Book contents
- Measuring Compliance
- Measuring Compliance
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- 1 Measuring Compliance: The Challenges in Assessing and Understanding the Interaction between Law and Organizational Misconduct
- Part 1 The Compliance Industry, the State, and Measurement Needs
- Part 2 Quantitative Approaches to Measuring Corporate Compliance
- Part 3 Qualitative Approaches to Measuring Corporate Compliance
- 11 Engaging Qualitative Research Approaches to Investigate Compliance Motivations: Understanding the How and Why of Compliance
- 12 Admitting Noncompliance: Interview Strategies for Assessing Undetected Legal Deviance
- 13 Compliance Ethnography: What Gets Lost in Compliance Measurement
- Part 4 Mixed Methods and Building on Existing Compliance Research
- Index
- References
13 - Compliance Ethnography: What Gets Lost in Compliance Measurement
from Part 3 - Qualitative Approaches to Measuring Corporate Compliance
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 February 2022
Book contents
- Measuring Compliance
- Measuring Compliance
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- 1 Measuring Compliance: The Challenges in Assessing and Understanding the Interaction between Law and Organizational Misconduct
- Part 1 The Compliance Industry, the State, and Measurement Needs
- Part 2 Quantitative Approaches to Measuring Corporate Compliance
- Part 3 Qualitative Approaches to Measuring Corporate Compliance
- 11 Engaging Qualitative Research Approaches to Investigate Compliance Motivations: Understanding the How and Why of Compliance
- 12 Admitting Noncompliance: Interview Strategies for Assessing Undetected Legal Deviance
- 13 Compliance Ethnography: What Gets Lost in Compliance Measurement
- Part 4 Mixed Methods and Building on Existing Compliance Research
- Index
- References
Summary
Abstract: Drawing on data from two ethnographies on organizational compliance in China, this chapter offers three important insights about what gets lost in traditional quantitative measures of organizational compliance. First, the studies show that compliance is muddled. A close-up view of the actual business responses to the law are hard to capture in binary or numerical terms (or even in more nuanced labeling such as motivational postures or levels of commitment); in everyday practice there are many instances of both rule-obeying and rule-violating behavior. Second, compliance is dynamic and varies at different points in time and in their situational contexts. Third, the studies show that compliance can be a nonlinear process in which compliance occurs even when there is no chain of transmission from governmental regulators to compliance managers to individual workers. The chapter draws out what these insights mean for the study and practice of compliance measurement. Ultimately, there is a strong need for multi-method research that combines understanding complexity through in-depth case studies (combining participant observation with interviews) alongside statistical analysis in quantitative work.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Measuring ComplianceAssessing Corporate Crime and Misconduct Prevention, pp. 218 - 238Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Adair, John G. 1984. The Hawthorne effect: A reconsideration of the methodological artifact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(2), 334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almond, Paul and Gray, Garry C.. 2017. Frontline safety: Understanding the workplace as a site of regulatory engagement. Law & Policy 39(1), 5–26.Google Scholar
Angrosino, Michael and Rosenberg, Judith. 2011. Observations on observation. In Denzin, Norman K. and Lincoln, Yvonna S., eds., The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications, pp. 467–78.Google Scholar
Baxter, Ryan J., Holderness, D. Kip Jr., and Wood, David A.. 2017. The effects of gamification on corporate compliance training: A partial replication and field study of true office anti-corruption training programs. Journal of Forensic Accounting Research, 2(1), A20–A30.Google Scholar
Bennett, Andrew and Elman, Colin. 2006. Qualitative research: Recent developments in case study methods. Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 455–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benson, Michael L., Madensen, Tamara D., and Eck, John E.. 2009. White-collar crime from an opportunity perspective. In Simpson, Sally and Weisburd, David, eds., The Criminology of White Collar Crime. New York: Springer, pp. 175–95.Google Scholar
Bernard, H. Russell. 1995. Research Methods in Anthropology, Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.Google Scholar
Braithwaite, Valerie. 2003a. Tax system integrity and compliance: The democratic management of the tax system. In Braithwaite, Valerie, ed., Taxing Democracy: Understanding Tax Avoidance and Evasion. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 271–90.Google Scholar
Braithwaite, Valerie, Braithwaite, John, Gibson, Diane, and Makkai, Toni. 1994. Regulatory styles motivational postures and nursing home compliance. Law & Policy, 16(4), 363–94.Google Scholar
Braithwaite, Valerie, Murphy, Kristina, and Reinhart, Monika. 2007. Taxation threat, motivational postures, and responsive regulation. Law & Policy, 29(1), 137–58.Google Scholar
Chemnitz, Christine. 2012. The impact of food safety and quality standards on developing countries agricultural producers and exports. PhD thesis, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Landwirtschaftlich-Gärtnerische Fakultät.Google Scholar
CoffeeJr., John C. 1991. Does unlawful mean criminal: Reflections on the disappearing tort/crime distinction in American law. BUL Rev., 71, 193.Google Scholar
Darley, John M., Carlsmith, Kevin M., and Robinson, Paul H.. 2001. The ex ante function of the criminal law. Law and Society Review, 35(1), 165–90.Google Scholar
Dixon-Woods, Mary. 2003. What can ethnography do for quality and safety in health care? BMJ Quality & Safety, 12(5), 326–7.Google Scholar
Eckmanns, Tim, Bessert, Jan, Behnke, Michael, Gastmeier, Petra, and Henning, Rüden. 2006. Compliance with antiseptic hand rub use in intensive care units the Hawthorne effect. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 27(9), 931–4.Google Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B, and Talesh, Shauhin A.. 2011. To comply or not to comply – that isn’t the question: how organizations construct the meaning of compliance. In Parker, Christine and Nielsen, Vibeke Lehmann, eds., Explaining Compliance: Business Responses to Regulation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 103–22.Google Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B., Petterson, Stephen, Chambliss, Elizabeth, and Erlanger, Howard S.. 1991. Legal ambiguity and the politics of compliance: Affirmative action officers’ dilemma. Law & Policy, 13(1), 73–97.Google Scholar
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In Geertz, Clifford, ed., The Interpretation of Cultures, Selected Essays by Clifford Geertz. New York: Basic Books, pp. 3–30.Google Scholar
Geertz, Clifford. 1983. Local knowledge: Fact and law in comparative perspective. In Geertz, Clifford, ed., Local Knowledge. New York: Basic Books, pp. 167–234.Google Scholar
Geertz, Clifford. 2000. Deep play: Notes on the Balinese cockfight. In Culture and Politics. Springer, pp. 175–201.Google Scholar
Gray, Garry C. 2002. A socio-legal ethnography of the right to refuse dangerous work. Studies in Law, Politics, and Society, 24, 133–69.Google Scholar
Gray, Garry C. 2006. The regulation of corporate violations punishment, compliance, and the blurring of responsibility. British Journal of Criminology, 46(5), 875–92.Google Scholar
Gray, Garry C. 2009. The responsibilization strategy of health and safety neo-liberalism and the reconfiguration of individual responsibility for risk. British Journal of Criminology, 49(3), 326–42.Google Scholar
Gray, Garry C. and Silbey, Susan S.. 2014. Governing inside the organization: Interpreting regulation and compliance. American Journal of Sociology, 120(1), 96–145.Google Scholar
Gunningham, Neil and Sinclair, Darren. 2002. Leaders and Laggards, Next-Generation Environmental Regulation. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing.Google Scholar
Heimer, Carol A. 1999. Competing institutions: Law, medicine, and family in neonatal intensive care. Law & Society Review, 33(1), 17–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henson, Spencer and Heasman, Michael. 1998. Food safety regulation and the firm: Understanding the compliance process. Food Policy, 23(1), 9–23.Google Scholar
Kim, Pauline T. 1999. Norms, learning and law: Exploring the influences of workers’ legal knowledge. University of Illinois Legal Review, 1999(2), 447–516.Google Scholar
Kluin, Marieke H. A. 2014. Optic compliance: Enforcement and compliance in the Dutch chemical industry. PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
Ko, Kilkon, Mendeloff, John, and Gray, Wayne. 2010. The role of inspection sequence in compliance with the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) standards: Interpretations and implications. Regulation & Governance, 4(1), 48–70.Google Scholar
Lange, Bettina. 1999. Compliance construction in the context of environmental regulation. Social & Legal Studies 8(4), 549–67.Google Scholar
Leary, Thomas B. 1990. The Commission’s new option that favors judicial discretion in corporate sentencing. Fed. Sent’g Rep., 3, 142.Google Scholar
Leslie, Myles, Paradis, Elise, Gropper, Michael A., Reeves, Scott, and Kitto, Simon. 2014. Applying ethnography to the study of context in healthcare quality and safety. BMJ Quality & Safety, 23(2), 99–105.Google Scholar
Li, Na and van Rooij., Benjamin 2021 (forthcoming). Law Lost, compliance found: A frontline understanding of the non-linear nature of business and employee responses to law. Journal of Business Ethics.Google Scholar
Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1926. Crime and Custom in Savage Society. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.Google Scholar
Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1928. Argonauts of the Western Pacific, AN Account of Native Enterprise and Adventure in the Archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Mascini, Peter and Wijk, Eelco van. 2009. Responsive regulation at the Dutch Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority: An empirical assessment of assumptions underlying the theory. Regulation & Governance, 3(1), 27–47.Google Scholar
Maxwell, Jeremy C., Antón, Annie I., and Swire, Peter. 2011. A legal cross-references taxonomy for identifying conflicting software requirements. Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), 2011 19th IEEE International.Google Scholar
Moore, Sally Falk. 1973. Law and social change: The semi-autonomous social field as an appropriate subject of study. Law & Society Review, 7, 719–46.Google Scholar
Musante, Kathleen and DeWalt, Billie R.. 2010. Participant Observation: A Guide for Fieldworkers. Walnut Creek, CA: Rowman Altamira.Google Scholar
Nader, Laura. 2002. Moving on, comprehending anthropologies of law. In Starr, June and Goodale, Mark, eds., Practicing Ethnography in Law. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 190–201.Google Scholar
Parker, Christine and Nielsen, Vibeke. 2009a. The challenge of empirical research on business compliance in regulatory capitalism. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 5, 45–70.Google Scholar
Parker, Christine and Nielsen, Vibeke. 2009b. Corporate compliance systems: Could they make any difference? Administration & Society, 41(1), 3–37.Google Scholar
Parker, Christine and Nielsen, Vibeke Lehmann. 2011. Deterrence and the impact of calculative thinking on business compliance with regulation. The Antitrust Bulletin, 56(2), 377–426.Google Scholar
Platt, Jennifer. 1983. The development of the participant observation method in sociology: Origin myth and history. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 19(4), 379–93.Google Scholar
Riggs, Fred W. 1964. Administration in Developing Countries, The Theory of the Prismatic Society. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
Rorie, Melissa, Simpson, Sally S., and Boppre, Breanna. 2018. Factorial survey research in the study of environmental regulatory processes. In van Boom, Willem H., Desmet, Pieter and Mascini, Peter, eds.,Empirical Legal Research in Action. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 137–72.Google Scholar
Seawright, Jason and Gerring, John. 2008. Case selection techniques in case study research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly, 61(2), 294–308.Google Scholar
Short, Jodi L. and Toffel, Michael W.. 2008. Coerced confessions: Self-policing in the shadow of the regulator. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 24(1), 45–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stam, Erik and Verbeeten, Frank. 2017. Tax compliance over the firm life course. International Small Business Journal, 35(1), 99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talesh, Shauhin A. 2009. The privatization of public legal rights: How manufacturers construct the meaning of consumer law. Law & Society Review, 43(3), 527–62.Google Scholar
Talesh, Shauhin A. 2015. Rule‐intermediaries in action: How state and business stakeholders influence the meaning of consumer rights in regulatory governance arrangements. Law & Policy, 37(1–2), 1–31.Google Scholar
Thornton, Dorothy, Gunningham, Neil, and Kagan, Robert A.. 2005. General deterrence and corporate environmental behavior. Law & Policy, 27(2), 262–88.Google Scholar
van Rooij, Benjamin. 2006. Regulating Land and Pollution in China, Lawmaking, Compliance, and Enforcement; Theory and Cases. Leiden: Leiden University Press.Google Scholar
van Rooij, Benjamin. 2016. Weak enforcement strong deterrence: Dialogues with Chinese lawyers about tax evasion and compliance. Law and Social Inquiry, 41(2), 288–310.Google Scholar
van Rooij, Benjamin. 2021 (forthcoming). Do people know the law? Empirical evidence about legal knowledge and its implications for compliance. In van Rooij, Benjamin and Sokol, D. Daniel, eds., Cambridge Handbook of Compliance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Rooij, Benjamin and Fine, Adam. 2018 Toxic corporate culture: Assessing organizational processes of deviancy. Administrative Sciences, 8(3), 23–61.Google Scholar
van Rooij, Benjamin and Fine, Adam. 2021 (forthcoming). The opportunity approach to compliance. In van Rooij, Benjamin and Sokol, D. Daniel, eds., Cambridge Handbook on Compliance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vaughan, Diane. 1997. The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
von Benda-Beckmann, Franz. 2006. The multiple edges of law: Dealing with legal pluralism in development practice. In Sage, Caroline and Woolcock, Michael, eds., The World Bank Legal Review: Law, Equity, and Development. Washington, DC: Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 51–86.Google Scholar
Wu, Yunmei and van Rooij., Benjamin 2021. Compliance dynamism: Capturing the polynormative and situational nature of business responses to law. Journal of Business Ethics, 168, 579–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yan, Huiqi, van der Heijden, Jeroen, and van Rooij., Benjamin 2017. Symmetric and asymmetric motivations for compliance and violation: A crisp set qualitative comparative analysis (csQCA) of Chinese farmers. Regulation & Governance, 11, 64–80.Google Scholar
Yan, Huiqi, van Rooij, Benjamin, and van der Heijden, Jeroen. 2015. Contextual compliance: Situational and subjective cost-benefit decisions about pesticides by Chinese farmers. Law & Policy, 37(3), 240–63.Google Scholar
Yan, Huiqi, van Rooij, Benjamin, and van der Heijden, Jeroen. 2016. The enforcement–compliance paradox: Implementation of pesticide regulation in China. China Information, 30(209–231), 1–23.Google Scholar
Ziman, Roxanne, Espin, Sherry, Grant, Rachel E., and Kitto, Simon. 2018. Looking beyond the checklist: An ethnography of interprofessional operating room safety cultures. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 32(5), 575–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed