Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Corporate Security and Private Justice: Danger Signs?

Corporate Security and Private Justice: Danger Signs? brill.nl/eccl © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2009 DOI: 10.1163/157181709X429114 Corporate Security and Private Justice: Danger Signs? Clarissa Meerts and Nicholas Dorn Department of Criminology, School of Law Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands 1. Introduction This paper discusses corporate security, with a focus upon the ways in which in-home security departments and contracted-in security services meet clients’ concerns about corporate reputation. Recently collected interview data from the Netherlands is utilised. Private investigation of those suspected of acting against companies’ interests, typically followed by private settlement, serves companies’ needs for maintenance of privacy, discretion and reputation. 1 Our work confirms for the Netherlands these tendencies, however previous analyses may have taken insufficient account of some longer-term dangers implicit in private settlement of such matters, and may have engaged insufficiently with the question of why the public authorities allow corporate security such a high degree of autonomy. 2. Research Problem and Approach 2.1. The Puzzle of the Autonomy of Corporate Security In a recent but already classic work on the FACI (forensic accounting and corporate investigations) industry, James Williams concentrates his analysis on a particular segment of private security, namely the control of economic crime in relation to 1) Cf. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice Brill

Corporate Security and Private Justice: Danger Signs?

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/corporate-security-and-private-justice-danger-signs-X6efNi1MZx

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
© 2009 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
0928-9569
eISSN
1571-8174
DOI
10.1163/157181709X429114
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

brill.nl/eccl © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2009 DOI: 10.1163/157181709X429114 Corporate Security and Private Justice: Danger Signs? Clarissa Meerts and Nicholas Dorn Department of Criminology, School of Law Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands 1. Introduction This paper discusses corporate security, with a focus upon the ways in which in-home security departments and contracted-in security services meet clients’ concerns about corporate reputation. Recently collected interview data from the Netherlands is utilised. Private investigation of those suspected of acting against companies’ interests, typically followed by private settlement, serves companies’ needs for maintenance of privacy, discretion and reputation. 1 Our work confirms for the Netherlands these tendencies, however previous analyses may have taken insufficient account of some longer-term dangers implicit in private settlement of such matters, and may have engaged insufficiently with the question of why the public authorities allow corporate security such a high degree of autonomy. 2. Research Problem and Approach 2.1. The Puzzle of the Autonomy of Corporate Security In a recent but already classic work on the FACI (forensic accounting and corporate investigations) industry, James Williams concentrates his analysis on a particular segment of private security, namely the control of economic crime in relation to 1) Cf.

Journal

European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal JusticeBrill

Published: Jan 1, 2009

There are no references for this article.