immediate and delayed consequences). Many of the key
features pertaining to environmental harm are inherently international
in scope and impact.
As stated, the aim of this book is to provide a detailed examination
of three key justice-based approaches to the study of environmental
harm.There are significant tensions between and within the approaches.
One such tension was recently signalled in the following observation:

EBSCOhost - printed on 5/1/2022 2:28 PM via COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY - MAIN. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
 Environmental harm

The [green environmentalists] rarely champion the sites of

their concerns with rights talk, whereas for [animal rights
advocates] their very focus is the criterion for moral standing
and holding of rights.This crucial deep-seated difference is
already present in green criminology in environmentalist
notions such as ‘fisheries’ and ‘harvests’ and ‘conservation’,
all of which are the stuff and fodder of animal welfare and
sustainability but mostly anathema to animal rights. (Beirne,
2011: 354)

To put it differently, some green criminologists view nature

instrumentally and harm is viewed through the lens of legality; others
view the exploitation of nature, particularly in relation to animals, as
intrinsically bad and harmful. How, or if, this ‘moral fissure’ can be
overcome is of major interest to the present project.
It is not possible in this short book to explore every facet of
environmental harm, nor to review the many different perspectives
on environmental harm (or harm more generally) within the social
sciences. Rather, from the point of view of eco-justice, the core concern
is with the object of harm or victimisation. In other words, the emphasis
is on identifying issues pertaining to the victims of harm, including how
to define who or indeed what is an environmental ‘victim’ (Williams,
1996). As mentioned above, many green criminologists believe that
the concept of harm ought to encapsulate those activities that may
be legal and legitimate but which nevertheless have a negative impact
on people, eco-systems and nonhuman animals (Lynch and Stretesky,
2003; Beirne and South, 2007). The latter are precisely the fulcrum
upon which rest many of the major differences within the eco-justice
perspective.
Chapter One provides an outline of the three distinct justice-based
approaches to harm: environmental justice, ecological justice and species
justice. General questions are raised about how harm is or ought to
be defined, about the measurement of harm, and about developing
strategies that respond to environmental harm.
The next three chapters explore the three justice-based approaches
in greater depth. Chapter Two focuses on issues of environmental
justice. Here the main consideration is the health and wellbeing of
humans in relation to the environment, and how this is impacted upon
by such things as environmental racism, social disadvantage and bio-
colonialism. Chapter Three focuses on issues of ecological justice.The
main consideration is ecological sustainability and the ways in which
eco-systems are preserved or degraded. Chapter Four focuses on the

EBSCOhost - printed on 5/1/2022 2:28 PM via COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY - MAIN. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
 Introduction

health and wellbeing of (nonhuman) animals.The main consideration

is to differences between animal welfare and animal rights approaches,
and the various ways in which animals are categorised, exploited and
valued.
Chapter Five summarises the tensions between these three justice-
based approaches and considers the question of moving toward eco-
justice for all.The first approach tends to put the emphasis on specific
oppressed or exploited groups. The second tends to prioritise places
over people. The third is concerned with animals rather than with
humans or specific environments. How eco-justice considerations can
be balanced is an important consideration of this chapter. Development
of an eco-justice perspective requires both appreciation of the wider
political economic context within which exploitation of the human
and the nonhuman occurs, and practical strategies that can be used to
navigate complex and problematic moral and ethical dilemmas.

EBSCOhost - printed on 5/1/2022 2:28 PM via COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY - MAIN. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
EBSCOhost - printed on 5/1/2022 2:28 PM via COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY - MAIN. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use