Zemiology - Criminology Theories

Zemiology — from the Greek zemia, meaning harm or damage — is a theoretical and analytical framework that proposes replacing the concept of crime with the broader concept of social harm as the central object of criminological inquiry. Emerging as a formal area of scholarship within Criminology Theories through the foundational volume Beyond Criminology: Taking Harm Seriously (Hillyard, Pantazis, Tombs, & Gordon, 2004), zemiology argues that the category of crime, defined through state-enacted criminal law, captures only a narrow and politically selective subset of the behaviors and conditions that cause serious harm to individuals, communities, and the environment. Corporate negligence that kills workers, state policies that produce mass poverty, environmental destruction that degrades ecosystems, and institutional practices that deprive populations of basic needs all cause greater aggregate harm than the conventional street crimes on which criminology has traditionally focused — yet these harms are largely excluded from the criminological enterprise because they fall outside the legal definition of crime. This article traces the intellectual origins of zemiology in critical criminology’s critique of the crime concept, examines the core arguments for a social harm approach, surveys the typologies and theoretical foundations that zemiologists have developed, discusses applications to corporate, state, and environmental harm, and assesses the field’s relationship to criminology, its criticisms, and its future directions.

Outline

I. Introduction

II. Intellectual Origins

a. Critical Criminology and the Problem of “Crime”
b. Hulsman and Abolitionism
c. The Emergence of the Social Harm Perspective

III. Beyond Criminology: The Foundational Arguments

a. The Hillyard and Tombs Critique
b. Typologies of Social Harm
c. Social Harm vs. Zemiology: A Terminological Clarification

IV. Theoretical Foundations

a. The Needs-Based Approach: Pemberton and Doyal and Gough
b. The Recognition-Based Approach: Yar
c. Structural Violence and Institutional Harm

V. Applications

a. Corporate Harm
b. State Harm
c. Environmental Harm and the Nonhuman
d. Poverty, Austerity, and Economic Harm

VI. The Relationship to Criminology

a. Beyond or Within Criminology?
b. Copson’s Reconciliation
c. Zemiology and Green Criminology

VII. Contemporary Extensions

a. Border Zemiology
b. Decolonial Zemiology
c. Zemiology and Disability

VIII. Criticisms and Limitations

a. The Definitional Problem: What Counts as Harm?
b. The Loss of Analytical Precision
c. Political Viability and Strategic Concerns

IX. Contributions and Future Directions

a. Expanding the Analytical Lens
b. Connecting Scholarship to Activism
c. Methodological Development

X. Conclusion

XI. Related Articles

XII. References

Introduction

Why does criminology limit itself to the study of crime — behaviors defined as illegal by the state — when the most serious harms suffered by human beings are overwhelmingly produced by behaviors that are perfectly legal? Workplace deaths caused by corporate negligence kill far more people than murder. Poverty caused by economic policy produces far more suffering than theft. Environmental pollution caused by industrial activity destroys far more lives and ecosystems than vandalism. And state violence — wars, mass incarceration, forced displacement, the denial of basic services — causes harm on a scale that individual criminal offenders cannot approach. Yet criminology, by accepting the state’s definition of crime as its central concept, systematically excludes these harms from its analytical purview.

Zemiology addresses this paradox by proposing that the concept of social harm — not crime — should be the organizing principle of the discipline. By shifting analytical attention from behaviors that the state has chosen to criminalize to behaviors and conditions that cause serious, demonstrable harm to human beings regardless of their legal status, zemiology seeks to expose the vast terrain of suffering that conventional criminology renders invisible. The zemiological project is both analytical and political: it aims not only to document and theorize harms that lie beyond the reach of the criminal law but to challenge the power structures that determine which harms are criminalized and which are tolerated, normalized, or actively produced by state and corporate institutions.

Zemiology within Criminology Theories occupies a provocative position — simultaneously within and against the discipline. Some zemiologists regard their project as an extension of critical criminology that broadens the field’s analytical scope. Others regard it as a fundamentally different enterprise — a new discipline that should replace criminology rather than reform it. This article examines the origins, arguments, applications, and debates of zemiology and assesses its contribution to the understanding of harm, justice, and social life.

Intellectual Origins

Critical Criminology and the Problem of “Crime”

The intellectual roots of zemiology lie in the critique of the crime concept that has been central to critical criminology since the 1970s. Critical criminologists — including Taylor, Walton, and Young (1973) in The New Criminology and Chambliss (1975) in his analysis of the political economy of crime — argued that the definition of crime is not a neutral, objective description of inherently harmful behavior but a product of political processes in which powerful groups define as criminal the behaviors of the powerless while exempting their own harmful activities from legal scrutiny.

This critique raised a fundamental question: if the category of crime is a political construction that reflects the interests of the powerful rather than the distribution of actual harm, then why should criminology accept this category as its central organizing concept? Critical criminologists recognized that by studying “crime” — as defined by the state — criminology implicitly accepted the state’s determination of which harms are worthy of attention and which are not. The result was a discipline that devoted enormous scholarly resources to the study of street crime, drug offenses, and property crime while largely ignoring the vastly greater harms produced by corporate negligence, environmental destruction, state violence, and economic exploitation.

The Schwendingers’ (1970) proposal to redefine crime in terms of human rights violations rather than legal categories represented an early attempt to break free from the constraints of the legal definition. They argued that criminologists should study as criminal any behavior that violates basic human rights — including the rights to food, shelter, health care, and a clean environment — regardless of whether the state has chosen to criminalize that behavior. This proposal anticipated the zemiological argument by several decades, though it retained the language of “crime” rather than replacing it with the language of “harm.”

Hulsman and Abolitionism

Louk Hulsman’s (1986) radical critique of the crime concept provided another important intellectual precursor to zemiology. Hulsman argued that “crime” has no ontological reality — it is not a natural category that exists independently of the legal system but a label that the criminal justice system applies to certain behaviors and events through an arbitrary and politically driven process. The same behavior — killing another person — may be defined as murder, manslaughter, self-defense, justifiable homicide, or a lawful act of war depending on the context, the identity of the actors, and the political interests at stake. If the same behavior can be crime or non-crime depending on these contingencies, then “crime” cannot serve as a coherent analytical category for scientific inquiry.

Hulsman advocated for the abolition of the criminal justice system and its replacement with community-based mechanisms for resolving conflicts and addressing harms. His argument that “crime” is a construct rather than a reality — and that the criminal justice system creates more harm than it prevents — resonated with the zemiologists who would later propose replacing the concept of crime with the concept of harm. The abolitionist tradition’s insistence that the criminal justice system is itself a source of social harm would become a central proposition of zemiology.

The abolitionist critique also highlighted the selectivity of criminalization. The criminal justice system processes only a small fraction of the behaviors that meet the legal definition of crime (the “dark figure” of unreported and undetected crime is enormous), and the behaviors it does process are disproportionately the behaviors of the poor and marginalized. This selectivity means that the category of “crime” as it actually operates in practice does not describe the full range of behaviors that cause harm but rather the narrow subset of harmful behaviors committed by the powerless that the state has chosen to detect and punish.

The Emergence of the Social Harm Perspective

The social harm perspective that would become zemiology crystallized in the late 1990s and early 2000s through a series of publications that challenged criminology’s dependence on the concept of crime. Hillyard and Tombs (2004), in the programmatic essay “Beyond Criminology?” that opened the Beyond Criminology volume, presented the most systematic case for replacing crime with social harm as the central concept of the discipline. They argued that the concept of crime is ideological — it naturalizes the legal categories created by the state and obscures the political processes through which those categories are produced. It is also empirically inadequate — it excludes from analysis the vast majority of behaviors and conditions that cause serious harm to human beings, including workplace deaths, environmental destruction, poverty, and institutional violence.

Hillyard and Tombs identified several advantages of the social harm approach over the crime-based approach. Social harm is not dependent on the state’s definition of what is harmful — it can encompass harms that are legal but devastating (poverty, pollution, workplace deaths) as well as harms that are illegal and criminalized. Social harm can accommodate harms that are produced not by intentional acts but by omissions, negligence, indifference, and structural arrangements — forms of harm that the criminal law, with its emphasis on individual intentional conduct, is poorly equipped to address. And social harm can be measured and compared across different types of harm, allowing analysts to assess the relative magnitude of different sources of suffering rather than accepting the criminal law’s implicit claim that the harms it criminalizes are the most serious ones.

The Beyond Criminology volume included contributions from scholars across multiple disciplines — sociology, social policy, public health, law, philosophy — reflecting the interdisciplinary ambitions of the zemiological project. The diversity of contributors and perspectives was deliberate: Hillyard, Pantazis, Tombs, and Gordon sought to demonstrate that the study of social harm requires engagement with fields and methods that lie beyond the boundaries of conventional criminology.

Beyond Criminology: The Foundational Arguments

The Hillyard and Tombs Critique

Hillyard and Tombs (2004, 2017) developed the most detailed and sustained critique of the crime concept and the most systematic case for a social harm alternative. Their argument rested on several interconnected propositions. First, crime has no ontological reality: it is not a natural category that describes an inherent property of behavior but a legal label applied through political processes that reflect the interests of the powerful. Second, many events that cause serious harm — including the most harmful events in society — are not defined as criminal: workplace deaths, environmental pollution, the denial of health care, the production of unsafe products, and the structural conditions that produce poverty and inequality all cause vastly more suffering than the conventional crimes on which criminology focuses. Third, the concept of crime individualizes harm by focusing on the actions of individual offenders, obscuring the structural and institutional processes that produce the most widespread and serious forms of suffering. Fourth, the criminal justice system is itself a source of harm: policing, prosecution, incarceration, and surveillance inflict physical, psychological, financial, and social harm on individuals and communities, with these harms falling disproportionately on the poorest and most marginalized populations.

These propositions converged in the argument that criminology’s dependence on the concept of crime is not merely a theoretical limitation but a political one: by accepting the state’s definition of crime as its analytical starting point, criminology reproduces the power relations that determine which harms are visible and which are invisible, which are punished and which are tolerated, and which populations are subjected to criminal justice processing and which are exempt. The shift from crime to social harm is therefore both an analytical and a political project — an effort to expand the field’s vision to encompass the full range of human suffering and to challenge the power structures that produce and distribute that suffering.

Hillyard and Tombs acknowledged that the shift from crime to harm raises difficult questions about the definition, measurement, and boundaries of the concept of harm — questions that they did not claim to have fully resolved. The challenge of defining what counts as harm, distinguishing serious harms from trivial ones, and establishing criteria for comparing different types of harm would become central concerns of subsequent zemiological scholarship.

Typologies of Social Harm

Zemiological scholarship has developed several typologies for classifying the forms of harm that the concept of social harm is intended to capture. Hillyard and Tombs (2007) proposed a widely used typology that distinguishes among physical harm (death, injury, illness, and disability caused by violence, negligence, unsafe products, environmental pollution, or inadequate health care), financial and economic harm (poverty, unemployment, debt, financial exploitation, and the economic consequences of corporate and state action), emotional and psychological harm (anxiety, depression, trauma, humiliation, and the psychological consequences of victimization, marginalization, and institutional mistreatment), and cultural harm (the damage to individuals’ and communities’ capacity to participate meaningfully in cultural and public life, including harms to identity, recognition, and cultural expression).

Pemberton (2015) refined this typology by grounding it in a theory of human needs, arguing that social harm should be understood as the failure to meet basic human needs that are necessary for autonomous social participation. Drawing on the work of Doyal and Gough (1991), Pemberton identified physical health and autonomy as the two basic needs whose satisfaction is a precondition for all other forms of social participation, and he traced how specific forms of social harm — poverty, unsafe working conditions, inadequate health care, environmental degradation — threaten these needs in identifiable and measurable ways.

Tombs (2019) extended the typology to encompass the Grenfell Tower fire of 2017, demonstrating how a single catastrophic event can produce multiple forms of harm simultaneously — physical harm (death and injury), psychological harm (trauma and the suicides of survivors), financial harm (loss of property and income), and cultural harm (the destruction of community, identity, and the capacity for public participation that followed the displacement of residents). The Grenfell case illustrated the interconnectedness of different forms of harm and the inadequacy of a crime-based framework that treated the fire primarily as a question of individual criminal liability rather than a product of systemic failures in housing policy, building regulation, and corporate governance.

Social Harm vs. Zemiology: A Terminological Clarification

Pemberton (2015) sought to clarify a terminological confusion that has persisted in the literature: the distinction between social harm and zemiology. He proposed that “social harm” refers to the object of study — socially mediated harms that are produced through social, economic, and political processes — while “zemiology” refers to the discipline or field of study that takes social harm as its central concern. In this formulation, zemiology is to social harm as criminology is to crime: a scholarly enterprise organized around a central concept.

This distinction is not universally accepted. Some scholars use the terms interchangeably, while others regard zemiology as a more radical project than the social harm approach — one that seeks to establish a new discipline independent of criminology rather than merely broadening criminology’s analytical scope. Canning and Tombs (2021) attempted to clarify the field’s identity in From Social Harm to Zemiology: A Critical Introduction, arguing that zemiology is best understood as a distinct intellectual project with its own theoretical foundations, methodological commitments, and political aspirations — one that shares common ground with critical criminology but cannot be reduced to a subspecialty within it.

The terminological debate may seem arcane, but it reflects substantive disagreements about the relationship between zemiology and criminology — disagreements that have important implications for the institutional location of harm scholarship, the disciplinary training of harm researchers, and the political strategy of the zemiological movement. These disagreements are explored further in the section on the relationship between zemiology and criminology below.

Theoretical Foundations

The Needs-Based Approach: Pemberton and Doyal and Gough

Simon Pemberton’s Harmful Societies (2015) represents the most sustained attempt to provide zemiology with a rigorous theoretical foundation. Drawing on Len Doyal and Ian Gough’s (1991) A Theory of Human Need, Pemberton proposed that social harm should be defined in terms of the failure to meet the basic human needs that are necessary for autonomous social participation. Doyal and Gough argued that two basic needs — physical health and personal autonomy — are universal and cross-cultural: their satisfaction is a precondition for individuals to participate in any form of social life, regardless of the specific cultural or political context in which they live.

Pemberton applied this framework to the comparative analysis of social harm across nations, demonstrating that the extent of harm experienced by populations varies systematically with the political economy of the state in which they live. Nordic welfare states, with their extensive social provision and redistributive policies, produce significantly less social harm than liberal market economies such as the United States and the United Kingdom, where weak social safety nets, deregulated labor markets, and high levels of inequality generate widespread suffering in the form of poverty, homelessness, poor health, and premature mortality.

The needs-based approach provides zemiology with several analytical advantages. It offers a theoretically grounded criterion for distinguishing harms from non-harms: a condition or event counts as harm if it threatens the satisfaction of basic human needs. It provides a basis for comparing different types of harm: harms that threaten physical health (workplace deaths, environmental pollution, inadequate health care) and harms that threaten autonomy (poverty, educational deprivation, institutional control) can be assessed on a common scale. And it provides a normative standard against which the performance of states and institutions can be evaluated: societies that systematically fail to meet the basic needs of their populations are harmful societies, regardless of whether the harms they produce are defined as criminal.

The Recognition-Based Approach: Yar

Majid Yar (2012) proposed an alternative theoretical foundation for zemiology grounded in recognition theory — the philosophical tradition, associated with Axel Honneth and Charles Taylor, that understands human well-being in terms of the forms of social recognition (love, rights, esteem) that individuals require for the development of a positive self-relation. In Yar’s framework, social harm is understood as the denial or withdrawal of recognition — the failure to acknowledge individuals’ worth, dignity, and entitlement to participation in social life.

Yar’s approach captures forms of harm that the needs-based approach may understate — particularly harms to identity, dignity, and cultural belonging that do not directly threaten physical health or material well-being but that nevertheless produce significant suffering. Racial discrimination, cultural erasure, social stigma, and the denial of political voice are all forms of misrecognition that cause harm to individuals and communities without necessarily threatening their physical survival or economic security. The recognition-based approach expands the concept of social harm to encompass these dimensions of suffering.

Pemberton (2015) acknowledged the value of Yar’s recognition-based approach but questioned its operationalizability, arguing that the subjective nature of recognition needs makes them difficult to measure and compare across populations. The debate between needs-based and recognition-based approaches to social harm reflects a broader tension in the social sciences between objective and subjective accounts of well-being — a tension that zemiology has not yet fully resolved but that continues to generate productive theoretical work.

Structural Violence and Institutional Harm

Zemiology draws on Johan Galtung’s (1969) concept of structural violence — harm that is produced not by identifiable actors committing intentional acts but by institutional arrangements, economic systems, and social structures that systematically disadvantage certain populations. Structural violence operates through mechanisms such as unequal access to health care, education, nutrition, and safe working conditions — mechanisms that produce premature death, preventable illness, and diminished life chances for populations at the bottom of the social hierarchy without any individual actor intending to cause harm.

The concept of structural violence connects zemiology to broader traditions of social justice scholarship and activism. It provides a framework for analyzing harms that the criminal law — with its focus on individual intentional conduct — is structurally unable to address. The criminal justice system can prosecute an employer who deliberately exposes workers to toxic chemicals, but it cannot address the systemic conditions — deregulation, weak enforcement, the political influence of industry — that produce thousands of workplace deaths and injuries every year through normalized negligence and institutional indifference.

Michalowski and Kramer (2006) developed the concept of state-corporate crime to analyze harms that are produced through the interaction of state and corporate power — situations in which governments and corporations act together (or fail to act) in ways that produce serious harm. The concept encompasses both acts of commission (governments approving unsafe products, providing regulatory exemptions to polluting industries) and acts of omission (governments failing to enforce safety regulations, failing to fund inspection agencies, failing to hold corporate executives accountable for preventable deaths). State-corporate crime represents one of the most important areas of zemiological analysis because it illuminates the structural processes through which the most serious and widespread harms are produced.

Applications

Corporate Harm

The analysis of corporate harm has been central to the zemiological project since its inception. Tombs and Whyte (2015), in The Corporate Criminal, documented the enormous scale of harm produced by corporate activity — workplace deaths and injuries, environmental pollution, the sale of unsafe products, wage theft, tax evasion, and the destruction of communities through plant closures and capital flight. They argued that the aggregate harm caused by corporate activity vastly exceeds the aggregate harm caused by conventional street crime — a disparity that is obscured by criminology’s focus on legally defined crime and by the criminal justice system’s reluctance to prosecute corporate offenders.

Slapper and Tombs (1999) documented the specific mechanisms through which corporate harm is produced and normalized. Corporations externalize the costs of their activities — passing the costs of pollution, workplace injury, and product defects onto workers, consumers, communities, and the environment — while retaining the profits. Regulatory agencies that are supposed to prevent corporate harm are chronically underfunded, politically captured by the industries they regulate, and structurally oriented toward compliance rather than punishment. And the criminal law itself is poorly adapted to corporate offending: its emphasis on individual intent and individual liability makes it difficult to assign criminal responsibility to organizations whose harmful outcomes are produced through diffuse decision-making processes, organizational cultures of risk acceptance, and systemic failures of oversight.

The zemiological analysis of corporate harm extends beyond the identification of specific harmful acts to the examination of the structural conditions that make corporate harm endemic. In a capitalist economy organized around the imperative of profit maximization, the externalization of costs and the production of preventable harm are not aberrations but predictable consequences of the economic system’s organizing logic. Zemiology’s insistence on analyzing harm in structural rather than individual terms provides a framework for understanding corporate harm as a systemic feature of capitalist economies rather than a collection of isolated incidents of corporate misbehavior.

State Harm

State harm — harm produced by the actions, policies, and institutions of the state — is a central concern of zemiology. The concept encompasses a wide range of harmful state activities: military violence, mass incarceration, forced displacement, the denial of asylum, the production of austerity through welfare cuts, the imposition of surveillance and control on marginalized populations, and the failure to regulate corporate activity that produces preventable harm. Canning (2017) applied the social harm framework to the treatment of asylum seekers in Europe, documenting the physical, psychological, and structural harms produced by immigration detention, enforced destitution, and the deliberate creation of hostile environments designed to deter migration.

Green and Ward (2004) developed the concept of state crime as a framework for analyzing state harm, defining state crime as state organizational deviance involving the violation of human rights. Their framework connects zemiology to the human rights tradition by providing a normative standard — the protection of human rights — against which state conduct can be evaluated. The advantage of the state crime approach is that it provides a clear criterion for identifying harmful state conduct (conduct that violates human rights is harmful regardless of its legal status) while retaining the analytical rigor of a rights-based framework.

The zemiological analysis of state harm extends to the criminal justice system itself. Prisons, police forces, courts, and surveillance agencies all produce harm — physical harm through use of force, psychological harm through isolation and institutional control, financial harm through the costs of fines, fees, and lost employment, and social harm through the disruption of families and communities. These harms fall disproportionately on the poor, on racial minorities, and on other marginalized populations — a distributional pattern that zemiology interprets as reflecting the political function of the criminal justice system as a mechanism for managing the populations that are most disadvantaged by the existing economic and social order.

Environmental Harm and the Nonhuman

The application of zemiology to environmental harm has become increasingly important as the scale and urgency of environmental destruction have become undeniable. Environmental harm — pollution, deforestation, biodiversity loss, climate change — represents one of the most serious and widespread forms of social harm, yet it is largely excluded from the conventional criminological framework because most environmentally harmful activities are legal, regulated (however inadequately), and produced by corporations and states rather than by individual criminal offenders.

Brisman and South (2018) developed the concept of green criminology as a framework for analyzing environmental harm within the broader discipline of criminology. Zemiology extends and complements this framework by insisting that the analysis of environmental harm should not be limited to behaviors that violate environmental laws (which are often weak, poorly enforced, and politically compromised) but should encompass all activities that produce serious, demonstrable harm to ecosystems and the communities that depend on them.

The extension of zemiology to environmental harm also raises fundamental questions about the scope of the concept of harm. Traditional zemiological analysis has focused on harms to human beings — harms defined in terms of human needs, human rights, or human recognition. Environmental harm, however, affects nonhuman species, ecosystems, and the biosphere as a whole — entities that cannot be adequately captured within a human-centered framework. Canning and Tombs (2021) acknowledged this limitation, and contemporary zemiological scholarship has begun to engage with ecocentric perspectives that extend the concept of harm beyond the human to encompass the suffering and destruction inflicted on the nonhuman world.

Poverty, Austerity, and Economic Harm

The analysis of poverty and economic inequality as forms of social harm has been a consistent theme in zemiological scholarship. Hillyard and Tombs (2004) argued that poverty is not merely a social problem to be addressed through welfare policy but a form of harm that is actively produced through economic arrangements and political decisions — arrangements and decisions that benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor. Austerity policies — cuts to social services, welfare benefits, health care, and public housing — represent a particularly clear form of state-produced economic harm, as they directly reduce the material well-being and life chances of the most vulnerable populations.

Pemberton (2015) documented the relationship between economic policy and social harm across OECD countries, demonstrating that nations with more redistributive social policies produce less harm in the form of poverty, inequality, poor health, and premature mortality. His analysis confirmed that social harm is not an inevitable feature of modern societies but a product of policy choices — choices that reflect the distribution of political power and the ideological commitments of governing parties and coalitions.

The austerity programs implemented across Europe and North America following the 2008 financial crisis provided a vivid illustration of the production of economic harm through political decision-making. Zemiologists documented how cuts to health care, housing, disability benefits, and social services produced measurable increases in poverty, homelessness, food insecurity, mental health problems, and premature mortality — harms that fell overwhelmingly on the populations least responsible for the financial crisis and least able to protect themselves from its consequences. The gap between the scale of these harms and the criminal justice system’s response to them — which focused on prosecuting a handful of individual financial actors while leaving the structural conditions that produced the crisis intact — illustrated the zemiological argument that the concept of crime is inadequate for capturing the most serious forms of social suffering.

Table 1. Typology of Social Harm

Type of Harm	Examples	Key Zemiological Source
Physical	Workplace deaths, unsafe products, environmental pollution, police violence	Tombs & Whyte (2015); Hillyard & Tombs (2007)
Financial/economic	Poverty, wage theft, austerity, financial exploitation, unemployment	Pemberton (2015); Dorling et al. (2008)
Emotional/psychological	Trauma, anxiety, institutional humiliation, grief, social isolation	Tombs (2019); Canning (2017)
Cultural	Loss of identity, misrecognition, exclusion from public life, cultural erasure	Yar (2012); Pemberton (2015)
Environmental	Pollution, biodiversity loss, climate change, ecosystem destruction	Brisman & South (2018); Canning & Tombs (2021)

The Relationship to Criminology

Beyond or Within Criminology?

The relationship between zemiology and criminology has been one of the most actively debated questions in the field. The title of the foundational volume — Beyond Criminology — suggested that zemiology should be understood as a distinct discipline that transcends the boundaries of criminology rather than a subspecialty within it. Hillyard and Tombs (2004) argued that criminology’s dependence on the concept of crime is not a correctable flaw but a constitutive limitation — that the discipline cannot adequately study social harm as long as it remains organized around a concept that is defined by the state and that systematically excludes the most serious forms of suffering.

However, the editors of Beyond Criminology were careful to note that not all contributors shared this position: some regarded the social harm approach as an extension of critical criminology that could be pursued within the existing disciplinary framework. Tombs (2018) later acknowledged that the relationship between zemiology and criminology is more complex than the “beyond” framing implied, noting that much of the most important zemiological scholarship has been produced by scholars who identify as criminologists, is published in criminological journals, and is taught in criminology departments.

The institutional reality is that zemiology exists primarily within criminology — as a critical perspective pursued by criminologists who seek to expand the discipline’s analytical scope rather than as a separate discipline with its own departments, journals, and professional associations. Whether this institutional location is a pragmatic accommodation or a fundamental constraint on the zemiological project remains an open question.

Copson’s Reconciliation

Lynne Copson (2018) offered the most thoughtful attempt to reconcile zemiology with criminology, arguing that the two perspectives should not be polarized into mutually antagonistic camps or harmonized to the point that zemiology is simply co-opted within criminology. Instead, she proposed a “reconciling approach” that recognizes the genuine tensions between the perspectives while maintaining dialogue between them in pursuit of their shared goals — the reduction of harm and the promotion of justice.

Copson argued that the tension between zemiology and criminology is productive rather than destructive: zemiology’s challenge to criminology forces the discipline to confront its dependence on state-defined categories, while criminology’s empirical and institutional resources provide the infrastructure within which harm scholarship can be conducted and disseminated. The most productive future for both perspectives lies in a relationship of critical engagement — one in which zemiology continually challenges criminology’s assumptions while drawing on its methodological expertise and institutional support.

This reconciling approach has gained traction among scholars who recognize the value of the zemiological critique but are reluctant to abandon the institutional home, analytical tools, and professional networks that criminology provides. The practical difficulty of establishing a new discipline from scratch — with its own departments, funding streams, journals, and professional societies — suggests that zemiology is most likely to thrive as a critical perspective within criminology rather than as a separate discipline outside it.

Zemiology and Green Criminology

The relationship between zemiology and green criminology illustrates both the potential and the tensions of the zemiological project. Green criminology — the study of environmental crime and harm — shares zemiology’s commitment to analyzing harms that fall outside the conventional criminological framework and its insistence that legal definitions of crime are inadequate for capturing the full range of environmental destruction. Green criminologists such as Rob White, Nigel South, and Avi Brisman have drawn extensively on zemiological concepts in their analyses of environmental harm, and the two fields share a commitment to interdisciplinary scholarship, structural analysis, and political engagement.

However, the relationship is not without tension. Green criminologists have debated whether their field is best understood as a branch of criminology (studying environmental crimes and harms within the broader disciplinary framework) or as an application of zemiology (studying environmental harm without regard to its legal status). The resolution of this debate has practical implications for the scope and methodology of green criminological research: a criminology-based approach focuses on behaviors that violate environmental laws, while a zemiology-based approach encompasses all environmentally harmful activities regardless of their legal status.

The convergence of zemiology and green criminology on the question of nonhuman harm has been particularly productive. Both fields have begun to grapple with the question of whether the concept of harm should be extended beyond the human to encompass the suffering and destruction inflicted on nonhuman species and ecosystems — a question that challenges the anthropocentrism that has characterized both criminology and zemiology in their traditional formulations.

Contemporary Extensions

Border Zemiology

Border zemiology — the application of the social harm framework to the harms produced by immigration enforcement, border policing, and the governance of human mobility — has become one of the most dynamic areas of contemporary zemiological scholarship. Canning (2017) documented the harms experienced by asylum seekers in the European Union — including detention, destitution, family separation, sexual violence, and the psychological trauma of prolonged uncertainty — and argued that these harms are not incidental to the immigration system but integral to its design. Border regimes are deliberately constructed to produce suffering as a mechanism of deterrence — a calculation in which the harm inflicted on migrants is the intended outcome rather than an unintended consequence.

The analysis of border harm connects zemiology to broader debates about globalization, sovereignty, and the rights of mobile populations. Border enforcement produces physical harm (deaths at sea, injuries from border fences and police violence), psychological harm (the trauma of detention, separation, and prolonged uncertainty), economic harm (the denial of employment rights, exploitation in informal economies), and cultural harm (the loss of community, identity, and participation in public life). These harms are produced by state action and state policy — they are not crimes in the conventional sense but are among the most serious forms of harm produced by governments in the contemporary world.

Border zemiology also raises questions about the relationship between harm and law. Many of the harms inflicted on migrants are not only legal but mandated by law — detention, deportation, the denial of social services and employment rights. The legal authorization of these harms illustrates the zemiological argument that legality is not a reliable guide to the harmfulness of state action: some of the most harmful things that states do are perfectly legal, and the criminal law’s exclusive focus on illegal behavior systematically excludes state-produced harm from analytical and political scrutiny.

Decolonial Zemiology

The relationship between zemiology and colonialism has received growing attention in recent scholarship. Quraishi (2023) argued that zemiology has a disciplinary blindness to the colonial foundations of the social, economic, and political systems whose harms it seeks to analyze. The structural conditions that produce social harm in the contemporary world — global inequality, racial hierarchy, the extraction of resources from the Global South, the displacement and dispossession of Indigenous peoples — are products of colonial history. A zemiology that does not account for colonialism cannot adequately explain the distribution of harm across populations, regions, and nations.

Decolonial zemiology proposes that colonial history and its ongoing legacies — including racial capitalism, extractive economic relationships, and the epistemological dominance of Western knowledge systems — should be incorporated into the zemiological framework as foundational explanatory categories. This requires not merely expanding the repertoire of harms that zemiology studies (adding colonial harms to the existing list) but revising the framework’s foundational assumptions to recognize that the structures of harm it analyzes are themselves products of colonial processes.

The decolonial extension connects zemiology to the broader decolonial turn in the social sciences and humanities, challenging the field to examine its own assumptions about universality, rationality, and progress that may reflect the epistemological commitments of the Western tradition rather than the experiences and perspectives of populations most affected by social harm. This extension is still in its early stages, but it represents one of the most promising directions for the future development of the field.

Zemiology and Disability

The application of zemiology to disability has emerged as another productive area of contemporary scholarship. Disability scholars have argued that criminology has historically pathologized disabled people — treating them as either victims to be protected or offenders to be managed — without engaging with the structural inequalities that produce harm for disabled populations. The zemiological framework, with its emphasis on structural and institutional harm, provides a more adequate analytical lens for examining the harms experienced by disabled people: educational segregation, institutionalization, inadequate social services, employment discrimination, and the failure to provide accessible public spaces and services.

The concept of ableism — the cultural and institutional privileging of non-disabled bodies and minds — functions in zemiological analysis in a manner analogous to the concepts of racism, sexism, and heteronormativity: it identifies a structural system of harm that operates through normalized institutional practices rather than through individual criminal acts. Zemiology’s emphasis on structural harm provides a framework for analyzing ableism as a source of social harm that is systematic, pervasive, and largely invisible within the conventional criminological framework.

The disability extension also contributes to the zemiological debate about the boundaries of harm. If harm is defined in terms of the failure to meet basic human needs (as Pemberton proposes), then the denial of accessible infrastructure, assistive technology, and social support to disabled people constitutes a clear form of social harm — one that is produced not by criminal actors but by institutional arrangements and policy decisions that fail to accommodate the needs of disabled populations.

Table 2. Contemporary Extensions of Zemiology

Extension	Key Scholars	Central Argument
Border zemiology	Canning (2017)	Immigration enforcement produces deliberate harm as deterrence; harms include detention, destitution, family separation
Decolonial zemiology	Quraishi (2023)	Colonial history and its legacies are foundational to the structures of harm zemiology analyzes
Zemiology and disability	Emerging scholarship	Ableism produces structural harm through institutional exclusion, educational segregation, and service denial
Environmental zemiology	Canning & Tombs (2021); Brisman & South (2018)	Environmental harm requires ecocentric expansion beyond anthropocentric frameworks

Criticisms and Limitations

The Definitional Problem: What Counts as Harm?

The most persistent criticism of zemiology concerns the difficulty of defining harm in a way that is analytically precise, empirically operationalizable, and normatively defensible. If zemiology proposes to replace crime with harm as its central concept, then it must provide a definition of harm that is clear enough to identify its referents, distinguish harmful from non-harmful conditions, and compare different forms of harm in terms of their relative severity. Critics argue that the concept of harm, as currently used in zemiological scholarship, is too vague and expansive to serve these functions — that it risks encompassing virtually every form of human suffering, from genocide to hurt feelings, without providing criteria for distinguishing the trivial from the serious.

Pemberton’s needs-based approach and Yar’s recognition-based approach represent attempts to address this critique by grounding the concept of harm in established theoretical frameworks that provide criteria for distinguishing harms from non-harms. However, neither approach has been universally adopted within the zemiological community, and the question of what counts as harm remains contested. The needs-based approach has been criticized for its potential to impose Western conceptions of need on non-Western populations, while the recognition-based approach has been criticized for its subjectivity and its difficulty of operationalization.

The definitional problem is not unique to zemiology — it mirrors the well-known difficulties in defining crime (which also lacks a universally accepted definition beyond the tautological “behavior that violates the criminal law”). However, the problem is more acute for zemiology because the field proposes to replace a concept with a relatively clear (if politically constructed) definition with a concept whose definition remains actively contested.

The Loss of Analytical Precision

A related criticism concerns the risk that replacing crime with harm will result in a loss of analytical precision. Crime, whatever its limitations as a concept, has a relatively clear referent — behavior that violates the criminal law — that allows researchers to identify, count, and compare criminal events across jurisdictions and over time. Harm, by contrast, is a far more expansive and heterogeneous category that encompasses physical violence, economic exploitation, environmental destruction, psychological suffering, cultural erasure, and institutional neglect — phenomena that differ so fundamentally in their nature, causes, and consequences that grouping them under a single analytical umbrella may obscure more than it reveals.

Muncie (2005) raised this concern in his review of Beyond Criminology, arguing that the social harm framework risks losing the analytical focus that makes criminology a coherent discipline. If zemiology studies everything that causes harm — from murder to poverty to climate change to hurt feelings — then it studies nothing in particular, and its claims to be a distinct analytical perspective become difficult to sustain. The breadth of the concept of harm, paradoxically, may be its greatest weakness: in trying to capture everything, it may end up explaining nothing.

Zemiologists have responded that the breadth of the concept is its strength — that the analytical narrowness of criminology’s focus on crime is precisely the problem that zemiology seeks to address. The fact that murder, poverty, and climate change are fundamentally different phenomena does not mean that they cannot be analyzed within a common framework — it means that the framework must be sufficiently flexible to accommodate different types of harm while maintaining the analytical rigor necessary for meaningful comparison. Whether zemiology has achieved this balance remains an open question.

Political Viability and Strategic Concerns

A pragmatic criticism concerns the political viability of the zemiological project. Crime is a concept with enormous political salience — it drives public policy, shapes elections, and mobilizes public opinion in ways that few other concepts can match. The criminal justice system, for all its flaws, is an institutional apparatus with enormous resources, coercive power, and public legitimacy. Replacing crime with harm and the criminal justice system with alternative mechanisms for addressing social suffering is not merely an analytical project but a political one — and the political prospects for such a transformation are, to put it mildly, uncertain.

Critics argue that zemiology’s proposal to abandon the concept of crime risks marginalization within academic and policy circles that are organized around the study of crime and the operation of the criminal justice system. Criminologists who adopt the zemiological framework may find themselves unable to communicate effectively with policymakers, practitioners, and the public — all of whom understand and engage with the concept of crime even if they disagree about its causes and appropriate responses.

Zemiologists have responded that the political function of the concept of crime is precisely the problem — that the concept’s political salience reflects and reproduces the power relations that zemiology seeks to challenge. The fact that “crime” is a politically powerful concept does not make it analytically adequate, and the strategic concern about marginalization should not override the analytical concern about accuracy. Whether zemiology can achieve both analytical precision and political relevance remains one of its most significant challenges.

Contributions and Future Directions

Expanding the Analytical Lens

Zemiology’s most significant contribution is the expansion of the analytical lens through which harm, suffering, and injustice are studied. By challenging criminology’s dependence on the state-defined concept of crime, zemiology has opened space for the analysis of corporate harm, state harm, environmental harm, and structural violence that the conventional criminological framework renders invisible. This expansion has enriched criminological scholarship even among scholars who do not identify as zemiologists — contributing to the growth of green criminology, state crime studies, corporate crime research, and the analysis of institutional harm.

The expansion of the analytical lens has also produced methodological innovation. Zemiological research draws on methods from public health (epidemiology, population health assessment), economics (cost-benefit analysis, distributional analysis), social policy (comparative welfare state analysis), and environmental science (ecosystem assessment, pollution monitoring) — methods that extend the toolkit of criminological research beyond its traditional reliance on criminal justice data and survey methods.

The interdisciplinary character of zemiology reflects its foundational insight that the most serious forms of harm cannot be understood within the boundaries of any single discipline. Workplace deaths require analysis that integrates occupational health, labor economics, regulatory policy, and corporate governance. Environmental harm requires analysis that integrates environmental science, political ecology, public health, and human rights. Poverty requires analysis that integrates economics, social policy, political science, and public health. The zemiological project demands — and rewards — truly interdisciplinary scholarship.

Connecting Scholarship to Activism

Zemiology has maintained a strong commitment to connecting scholarly analysis to political activism and social justice movements. Canning and Tombs (2021) argued that the purpose of zemiology is not merely to describe and analyze social harm but to contribute to its reduction — that the field has an ethical and political obligation to use its analytical resources in support of movements for social justice, human rights, and environmental protection.

This commitment is reflected in the zemiological community’s engagement with labor movements, environmental justice organizations, refugee advocacy groups, disability rights movements, and anti-poverty campaigns. Zemiological scholarship has been used to document the harms produced by austerity policies, to support legal challenges to corporate negligence, to advocate for the rights of asylum seekers, and to contribute to public debates about environmental regulation and economic inequality.

The connection between scholarship and activism is not without tension. Some scholars worry that political engagement compromises analytical objectivity — that zemiologists who are committed to reducing harm may be tempted to overstate the magnitude of harms that support their political commitments and understate harms that are more difficult to attribute to the structural causes they emphasize. Zemiologists have generally responded that all scholarship is political — that the choice to study crime rather than harm is itself a political decision — and that the relevant question is not whether scholarship is political but whether it is rigorous, honest, and accountable.

Methodological Development

The future of zemiology depends in part on the development of methods capable of identifying, measuring, and comparing social harms with the empirical rigor necessary to persuade policymakers, practitioners, and the public. The needs-based approach provides a theoretical foundation for such measurement, but the translation of needs theory into operational indicators and data collection instruments remains a work in progress.

Comparative analysis — examining the distribution of social harm across nations with different political economies, welfare regimes, and regulatory frameworks — represents one of the most promising methodological directions. Pemberton’s (2015) comparison of harm across OECD countries demonstrates the potential of this approach, but much more work is needed to develop standardized indicators of social harm that can be applied across diverse national contexts and used to evaluate the harm-reducing (or harm-producing) effects of specific policies and institutional arrangements.

Case study methodology — the detailed examination of specific instances of social harm (the Grenfell Tower fire, the Flint water crisis, the Rana Plaza factory collapse, the treatment of asylum seekers in European detention centers) — provides another valuable approach. Case studies allow researchers to trace the causal mechanisms through which social, economic, and political structures produce specific harmful outcomes, providing the kind of detailed process analysis that large-scale comparative studies cannot achieve.

Conclusion

Zemiology represents one of the most provocative and potentially transformative intellectual projects in contemporary criminological thought. By challenging the foundational concept of crime and proposing its replacement with the broader concept of social harm, zemiology has forced criminologists to confront the political assumptions embedded in their analytical framework and to expand their analytical vision to encompass the full range of behaviors and conditions that produce serious harm to human beings and their environment.

The field’s contributions are substantial: it has expanded the analytical lens to encompass corporate, state, and environmental harms that conventional criminology renders invisible; it has developed theoretical frameworks — needs-based, recognition-based, and structural — for defining and analyzing social harm; and it has connected scholarly analysis to social justice activism in ways that demonstrate the practical relevance of theoretical innovation. Its limitations are equally significant: the definitional problem remains unresolved, the risk of analytical overextension is real, and the political viability of replacing crime with harm as the organizing concept of a scholarly discipline is uncertain.

The future of zemiology lies in the continued development of its theoretical foundations, the refinement of its methodological approaches, the expansion of its analytical scope to encompass the colonial, environmental, and disability dimensions of social harm, and the maintenance of its commitment to connecting scholarly analysis with the pursuit of social justice. Whether zemiology ultimately succeeds in establishing itself as an independent discipline or remains a critical perspective within criminology, its core insight — that the concept of crime captures only a narrow and politically selective subset of the harms that matter — will continue to challenge and enrich the study of crime, justice, and social life.

References

Boukli, A., & Kotzé, J. (Eds.). (2018). Zemiology: Reconnecting crime and social harm. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76312-5
Brisman, A., & South, N. (2018). Green criminology and environmental crimes and harms. Sociology Compass, 13(1), Article e12650. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12650
Canning, V. (2017). Gendered harm and structural violence in the British asylum system. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315268842
Canning, V., & Tombs, S. (2021). From social harm to zemiology: A critical introduction. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429283444
Chambliss, W. J. (1975). Toward a political economy of crime. Theory and Society, 2(2), 149–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00212848
Copson, L. (2018). Beyond ‘criminology vs. zemiology’: Reconciling crime with social harm. In A. Boukli & J. Kotzé (Eds.), Zemiology: Reconnecting crime and social harm (pp. 33–56). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76312-5_3
Dorling, D., Gordon, D., Hillyard, P., Pantazis, C., Pemberton, S., & Tombs, S. (2008). Criminal obsessions: Why harm matters more than crime (2nd ed.). Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.
Doyal, L., & Gough, I. (1991). A theory of human need. Guilford Press.
Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal of Peace Research, 6(3), 167–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/002234336900600301
Gordon, D. (2004). Poverty, death and disease. In P. Hillyard, C. Pantazis, S. Tombs, & D. Gordon (Eds.), Beyond criminology: Taking harm seriously (pp. 251–266). Pluto Press.
Green, P., & Ward, T. (2004). State crime: Governments, violence and corruption. Pluto Press.
Henry, S., & Milovanovic, D. (1996). Constitutive criminology: Beyond postmodernism. Sage.
Hillyard, P., Pantazis, C., Tombs, S., & Gordon, D. (Eds.). (2004). Beyond criminology: Taking harm seriously. Pluto Press.
Hillyard, P., & Tombs, S. (2004). Beyond criminology? In P. Hillyard, C. Pantazis, S. Tombs, & D. Gordon (Eds.), Beyond criminology: Taking harm seriously (pp. 10–29). Pluto Press.
Hillyard, P., & Tombs, S. (2007). From ‘crime’ to social harm? Crime, Law and Social Change, 48(1–2), 9–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-007-9079-z
Hillyard, P., & Tombs, S. (2017). Social harm and zemiology. In A. Liebling, S. Maruna, & L. McAra (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of criminology (6th ed., pp. 284–305). Oxford University Press.
Hulsman, L. (1986). Critical criminology and the concept of crime. Contemporary Crises, 10(1), 63–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00728496
Loader, I., & Sparks, R. (2011). Public criminology? Routledge.
Michalowski, R. J., & Kramer, R. C. (2006). State-corporate crime: Wrongdoing at the intersection of business and government. Rutgers University Press.
Muncie, J. (2005). Book review: Beyond Criminology: Taking Harm Seriously. Crime, Law and Social Change, 43(2–3), 199–201.
Pantazis, C., & Pemberton, S. (2009). From the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ suspect community: Examining the impacts of recent UK counter-terrorist legislation. British Journal of Criminology, 49(5), 646–666. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azp031
Pemberton, S. (2008). Where next? The future of the social harm perspective. In D. Dorling, D. Gordon, P. Hillyard, C. Pantazis, S. Pemberton, & S. Tombs (Eds.), Criminal obsessions: Why harm matters more than crime (2nd ed., pp. 70–90). Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.
Pemberton, S. (2015). Harmful societies: Understanding social harm. Policy Press.
Quraishi, M. (2023). Decolonizing zemiology: Outlining and remedying the blindness to (post)colonialism within the study of social harm. Critical Criminology, 31(2), 437–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-022-09682-5
Reiman, J., & Leighton, P. (2017). The rich get richer and the poor get prison: Ideology, class, and criminal justice (11th ed.). Routledge.
Schwendinger, H., & Schwendinger, J. (1970). Defenders of order or guardians of human rights? Issues in Criminology, 5(2), 123–157.
Slapper, G., & Tombs, S. (1999). Corporate crime. Longman.
Sullivan, D., & Tifft, L. (2001). Restorative justice: Healing the foundations of our everyday lives. Willow Tree Press.
Taylor, I., Walton, P., & Young, J. (1973). The new criminology: For a social theory of deviance. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Tombs, S. (2018). For pragmatism and politics: Crime, social harm and zemiology. In A. Boukli & J. Kotzé (Eds.), Zemiology: Reconnecting crime and social harm (pp. 11–31). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76312-5_2
Tombs, S. (2019). Grenfell: The unfolding dimensions of social harm. Justice, Power and Resistance, 3(1), 61–88.
Tombs, S., & Whyte, D. (2015). The corporate criminal: Why corporations must be abolished. Routledge.
White, R. (2008). Crimes against nature: Environmental criminology and ecological justice. Willan.
Yar, M. (2012). Critical criminology, critical theory and social harm. In S. Hall & S. Winlow (Eds.), New directions in criminological theory (pp. 52–65). Routledge.
Zedner, L. (2011). Putting crime back on the criminological agenda. In M. Bosworth & C. Hoyle (Eds.), What is criminology? (pp. 271–280). Oxford University Press.