[1] The term "green criminology" was introduced by Michael J. Lynch in 1990, and expanded upon in Nancy Frank and Michael J. Lynch's 1992 book, Corporate Crime, Corporate Violence,[2] which examined the political economic origins of green crime and injustice, and the scope of environmental law.
The political economic approach was expanded upon by Lynch and Paul B. Stretesky in two additional articles in The Critical Criminologist.
Long and then Kimberly L. Barrett, the political economic explanation and empirical studies of green crimes were adapted to include a perspective on the structural influence of the treadmill of production on the creation of green crimes [25][26][27][28] drawn from the work of Allan Schnaiberg, environmental sociology, eco-socialism and ecological Marxism.
[41] Also included within the examination of eco-crimes is the analysis of other ecologically harmful corporate behaviors such as the production of genetically modified foods[42] and various forms of toxic pollution.
[45] In proposing this term, White suggested that it is necessary to employ a critical analysis of environmental crime as it occurs in its global context and connections.
Originally proposed by an interdisciplinary group of scholars from the Department of Fisheries & Wildlife, School of Criminal Justice, and Environmental Science & Policy Program at Michigan State University, conservation criminology seeks to overcome limitations inherent to single-discipline science and provide practical guidance about on-the-ground reforms.
As an interdisciplinary science, conservation criminology requires the constant and creative combination of theories, methods, and techniques from diverse disciplines throughout the entire processes of research, practice, education, and policy.
Thinking about the interdisciplinary nature of conservation criminology can be quite exciting but does require patience and understanding of the different languages, epistemologies and ontologies of the core disciplines.
[55] By relying on multiple disciplines, conservation criminology leapfrogs this ideal; it promotes thinking about second- and third-order consequences of risks, not just isolated trends.
[56][58] It is often noted that green criminology is interdisciplinary and as a result, lacks its own unique theory or any preferred theoretical approach.
Moreover, significant portions of the green criminological literature are qualitative and descriptive, and those studies have generally not proposed a unique or unifying theory.
Beirne's approach takes an interdisciplinary view of theory with respect to various animal rights models and arguments.