This introductory article of a special issue on naming and shaming addresses the origins of the concept and its transformation during the last decades. The main conclusion of the article is that contemporary forms of naming & shaming come closer to humiliation and public lynching, rather than redemption and self-reflection.

Naming-and-shaming campaigns, in which civil society groups publicly call upon corporations to end harmful behavior via social media, are a powerful mechanism for social control of corporations. This article investigates naming and shaming in modern, global markets through a case study of Shell - one of the most stigmatized corporations of our time. First, the perspective of organizational sociology is used to answer the question why Shell is receiving such significant attention. Next, the article addresses how shaming manifests itself in global markets. The example of Shell illustrates reintegrative shaming, aiming to end harmful activities, as well as stigmatizing shaming that undermines a corporation’s license to operate.
Finally, this article discusses the potential consequences of naming and shaming for corporate reputations. In the case of Shell, Goffman’s concept of courtesy stigma appears to form the greatest reputational risk, as stigmatization of Shells business partners will create status anxiety and will limit opportunities to develop business.

#MeToo is a social movement that started on social media and spread from the US all over the world in 2017. The social movement behind #MeToo is characterised by publicly naming and shaming those who exhibit everyday misconduct in the workplace. This is done by spreading naming and shaming stories via Twitter messages. A question that arises here is whether naming and shaming is a suitable and successful tool for a political movement that aims to bring about social change with regard to sexual violence. Has #MeToo changed the social perspective on sexual violence and social norms of behaviour for sexual encounters? To answer these questions, first a historical sketch of the feminist movements against sexual violence will be provided. What is characteristic of these movements and what are possible parallels with the #MeToo movement? From a feminist perspective, are there any dilemmas that a judicial response to sexual violence entails? In order to provide background to these insights, the characteristics of the #MeToo movement, and the associated dilemmas surrounding naming and shaming, will be discussed next. Finally, it will be discussed if #MeToo has led to social changes.

Though less well-known than for instance the narcotics or weapons trade, illegal organ trade is a lucrative business with yearly revenues estimated between 840 million and 1.7 billion USD. The most commonly reported form of organ trade is the trade in living donor kidneys. The current study maps the criminal network behind the illegal organ trade that took place in the Medicus clinic in Kosovo based on police files, indictments, transcripts of suspect and victim statements, court rulings and interviews. The Medicus case involved at least 27 living kidney donations. Operations were performed by eleven actors in teams of varying composition. The total criminal network consisted of 107 individuals and is characterized by a low density and features a number of central actors.

In this essay the authors argue that social and genetic explanations for behavior are intertwined, and that genetically informed research designs can be a valuable addition to the toolbox that is available to criminologists for examining causal relationships and intergenerational transmission. From this ‘toolbox’ perspective, the authors discuss four study approaches: twin and family designs, genome-wide association studies, polygenetic scores and Mendelian Randomization. Finally, they address a number of practical considerations for applying genetically informed research designs in criminology.

Although reward systems are utilized in prisons worldwide, evaluations regarding their intended use are lacking. This contribution reconstructs the policy theory of such a system: Promotion and Demotion, as implemented in Dutch prisons in 2014. With a policy scientific approach the intended target group, means, goals and causal mechanisms of the system were delineated. The policy theory assumes three means, ten goals and 24 causal mechanisms. The policy theory is insufficiently empirically substantiated on a number of points and takes limited account of (cognitively) impaired prisoners. This accurate reconstruction offers a unique insight into the assumed functioning of a part of Dutch detention policy and provides starting points for international considerations of behavioral change in detention.

This article is an analysis of about 350 decisions of Dutch criminal courts since mediation was introduced as an instrument in criminal law (art. 51h of the Dutch criminal code). It appears that mediation not only benefits the offender in terms of reduction of punishment, but also has significant effects on other aspects of the domain of criminal justice. For example on complaints about the decision of the Public Prosecutor not to prosecute a suspect, the eligibility of the Public Prosecutor in a criminal procedure, claims for compensation of the victim, compensation for damage of the offender being in preventive custody, and costs of the offender for a lawyer to defend him in a criminal procedure. Although much progress can be made in applying mediation in criminal procedures, it is concluded that mediation is now an important form of restorative justice in the Dutch criminal justice system.

Restorative justice as implemented in many countries adopts a rather narrow approach, where responding to crime and other types of injustice is being restricted to the interpersonal level. ‘Society’ as important pillar in ­restorative justice does not play an ­important role in daily practice, and ­linkages to the institutional and political ­level are seldom established. Such practice risks to replicate or to strengthen structural inequalities in society. One possible strategy to deal with this challenge, is to engage in network oriented ­approaches in order to develop a better understanding of system injustices, and to contribute to more encom­passing and sustainable response mechanisms in society. Can and should the restorative justice movement build alliances with other social movements in order to realise this perspective? The article is structured along the following lines. First, various visions of ‘structural violence’ are reflected upon. Reference is made, for example, to the issue of ­(de)colonisation and concomitant forms of ‘epistemic injustice’. Considerable attention is given to the complexity and the multilayered nature of underlying causes of injus­tices in the respective social fields, and to the risk of simplification and polarisation in society but also within social movements. The discussion then fo­cuses on practices of dealing with conflict, diversity and participatory decision making within the respective social movements, and whether and how restorative justice can offer inspiration and practical support. Thirdly, broader strategies on social transformation are discussed, dealing with, for example, how the interchangeable roles of warrior and healer can be adopted, and how, at a more general level, restorative oriented partnerships can be formed.

This essay is a scientific reflection on Leuven Restorative City (LRC). The cities, which present themselves as ‘restorative cities’, aim to ensure that restoration continues to nestle in the capillaries of our society. The article argues that realizing the LRC-promise requires restorative thinking through the meso-level of local public life. This involves reference to a number of notions that can be traced back to Ancient Greek thought in Athens, in which the intellectual virtue of ­phronesis – practical wisdom in a social and political context – is central. Citizens are seen as allies in the solution of social issues. LRC contributes to this through its focus on ‘turning conflict into opportunities’. Restorative justice wisdom is more widely applicable in society. However, the LRC process can sometimes be erratic and unpredict­able. The article points to the possible alternation of good and bad periods, and puts forward the expectation that the development of restorative practices in Leuven can be understood as cascades. In these cascades, the course of the diffusion of restorative practices is presented in terms of successive waves of learning experi­ences and knowledge sharing.

Litter in the street is a great annoyance for many people, especially in the large cities. This includes overflowing garbage containers caused by people incorrectly placing garbage: next to these containers. In this study, carried out in the municipality of Rotterdam, we have developed a model that provides insight into which factors contribute to where this is done (or not). In summary, days when people are not working, the number of people that depend on the container(s), the bonding and social cohesion of that group, and the social-economic circumstances of the people in that group are the most important factors in determining at which container locations people incorrectly place their garbage. These insights provide starting points for an effective municipal approach to overflowing garbage containers and thereby reducing the residents’ feelings of nuisance and unsafety.

Although risk profiling can by no means be considered as a ‘new’ crime prevention tool, its application has gained popularity over the years. Both in the screening of asylum seekers, in border control at airports (e.g. behavioural profiling or the use of risk profiles in the European Passenger Information Unit) and in the designation of hotspots at the local level (e.g. the Crime Anticipation System), attempts are now being made to identify persons with criminal intentions more often on the basis of ordinal risk assessment tools. This sudden increase in popularity is not remarkable, since random police patrols or undirected security checks have long been shown to have negligible impact on crime reduction. Risk profiles, on the other hand, have a certain potential for shaping more effectively the interventions by law enforcement authorities at border crossing points. Nevertheless, the use of such profiles also raises some pertinent questions. It is precisely in the light of this ambivalence that the present theoretical contribution will consider the pitfalls and success factors of risk profiling during border checks, in order to determine when one can speak of ‘risk profiling’ and when the concept of ‘risky profiling’ must be used.