Skip Navigation


British Journal of Criminology Advance Access originally published online on April 3, 2006
British Journal of Criminology 2006 46(5):875-892; doi:10.1093/bjc/azl005
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
46/5/875    most recent
azl005v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gray, G. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

The British Journal of Criminology 46:875-892 (2006)
© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (ISTD).All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

The Regulation of Corporate Violations

Punishment, Compliance, and the Blurring of Responsibility

Garry C. Gray*

* University of Toronto, Ontario; garry.gray{at}utoronto.ca.

In this article, I term the dichotomy that exists over how to regulate corporate violations the ‘punishment model versus compliance school debate’. I then demonstrate that in the area of workplace health and safety, this classic debate on corporate offending has evolved with the shift to ‘regulation through individual responsibility’. This regulatory shift has resulted in a diffusion of responsibility for safety risks as workers have increasingly become individually responsible for enforcing regulation as well as a target of regulation. In essence, workers are being transformed from a victim to a health and safety offender. In this study, I re-conceptualize the role of worker agency in regulatory enforcement by introducing several grounded ethnographic themes, such as the policing of minor violations and the creation of Potemkin Villages, which represent the ‘hidden side’ of the local culture of reactions to health and safety enforcement.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Global Social PolicyHome page
T. Mac Sheoin
Waiting for Another Bhopal: Global Policies to Control Toxic Chemical Incidents
Global Social Policy, December 1, 2009; 9(3): 408 - 433.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Br J CriminolHome page
S. Tombs and D. Whyte
A Deadly Consensus: Worker Safety and Regulatory Degradation under New Labour
Br. J. Criminol., October 13, 2009; (2009) azp063v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Human RelationsHome page
N. Turner and G. C. Gray
Socially constructing safety
Human Relations, September 1, 2009; 62(9): 1259 - 1266.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Human RelationsHome page
H. C. Bruns
Leveraging functionality in safety routines: Examining the divergence of rules and performance
Human Relations, September 1, 2009; 62(9): 1399 - 1426.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Br J CriminolHome page
G. C. Gray
The Responsibilization Strategy of Health and Safety: Neo-liberalism and the Reconfiguration of Individual Responsibility for Risk
Br. J. Criminol., May 1, 2009; 49(3): 326 - 342.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.