Business, victimisation and victimology
| DOI | 10.1177/0269758016628948 |
| Author | Matt Hopkins |
| Date | 01 May 2016 |
| Published date | 01 May 2016 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Business, victimisation and
victimology: Reflections on
contemporary patterns of
commercial victimisation
and the concept of
businesses as ‘ideal victims’
Matt Hopkins
University of Leicester, UK
Abstract
The recent publication of the first English/Welsh Commercial Victimisation Survey (CVS) in over
10 years represents a good time to consider both ‘crimes against businesses’ and the place of
commercial victims within the discipline of victimology. While some research points to high
crime rates against the commercial sector, it has been argued that the abstract concept of
‘crimes against businesses’ has been used by government and businesses to construct a notion of
business victimhood in order to place businesses at the centre of policy concerning crime
prevention. Cr itics suggest this recognition of the ‘business as a victim’ not only moves attention
away from the illegal behaviours of businesses (businesses as victimisers), but also it gives cor-
porations that can already absorb crime costs the power to dominate debates around law, order
and crime prevention. Using data from the CVS, patterns of crimes against business are outlined
and some of the main characteristics of victims are identified. Consideration is then given to
what these data mean in relation to the concept of businesses as victims. Using Christie’s notion
of the ideal victim as a heuristic device, it is explored whether businesses can ever be viewed as
‘ideal’ victims and why achieving victim status might be important. Finally, some fruitful areas for
further research are considered.
Keywords
Crimes against businesses, Commercial Victimisation Survey, ideal victims
Corresponding author:
Matt Hopkins, Department of Criminology, University of Leicester, 154 Upper New Walk, Leicester, LE17QA, UK.
Email: Mh330@le.ac.uk
International Review of Victimology
2016, Vol. 22(2) 161–178
ªThe Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0269758016628948
irv.sagepub.com
Introduction
Internationally, there is a paucity of contemporary data on crimes against businesses. Although
some surveys have been conducted in a number of European countries and as far afield as China,
Australia, Mexico and Nigeria (for a review, see Australian Government, 2004; Mugellini, 2013),
data are not regularly collected and often focus on the retail sector (see British Retail Consortium,
2015) rather than the wider business community. It would also be true to say that, although a body
of academic research has explored commercial victimisation, the subject remains on the periphery
of mainstream victimology (Maguire, 2012). While governments have a responsibility to be seen
to be acting proactively to protect busin esses and trade bodies work to protect th e economic
interests of their members (Burrows and Hopkins, 2005), it can be argued that academics have
been reluctant to research commercial victimisation as businesses are viewed as being ‘undeser-
ving’ or not having true victim status. For example, Karman (2012: 2) asserts that victimology
focuses on the ‘scientific study of physical, emotional and financial harm people suffer because of
illegal activities’. As businesses are not ‘people’, one could possibly argue that the commercial
sector should not be of interest to victimologists. Indeed, central to the study of victimology is
Christie’s (1986) concept of the ‘ideal victim’ who is defined as ‘a person or category of individual
who when hit by crime most readily is given the complete and legitimate status of being a victim’
(Christie, 1986: 18). Van Wijk (2013: 160) notes that it is a sort of ‘public status’ of ‘hero or traitor’
and although it is not clear who deserves victim status, we ‘generally have an understanding of
what is meant’. Indeed, many scholars have used the analogy of the ‘little old lady’ as the ideal
victim (as she is weak and easy to sympathise with) and Christie (1986) asserts that the ideal victim
should be (1) weak; (2) carrying out a respectable project; (3) is not to be blamed; (4) is victimised
by a big/bad offender; (5) the offender is unknown; but the victim (6) is powerful enough to make
his or her case known without threatening strong countervailing vested interests.
As academic criminology has often cast businesses as powerful corporations that tend to be
offenders rather than victims (see DeKeseredy, 2011; Whyte, 2007), arguing that businesses could
ever be considered as ‘ideal’ victims is difficult. Indeed, the widely held view that businesses are
economically vibrant and able to take care of their own security needs (Burrows and Hopkins,
2005) adds to this notion of the undeserving victim. Despite this, some research has identified high
rates of victimisation and costs of crime for business when compared to households (see, for
example, British Retail Consortium, 2015; Burrows and Hopkins, 2005; Gill et al., 2002). How-
ever, some scholars have noted that this abstract notion of the ‘victimised business’ or ‘crimes
against businesses’ has an important social effect (Whyte, 2007). As Green (2007: 452) suggests in
the context of businesses, the notion of victimhood has been reconstructed as interested parties
have ‘assert[ed] that a crime against business is a crime against all of us’. Therefore, large
corporations express the negative effects of crimes against businesses by emphasising wider social
impacts – for example, by suggesting that crimes such as shoplifting can result in increased pricing
of goods for all (see, for example, BBC Wales, 2014). It has also been noted that by constructing
their position as ‘victims’, powerful corporations have been allowed to take centre stage in debates
around law, order and crime prevention. This is despite the growing recognition of the ‘devastating
social impact of corporate offending’ (Whyte, 2007: 453).
The publication of the first Commercial Victimisation Survey (CVS) in England/Wales (see
Home Office, 2013, 2014) in over 10 years shows the government’s commitment to crimes against
businesses as a policy issue. It also represents a good time to reflect on the notion of ‘crimes against
businesses’ within victimology. Therefore, this paper has tw o principal aims. Firstly, through
162 International Review of Victimology 22(2)
To continue reading
Request your trial