The main strategies of governing the crimes and harms of the powerful are to ‘punish’ and ‘persuade’ business actors to improve their behaviour. These two approaches are examined to understand why they function best together, and illustrations of a punitive and persuasive approach are given. The case study of an industrial disaster, such as the Kader Toy factory fire in 1993, is associated to highlight which key elements should be regarded as having the greatest potential in controlling this behaviour.
The punish-oriented control is understood as allowing a company to engage in possibly harmful conducts until violations of law and harms have taken place (Lecture 11; Gunningham 2011, 200). This approach emphasises on sanctions after breaches …show more content…
This approach focuses more on cooperation between regulators and business actors rather than confrontation. Moreover, threat of enforcement is used as a last resort when the regulated entity remains uncooperative (Lecture 11 and Gunningham 2011, 201). The compliance strategy includes of providing incentives for complying businesses, alongside with education and training to persuade business actors in discouraging harmful behaviours. An example of persuasive approach is educating businesses on knowledge of potential harms caused by poor workplace standards, in order to prevent harm on the loss of lives and industrial disaster from occurring. However, limitations of the persuasive approach are found in its ability to function only when a corporation is willing to comply (Gunningham 2011, 201) and how this crime prevention regime relies on good sets of recorded data, for the purpose of monitoring business activities (Lecture 11). Since businesses are rational actors with a goal in profit maximisation (Streeck 2011, Lecture 2; Stephens 2002), they may not voluntarily comply with regulations when their economic self-interest is not prioritised. For instance, the profit motive of a company may cause them to take shortcuts and commit abuses (Stephens 2002, 63). Therefore, governing crimes or harms of the powerful will require …show more content…
The persuasive element of this regulation is essential, because regulators may identify and control a company’s potentially harmful behaviour, by warning the company for defying the safety working standards and codes of factories. In a case where a company refuses to comply with the given warning, government regulators will work their way up the pyramid and employ further notices or enforcement of fines. Therefore, warnings given may prevent harm before it occurs, while ensuring that more punitive control will be used if prevention of harm fails.
In summation, to combat a company’s harmful behaviour in industrial disasters, there is a need for both a punitive and persuasive focused approach. This is because punitive measures such as fines and imprisonments after the harm has occurred are not a sufficient in controlling the conduct. Thus, persuasive control through monitoring is needed and punitive measure should be employ for non-complying
The punish-oriented control is understood as allowing a company to engage in possibly harmful conducts until violations of law and harms have taken place (Lecture 11; Gunningham 2011, 200). This approach emphasises on sanctions after breaches …show more content…
This approach focuses more on cooperation between regulators and business actors rather than confrontation. Moreover, threat of enforcement is used as a last resort when the regulated entity remains uncooperative (Lecture 11 and Gunningham 2011, 201). The compliance strategy includes of providing incentives for complying businesses, alongside with education and training to persuade business actors in discouraging harmful behaviours. An example of persuasive approach is educating businesses on knowledge of potential harms caused by poor workplace standards, in order to prevent harm on the loss of lives and industrial disaster from occurring. However, limitations of the persuasive approach are found in its ability to function only when a corporation is willing to comply (Gunningham 2011, 201) and how this crime prevention regime relies on good sets of recorded data, for the purpose of monitoring business activities (Lecture 11). Since businesses are rational actors with a goal in profit maximisation (Streeck 2011, Lecture 2; Stephens 2002), they may not voluntarily comply with regulations when their economic self-interest is not prioritised. For instance, the profit motive of a company may cause them to take shortcuts and commit abuses (Stephens 2002, 63). Therefore, governing crimes or harms of the powerful will require …show more content…
The persuasive element of this regulation is essential, because regulators may identify and control a company’s potentially harmful behaviour, by warning the company for defying the safety working standards and codes of factories. In a case where a company refuses to comply with the given warning, government regulators will work their way up the pyramid and employ further notices or enforcement of fines. Therefore, warnings given may prevent harm before it occurs, while ensuring that more punitive control will be used if prevention of harm fails.
In summation, to combat a company’s harmful behaviour in industrial disasters, there is a need for both a punitive and persuasive focused approach. This is because punitive measures such as fines and imprisonments after the harm has occurred are not a sufficient in controlling the conduct. Thus, persuasive control through monitoring is needed and punitive measure should be employ for non-complying