Studies and victimization surveys suggest that many, if not most, crimes are not reported to legal authorities. This is problematic because: (1) legal authorities are unable to address crimes they are unaware of, and victim or bystander reporting is the primary route by which authorities are made aware of crimes; and (2) people’s willingness to report crimes is an indicator of the public’s willingness to cooperate with legal authorities, which has long been noted as necessary for an effective criminal justice system in democratic societies. Academic attention to the role of bystanders was catalyzed largely by the story surrounding the assault and murder of Kitty Genovese in New York City in the 1960s, which elicited the question of why bystanders fail to report crimes. This chapter is about situational and bystander characteristics that relate to bystander decisions to report crime and provide information to legal authorities. It identifies gaps in the literature and proposes directions for future research.

Abstract: One of the core challenges in compliance measurement is to assess and analyze undetected instances of illegal behavior. This chapter discusses interview strategies to best capture such deviant conduct and the factors of influence on it. It discusses two core approaches. First is the informant approach, where multiple rounds of interviews with key informants with deep knowledge of the regulated organization are combined and triangulated to construct a case study of what happened in the organization and what influenced it. Second is the respondent approach, where the same interview is held once with a larger group of similar actors in regulated organizations to understand and compare how these individual actors see compliance and the forces that shape it. The chapter discusses for what purposes each of these approaches is best suited, what their strengths and weaknesses are, and how they can best be conducted. It shows the importance of a pilot study, proper interview design, and thorough preparation in interview techniques used during the actual interview.

Abstract: The use of self-report surveys in social science research is ubiquitous, yet the promise of such methods for the evaluation of business compliance has yet to be fully explored. This chapter details the unique benefits of adopting a survey approach generally in the study of compliance, as well as examining the benefits of “factorial survey experiments” more specifically. Specifically, surveys and factorial surveys have the potential to uncover noncompliance before it happens, provide insights into why noncompliance occurs, and can examine whether employee trainings or other internal efforts are effective in promoting compliance behavior. Throughout the chapter, the utility of these methods for both academic scholars as well as compliance practitioners is emphasized in an attempt to encourage people within corporations to consider moving beyond a reliance on data collected by the corporation in the course of everyday business processes – ideally in partnerships with scholars.

The chapter begins with a brief history of survey research and how surveys have been used in compliance research, then provides an overview of the known benefits and weaknesses of the survey method. A description follows detailing more specifically how the integration of experimental manipulations enhances the usefulness of surveys in the form of “factorial survey” methods. This description includes information on what those survey formats entail (using an example from the author’s own research to illustrate) and outlines their benefits as well as their limitations when applied to compliance research. Finally, the chapter concludes by articulating how the use of surveys and survey experiments would benefit both scholars and professionals.

Abstract: This chapter reviews the utility of experimental methodology for compliance scholarship, describing various types of experiments and their benefits. Specifically, experiments are best suited for establishing the causal impact of a program or policy designed to impact compliance behavior – in other words, did that policy truly cause a change in behavior? With random assignment to “treatment” and “control” groups, researchers can be much more confident in their conclusions about program or policy effectiveness. However, there are limitations to experimental designs that must be considered as well.

Abstract: This chapter discusses how Monte Carlo Simulations (MCS) can be used to improve empirical studies of compliance. They are a form of stochastic simulation, which aim to imitate and represent real-world processes with the use of random variables. This chapter describes three applications of MCS using compliance-related examples, including (a) estimating total costs of noncompliance, (b) identifying the optimal sample size for a planned study, and (c) demonstrating potential bias in model estimates. Ultimately, MCS can assist the field of compliance in navigating certain problems faced by many research domains, such as replication problems.

Abstract: A major question in corporate compliance research and practice is how to establish the effectiveness of compliance programs and policies on promoting desirable outcomes. To assess such effectiveness requires proper measurement. This chapter, which is the introduction to an edited volume on corporate compliance measurement, discusses the trade-offs involved in using different quantitative and qualitative approaches to measure corporate compliance and its predictors. It assesses the strengths and weaknesses of different research strategies in terms of their validity in capturing behavioral responses, their ability to establish causality, their precision in showing complexity, their generalizability, and their feasibility and cost-effectiveness. The chapter concludes that a mixed methods approach is the best way to reduce the trade-offs in measurement; using such an approach best accommodates the five quality standards of proper measurement.

Introduction

The fundamental question that this book seeks to answer is ‘what is “European” about white-collar and corporate crime in Europe?’ The chapters do an excellent job of explaining how looking at Europe as a whole contributes to an understanding of how crime (and responses to crime) compares between countries within the continent, as well as making comparisons between Europe and other regions of the world. In this chapter, I would like to consider a slightly different version of the original question. I will discuss what I think is European about white-collar and corporate crime scholarship in Europe.

I have been incredibly fortunate to have worked with and around European white-collar crime scholars since graduate school. Judith van Erp and Wim Huisman were some of my earlier European influences, who introduced me to other student scholars at the time (like Aleksandra Jordanoska and Karin van Wingerde) as well as many others (as a few examples, Michael Levi, Nicholas Lord and Benjamin van Rooij). All of these individuals have had an incredible impact on my own research and my understanding of white-collar crime. Early on, I recognized some of my ‘American privilege’ as a white-collar crime scholar: notably, Wim Huisman introduced himself to me at an American Society of Criminology conference and remarked that my dissertation topic was similar to something he had written a few years earlier. I believe he said something along the lines of “I made a great mistake in only publishing it in Dutch!” That conversation really opened my eyes to the notion that I might be missing out on important research – mainly because I wasn't looking hard enough for it. I hope with this chapter that I can impart to the reader how a failure to recognize European scholarship in the white-collar crime domain (and in criminology more broadly) limits our ability to build knowledge.

To that end, I have gathered information on four different questions comparing European and North American white-collar and corporate crime research. These include the following:

• • where is white-collar and corporate crime research generated?

• • what topics or crime types do European authors cover more often or more thoroughly than North American authors?

• • what methods or strategies are used by European researchers compared to North American researchers?

• • what theories are used by European scholars compared to those used by American scholars?