The horsemeat scandal and corporate food crime externalities: An investigation into the use of neutralisations by offenders and victims of corporate food crime and the negative influence of responsibilisation

Abstract

A study was performed into the use of neutralisations by potential offenders and victims of corporate food crime to either excuse offending or reduce a sense of victimisation. The study aimed to discover the attitudes that may allow incidents of food crime, such as the horsemeat scandal, to occur and what the wider societal environment may be that encourages these justifications. The study used participants primarily from the University of Glasgow and was completed online. The first part of the experiment tested for associations between offending decisions and neutralisations by using a hypothetical vignette, where participants had to imagine themselves as a CEO of a food company, and could either make an offending decision or non-offending decision. Participants then had to state their agreement with a number of neutralisations according to a five point likert scale. The second part of the experiment once again used a hypothetical vignette, this time placing the participants in the position of the victim of the horse-meat scandal, where they could either respond in a way which recognised a sense of victimisation or reduced a sense of victimisation. Once again participants then had to rank their agreement with a number of neutralisations. After both parts of the study, free response questions allowed for the disclosure of the wider influences on participant answers. Associations were tested for using a Mann Whitney U Test, while participant free response answers were coded for themes. The study found associations between a reduced sense of victimisation and stronger agreement with neutralisations, specifically denial of injury and denial of responsibility neutralisations, but did not have a significant number of individuals making an offending decision in the first part of the experiment. Analysis of the qualitative data further highlighted the influence of personal responsibility and responsibilisation on victim blaming. Based upon the findings the study argued that acceptance of responsibilisation has increased victim blaming for food crime and has been used by food companies to lessen their responsibility for offending. Meanwhile the lack of offending decisions suggested that there were unique influences within the food industry allowing offending to occur. Further research suggestions were made including investigating whether there is a crime facilitative business culture in the UK food industry and understanding the motivations of those who didn’t victim blame.