Environmental harm encompasses actions that have detrimental effects on the welfare of humans and other species, though not classified as criminal acts. As Lynch observes, instances of environmental harm and crimes exceed those of street crimes in terms of prevalence, impact on victims, and magnitude of damage, emphasising the urgency for their consideration within criminology discourse. (Lynch, 1990, p1). Brisman emphasises the critical importance of documenting these harms, noting significant social and economic repercussions. (Brisman, 2014).
Green and Ward, in their work, ‘State Crime, Human Rights, and the Limits of Criminology’, caution against expanding the definition of ‘crime’. They argue that broadening the scope of criminology would undermine the coherence of criminology as a distinct field of study (Green & Ward, 2004, pp. 961-963). They oppose the notion of including social harm under the broader category of ‘crime’, preventing the advancement of criminology towards Zemiology. This article delves into the persistent challenges of integrating the study of environmental harm and crime into the study of criminology. It assesses the impact of these issues on humans, animals, ecosystems and the biosphere (South & Beirne, 2006). Within this framework, the article considers whether criminologists should move beyond the traditional definition of crime and adopt Zemiological approaches to tackle environment degradation and state crimes, corporate crimes and state-corporate crimes that threaten fundamental human needs, rights and global well-being.
By examining the factors that lead to major disasters such as the Bhopal Gas tragedy and Deep Water Horizon Oil Spill, the article highlights the tangible consequences of state crime and corporate crime, suggesting recognition of “ecocide” as a grave international crime. It proposes that directing attention towards environmental losses due to state and corporate actions could pressure governments to enforce and implement stringent regulations.