Study Reveals Corporate Crime's Hidden Mental Health Toll—But Evidence Gap Remains
A new systematic review finds barely any research on how corporate wrongdoing damages victims' mental health, despite the problem's scale. Researchers identified only two empirical studies globally, signaling that policymakers and regulators lack basic data needed to assess—and potentially quantify—the public health costs of corporate fraud and crime.
Originaltitel: Corporate Crime and Mental Health: A Public Health Perspective
Corporate crime is a widespread societal issue that causes significant physical, emotional, and financial harm. Despite its prevalence, research examining its effects from a public health perspective remains limited. This viewpoint paper, informed by a systematic review, examines the relationship between corporate crime and mental health, highlighting potential associations and methodological gaps. Evidence from OECD countries identified only two empirical studies, both conducted in Spain, both focusing on financial fraud, leaving other forms of corporate wrongdoing largely underexplored. The discussion is guided by a conceptual framework linking corporate financial violations to mental health outcomes, integrating stress theory, social determinants of health, and bidirectional pathways in which mental health may also influence corporate crime. The paper outlines a research agenda for public health researchers, addressing priority populations, study designs, measurement approaches, and policy implications. By bridging criminology and public health perspectives, this approach offers both theoretical insight and practical guidance for understanding and mitigating the mental health impacts of corporate crime. This framework constitutes the paper’s primary conceptual contribution by explicitly integrating criminological and public health perspectives into a multi-level and bidirectional model that has not been systematically articulated in prior literature. Rather than providing generalisable OECD-wide evidence, the paper highlights a substantial empirical gap within OECD settings and identifies key directions for future research.