CAPÍTULO III DE LA DIFUSIÓN PÚBLICA
DE LA RED DE CONTRALORÍAS CIUDADANAS
Junior partner theory, then, provides little help for public/private relations in the field of corporate security. One may, then, turn to the other popular theory of private security, which is often posed in opposition to the junior partner theory, the ‘loss prevention theory’ (also known as ‘economic theory’: Hoogenboom, 1990). This theory is primarily focused on the economic relationships between private security and its clients. The emphasis on loss reduction instead of crime reduction makes for a different focus (private versus public interests). This theory furthermore suggests that the activities of law enforcement and private security (especially private investigators) are similar (ibid.). Although the theory certainly has merit, the situation warrants a more nuanced interpretation. Many investigative methods, for example, are used by both public and corporate investigators (though not necessarily in the same way or to the same extent: see chapter 3); however, the range of investigative activities of corporate investigators is wider (and with new technologies, ever expanding). Furthermore, chapter 4 has shown that, although private interests are leading in decision making in the investigations and settlement processes, there is also room for public interest-type arguments. When it comes to public/private relations, the loss prevention theory emphasises that private security poses a threat to the exclusive position of the state (ibid.). This is the argument that public and private are ‘fishing in the same pond’ and are in that sense competitors and are (partly) interchangeable (depending to the needs of the person or organisation affected) (Williams, 2005). This is related to the ideas of nodal theorists in the sense that public and private are seen to be competing for the same cases (Wood & Shearing, 2007; Shearing & Stenning, 1983). As respondents suggest, however, this is not necessarily true for corporate investigations, for several reasons.
First, for reasons described by loss prevention theory itself: the range of ‘problematic behaviour’ which can be the object of corporate investigations is not the same as that which is described as criminal behaviour in the Criminal Code (see also Williams, 2005). For this reason alone, corporate investigators and law enforcement agencies are not (exclusively) working on the same kinds of cases. Traditionally, the criminal justice system has had difficulties responding to white-collar crime in general. There have been many initiatives over the years to make fraud a bigger priority within the law enforcement system (resulting in several different organisational forms, such as specialised teams) and even though a specialised prosecution office such as the
Functioneel Parket (established in 2003) may boast some success, fraud cases still get
relatively little attention from law enforcement agencies (see for example Verhoeven, 2015). The establishment (and disappearance) of specialised fraud units and special fraud contact points is evidence of the uneasy relationship of the police organisation with white-collar crime (see for example Faber & Van Nunen, 2002). This is not to say
that there is no overlap – overlap, however, is not the same as corporate security and police being interchangeable.
Furthermore, exactly because of the differences in focus between public and private, the traditional lack of attention for white-collar crime within the state and because of certain ‘appealing’ characteristics of corporate investigators (see chapter 3 and 4 of this book and Williams, 2005), respondents indicate that many of the cases which are investigated by corporate investigators would not end up within the criminal justice system. Chapter 3 and 4 focus on reasons for organisations to prefer a private solution over the criminal justice process – these will not be repeated here. It suffices to say that working towards a criminal conviction is not a primary focus of organisations. The criminal justice system does not provide the type of solution organisations are looking for and speaking of public/private competition would therefore not do justice to the social realities in the corporate investigations sector.
That’s the error in thinking you know. And it’s very persistent in this world. Thinking that private investigations are somehow always a stepping stone to a criminal justice solution. Sure, but those are the exceptions you know. If there’s no other way to solve a matter yourself, if the money’s gone or out of our reach. Then there’s a reason to take that path. But otherwise, no. [Respondent 40 – corporate investigator]
While arguing against the idea of dominance of the public sector (prevalent in the junior partner theory), Shearing and Stenning (1983: 502/503) state that junior partner theory falls short in that it is based on three fallacies: that the private security sector is only concerned with minor cases (leaving police to concern itself with the more serious matters); that it is the police who directs private security; and that the police have more resources to draw upon. Based on my research I agree with these arguments. However, the authors continue to state that the relationship between public police and private security is “a co-operative one, based principally on the exchange of information and services” (ibid.: 503). Button similarly stresses that the private security sector is “centred upon the reduction of losses for its corporate clients through preventative strategies and working in partnership with the agents of the state” (2004: 101), later adding, however, that many fraud investigations never reach the criminal justice system. Most of this book shows that ‘cooperation’ may not be the best term to signify public/private relationships within corporate security, as corporate investigators largely tend to move predominantly in their private niche. The next section starts with the presentation of a scheme of ideal types (figure 4), which is then elucidated in the following sections of this chapter with the use of fieldwork data.