Does Conviction Matter? The Reputational and Collateral Effects of Corporate Crime

C. Alexander, Jennifer H. Arlen
{"title":"Does Conviction Matter? The Reputational and Collateral Effects of Corporate Crime","authors":"C. Alexander, Jennifer H. Arlen","doi":"10.4337/9781783474479.00011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Critics of deferred prosecution agreements claim they undermine deterrence by lowering the cost to firms from reputational damage or stigma resulting from a criminal settlement. We evaluate whether the choice between a DPA and a guilty plea affects the cost to corporations of reputational damage arising from the reactions of interested outsiders – e.g., customers and suppliers – to the settlement, holding constant other factors such as the offender and offense magnitude. We introduce a framework for this purpose in which differences in the qualitative information that is released at settlement may cause differences in outsider reaction and, thus, the firm’s cost of reputational damage. We review the contents of the DPA and plea agreements and find no differences in the information they directly convey to interested outsiders that would cause differences in the expected cost of reputational damage to the firm. We then identify three channels through which the choice of settlement form might indirectly signal information to outsiders: direct revelation, prosecutorial selection, and managerial selection. The differences in the information that interested outsiders may receive through these channels according to the form of settlement appear unlikely to cause differences in the expected costs of reputational damage between DPA and plea to firms at settlement, however. We then turn to the impact of DPAs on the ability of federal agencies acting as interested outsiders to protect their interests by excluding or delicensing a firm whose criminal settlement reveals that it presents an enhanced risk of causing future harm to the agencies’ interests that is best addressed by exclusion instead of by mandated reforms. We conclude that agencies may be better able to serve their interests as interested outsiders when prosecutors employ DPAs than pleas because DPAs leave many agencies free to use permissive exclusion and enable them to exclude when, but only when, appropriate.","PeriodicalId":376821,"journal":{"name":"White Collar Crime eJournal","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"White Collar Crime eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783474479.00011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Critics of deferred prosecution agreements claim they undermine deterrence by lowering the cost to firms from reputational damage or stigma resulting from a criminal settlement. We evaluate whether the choice between a DPA and a guilty plea affects the cost to corporations of reputational damage arising from the reactions of interested outsiders – e.g., customers and suppliers – to the settlement, holding constant other factors such as the offender and offense magnitude. We introduce a framework for this purpose in which differences in the qualitative information that is released at settlement may cause differences in outsider reaction and, thus, the firm’s cost of reputational damage. We review the contents of the DPA and plea agreements and find no differences in the information they directly convey to interested outsiders that would cause differences in the expected cost of reputational damage to the firm. We then identify three channels through which the choice of settlement form might indirectly signal information to outsiders: direct revelation, prosecutorial selection, and managerial selection. The differences in the information that interested outsiders may receive through these channels according to the form of settlement appear unlikely to cause differences in the expected costs of reputational damage between DPA and plea to firms at settlement, however. We then turn to the impact of DPAs on the ability of federal agencies acting as interested outsiders to protect their interests by excluding or delicensing a firm whose criminal settlement reveals that it presents an enhanced risk of causing future harm to the agencies’ interests that is best addressed by exclusion instead of by mandated reforms. We conclude that agencies may be better able to serve their interests as interested outsiders when prosecutors employ DPAs than pleas because DPAs leave many agencies free to use permissive exclusion and enable them to exclude when, but only when, appropriate.
定罪重要吗?企业犯罪的名誉和附带影响
对推迟起诉协议持批评态度的人士称,推迟起诉协议降低了企业因刑事和解而遭受的名誉损害或污名的成本,从而削弱了威慑力。我们评估在DPA和认罪之间的选择是否会影响公司的声誉损失成本,而声誉损失是由外部利益相关者(如客户和供应商)对和解的反应引起的,同时保持其他因素(如罪犯和犯罪程度)不变。我们为此引入了一个框架,在这个框架中,结算时发布的定性信息的差异可能会导致外部反应的差异,从而导致公司声誉损害的成本。我们审查了DPA和认罪协议的内容,发现它们直接传达给感兴趣的外部人员的信息没有差异,这将导致公司声誉损害的预期成本不同。然后,我们确定了和解形式的选择可能间接向外界传递信息的三个渠道:直接披露、检察官选择和管理选择。然而,有兴趣的外部人员根据和解形式可能通过这些渠道获得的信息的差异似乎不太可能导致和解时DPA和对公司的请求之间声誉损害的预期成本的差异。然后,我们转向dpa对联邦机构作为利益局外人的能力的影响,通过排除或许可一家公司来保护自己的利益,如果该公司的刑事和解表明它有可能在未来对机构的利益造成更大的损害,那么最好通过排除而不是强制改革来解决。我们得出的结论是,当检察官使用dpa时,机关作为感兴趣的局外人可能比请求更好地服务于它们的利益,因为dpa使许多机关可以自由地使用许可排除,并使它们能够在适当的时候(但仅在适当的时候)进行排除。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信