This criminogenic net captures not only criminal but civil transgressions as well. In traditional crime, external factors may contribute to the criminogenic nature of individuals; similar reasoning can be applied to white-collar crime and the idea of the criminogenic industry.
That is, the commission of white-collar crime may not be due only to the deviant nature of the criminal but also to the workings of the industry in which the crime was committed. And, as a phenomenon, criminogenic industry has been historically linked to numerous instances of white-collar crime, including instances in the automobile, meatpacking, retail, banking, securities, technology, and railroad industries, to name a few. Rather than attributing criminogenic tendencies in corporations and businesses to flawed leadership practices and influential company executives, the idea of the criminogenic industry points to the acceptance of long-employed and acknowledged practices that are not readily traceable to a managerial event or style but rather to industrywide factors. Before regulations were enacted beginning in the late nineteenth century, criminogenic behaviors were considered a part of normal industry operating practices within the United States. Although many trades have been linked with criminogenic tendencies, one of the most salient and historic examples of a criminogenic industry is that of the meatpacking industry.
With the 1906 publication of Upton Sinclair's controversial novel The Jungle, mass corruption and offenses that had long affected both the industry workers and the unwitting public were exposed in the U.S. meatpacking industry. Tales of worker abuses, including lack of compensation and health care, long working hours, poor living conditions, and dangerous working environments, coupled with the inadequate sanitary treatment of the meat product and a lack of product regulation, initiated a societal uproar. In conjunction with these new insights, the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act were passed in the same year. The acknowledgment of industry wrongs contributed to the improvement of working conditions and industry practices; however, the meatpacking industry continued to defy law and the implemented standards. Edwin Sutherland's landmark book White Collar Crime (first published in 1949) attests to this fact, identifying two meat-processing plants as the top corporate offenders in the United States; Armour and Company and Swift and Company were each cited as having fifty recorded violations of the law, with a majority of the crimes committed involving restraint of trade and unfair labor practices.
The public's awareness of wrongs and inhumane treatment in all industries continued to flourish, however, and along with the increased formation of unions and safer labor practices, the meatpacking industry rose to the forefront, touting well-paid, secure jobs that often fostered loyalty among its workers duringthe mid-twentieth century. Yet, despite marked improvements in industry standards, most of those involved in the meatpacking industry continued to defy the standards set within the industry framework. The well-paid, secure jobs that were evident in the mid-twentieth century diminished in the mid-1980s, into subpar conditions reminiscent of the transgressions that took place in the early part of the century. Estimates now indicate that the meatpacking industry is once again one of the most dangerous jobs in America, employing a largely immigrant workforce functioning with little or no health care or job security.
Although the meatpacking industry illustrates the problems with the cycle of criminogenic industry, it should not be touted as the only example of the problem. Many industries have criminogenic tendencies, with recent examples being the automotive industry, the aerospace industry and tobacco industry standards.
Many theories can be associated with factors identified in relation to the cause and perpetuation of the criminogenic industry phenomenon, including (among many others) strain theory, general theory of crime, social control theory, and differential association theory. One universal theme that emerges, however, is the idea of elite or cultural deviance; simply put, that deficient decision making resulting in criminogenic tendencies is tied to a process of individuals “following orders among managerial divisions,” orders based on the basic tenet of cost/benefit analyses, with the financial benefits of the commission of criminal-type acts far outweighing the sanctions that would be brought against organizations or individuals due to these acts. Following this central rule, we note that the business code does not always coincide with the legal code, and even with the employment of increasing legislation and sanctions, it seems unlikely that the criminogenic industry phenomenon will be seen less often in the corporate arena.
