For those of us despairing at the state of our own countries’ attitude towards corporate crime and corporate harm, fed in part by a toxic relationship between business and government, we often look to Europe as the – albeit relative – beacon of hope. European commitment to social welfare (Taylor-Gooby et al, 2017), human rights (Blauberger and Schmidt, 2017), unionization and union representation in management and control of business (Hall and Soskice, 2001) and the promotion of the precautionary principle in terms of risk reduction (Davis and Abraham, 2011), as well as the relatively more progressive attitude to environmental damage (Neslen, 2017), are aspects that most readily come to mind. Each of these has significance in terms of reducing corporate crime: inequality, generated in part by an abdication to the demands of capital, breeds division and crime (Pickett and Wilkinson, 2010); a strong union presence in workplaces reduces income disparity and generates higher standards of workplace health and safety (Walters and Nichols, 2009); and the push for more meaningful action on climate change, in which Europe has been at the forefront, both in terms of the activities of European governments but also NGOs and citizens, keeps governments accountable (Urgenda Foundation, 2019).

The chapters in this book act as an important counter to this onesided view. They document and demonstrate the pervasive nature of corporate and white-collar crime across Europe. But the chapters do much more than this. Taken together, they shed considerable light on the contribution of a European perspective on a literature often dominated by US perspectives and Anglophone perspectives more broadly.

This reflection is framed around several critical questions that may assist in pushing this initiative further, concerning units of analysis, addressing challenges in comparative work, orientations toward the study of white-collar crime and finally thinking through different ways to collaborate. Certainly, there are significant insights provided in the chapters to these questions, yet in what follows I outline how continued attention to them may reap further benefits.

Firstly, there is continued benefit in asking questions concerning how choices around units of analysis, in addition to the foci of analysis, shape what is seen as critical to developing European perspectives or a European character to the study of white-collar crime.