Abstract
Increasing concern about environmental issues has heightened the need for the effective enforcement of environmental regulations and for research supporting these efforts. This study incorporates intersectoral analysis and examines regulatory voids. The aim is to analyse whether regulatory voids exist and how they affect the enforcement efforts related to the prevention, supervision and detection of illicit waste activities and, furthermore, waste crime in Finland. The Delphi method is used to analyse different aspects of regulatory voids in enforcement and crime prevention. The three-round Delphi comprised a panel of 74 participants from different sectors and had a significantly high response rate: 91 percent in the first round, 82 percent in the second and 80 percent in the third, respectively. Not only do the findings indicate that political, institutional and knowledge-regulatory voids exist, the study also suggests that the knowledge void should be further divided into informational and professional void – and, as such, there are actually four regulatory voids to be found that should be analysed. Findings also suggest that there is lack of consensus on regulatory enforcement, severe challenges in the flow of information and insufficient resources, which together form a contradictory regulatory regime based on trust between regulators and regulatees, on the one hand, and underlying assumptions of foul play, on the other. The study concludes that enforcement authorities walk a regulatory tightrope between compliance with and punishment of regulatory strategies, trying during the course of their work to avoid falling into the regulatory voids.
Highlights
Studies on environmental harm have emphasized the toll that pollution takes on natural, social and economic environments as well as on human health (Crofts et al, 2010; Jarrell and Ozymy, 2012; Michalowski and Brown, 2020; Ruffell and Dawson, 2009)
In addition to findings related to professional voids, the present study found several characteristics of regulatory enforcement that indicate the existence of other types of regulatory void
The findings show that waste crime is primarily seen as a regulatory crime that may be prevented by increasing communication between sectors, clarifying regulatory guidelines and directing resources toward regulatory enforcement
Summary
Studies on environmental harm have emphasized the toll that pollution takes on natural, social and economic environments as well as on human health (Crofts et al, 2010; Jarrell and Ozymy, 2012; Michalowski and Brown, 2020; Ruffell and Dawson, 2009). This increasing concern about environmental issues has heightened the need for regulatory strategies that address the complexity of environmental harm and environmental crime. Regulatory void is defined here as spaces where regulation is perceived to be deficient (Short, 2013: 27)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
