Ways of “Not Hearing”: Corporate Denial in the Case of Aircraft Noise and Victimisation in the UK

Abstract

The elusive power dynamics behind the victimisation of aircraft noise pollution, a neglected type of invisible environmental harm, is the main concern of this study. I examine these dynamics through first-hand accounts of individuals’ aircraft noise complaint experiences with the airports in London, UK. An analysis of these experiences reveals specificities of corporate denial strategies in minimising or ignoring noise and the victims. I identify two different uses, namely reconstructive and obfuscation, of technical denial of cause, as the distinct types with which the individuals’ noise claims are confronted. As such, the paper contributes to our understanding of the experience of being an environmental victim. It also illustrates how the specific forms of corporate denial operate to the advantage of the powerful and contribute to victimisation.

Full text

Vol.:(0123456789)
Critical Criminology (2024) 32:707–723
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-024-09777-1
Ways of“Not Hearing”: Corporate Denial intheCase
ofAircraft Noise andVictimisation intheUK
AyşegülYıldırım1,2
Accepted: 23 June 2024 / Published online: 5 August 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
Abstract
The elusive power dynamics behind the victimisation of aircraft noise pollution, a neglected
type of invisible environmental harm, is the main concern of this study. I examine these
dynamics through first-hand accounts of individuals’ aircraft noise complaint experiences
with the airports in London, UK. An analysis of these experiences reveals specificities of
corporate denial strategies in minimising or ignoring noise and the victims. I identify two
different uses, namely reconstructive and obfuscation, of technical denial of cause, as the
distinct types with which the individuals’ noise claims are confronted. As such, the paper
contributes to our understanding of the experience of being an environmental victim. It
also illustrates how the specific forms of corporate denial operate to the advantage of the
powerful and contribute to victimisation.
Introduction
Transportation noise has been described as an urgent global environmental threat affecting
millions of city dwellers, according to the United Nations Environment Programme’s
(UNEP) recent report (UNEP, 2022). Only in London, UK, at least 70.000 people are
known to be exposed to aircraft noise daily (CAA, 2011). Through inflicting stress,
persistent exposure to noise can lead to numerous adverse effects including heart disease
(Munzel et al 2018), obesity (Pyko et al 2015), and premature death (Vienneau et al.
2022). Aircraft noise is a peculiar type of pollution that deserves closer attention from
criminologists. Despite the negative health effects, aircraft noise does not have the status
This paper is based on my PhD study at Goldsmiths, University of London, completed between the
years 2018–2022 and fully funded by the Turkish Ministry of Education. Apart from this, there are
no financial or non-financial conflict of interests to declare. The funders had no influence over the
selection of the study topic. Ethical approval has been cleared by the University and informed consents
have been provided by the participants before data collection.
* Ayşegül Yıldırım
aysegulyildirim9@gmail.com; ayild002@gold.ac.uk
1 Department ofSociology, Faculty ofArts andScience, Gaziantep University, 27310Gaziantep,
Turkey
2 Department ofSociology, Goldsmiths University ofLondon, 8 Lewisham Way,
LondonSE146NW, UK
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

708
A.Yıldırım
of statutory nuisance in England (Environmental Protection Act 1990). Aircraft noise
complaints are exclusively received and collected by the airports (DEFRA 2019a) instead
of local councils which are the first point of contact for statutory noise nuisances (DEFRA
2015). Given the lack of appropriate legal instruments available to the individuals and the
constant risk of health consequences caused by the pollutant, issues surrounding aircraft
noise should be scrutinised as an urgent instance of “invisible environmental harm” (see
Spapens etal. 2014).
It has been known that the powerful, including corporations, are well-placed to conceal
harms and crimes caused by their activities (Whyte 2016; Schoultz and Flyghed 2019).
Claims of corporate wrongdoings are generally ignored, refuted, and tend to remain
absent in the news media and public discussions (Alvesalo-Kuusi 2002). The invisibility
of such harms can be linked to numerous issues which are usually intertwined. First and
foremost, legal and regulatory frameworks, which will be unpacked soon, may operate for
the collaborative benefit of states and corporations in maintaining capital accumulation
(Tombs 2012). In this relationship, a key role can be played by corporate denial, as already
identified within the corporate crime literature. Originally based on the Techniques
of Neutralisation theory (Sykes and Matza 1957), corporate denial is a commonplace
strategy across industries. It is determined by the distinct dynamics of the harm, suited to
the features of the case in question (Whyte 2016). For example, in an accident caused by
workplace conditions, the corporation may “condemn the condemners” by claiming that
the affected worker are themselves accident-prone (Tombs 1991), or they may justify their
activities by claiming that they are for the greater good, arguing they offer social benefits
such as employment (Coleman, 1987). This study highlights specific types of denials, the
ones including technical explanations in particular, to argue that they are used in aviation
to obscure the harms and victimisation caused by aircraft noise. In doing so, it focuses on
aircraft noise complaints procedures whereby these denials emerge. Individual experiences
of encountering this process reveal dynamics which would make the suffering out-of-sight.
The study, therefore, has employed first-hand qualitative data that emerged from interviews
with those who were affected by aircraft noise and made an official complaint in London,
UK. After a brief review of the literature on the broader concepts of environmental harm
and victimisation in green criminology and corporate denial, I will present the results of
the interviews and discuss their implications within the related fields.
Aircraft Noise asInvisible Harm
This paper contextualises aircraft noise as a novel topic within critical-green criminology
which has signalled the intangibility of some serious environmental harms from early on.
For instance, South (1998:225) has suggested that criminology should take harms like
air pollution seriously and that there should be stricter regulations on corporate practices
which contribute to such harms. There is a growing body of literature dedicated to the
socio-legal studies of environmental harms which are not necessarily deemed illegal
(Walters 2013; 2014; Wyatt 2014; White 2015; Spapens etal 2014). This approach has
a zemiological basis which questions the “ontological reality” (Hillyard et al. 2004) of
the legal definitions of crime. It directs our attention to the losses, suffering and injuries
caused by the powerful (such as genocide, war crimes, and environmental harms) which
are not prosecuted with the same rigour as street crimes even though their impact tend
to be more severe (Cohen 1993; 2001; Krain 1997). These harms are usually away from
the attention of lawmakers, public and the media (Hillyard etal 2004). Jupp etal (1999)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

709
Ways of“Not Hearing”: Corporate Denial intheCase ofAircraft…
have summarised features that contribute to the invisibility of such harms, arguing there is
“no knowledge, no statistics, no theory, no research, no control, no politics and no panic!”
regarding such acts or omissions (Davies etal. 2014: 1). Aircraft noise, too, displays these
features. I will outline the most visible of these elements, namely politics and knowledge,
as more relevant to the pollutant in question within the scope of the present paper. These
features constitute the main background against which corporate denials emerge.
First, aircraft noise is invisible because of a lack of politics. This means that
transportation noise is institutionally not recognised as a serious harm and underrepresented
in the media and public discussions. In England, noise as a statutory nuisance has been
clearly defined to include “noise emanating from premises” (Environmental Protection
Act 1990), such as neighbour noise or entertainment noise. However, as Sects.79(6) and
79(6A) of the Act state, transportation noise, including that of aviation, is excluded from
this definition. Aircraft noise is subject to regulations which mainly deal with monitoring
practices to be implemented by the airports. Noise contour areas of 55dB(A) for daytime
and 50dB(A) for nighttime have been identified (EU Commission, 2002; DEFRA, 2019b).
These limits, however, are above the most recent WHO (2018) guidelines for aircraft noise,
which states that aircraft noise above 45dB Lden in the daytime and 40dB Lden at night
is associated with health risks. While the responsibility for managing other transportation
noise belongs to DEFRA, handling aviation noise issues, including individual complaints,
is the task of the airports (DEFRA 2019a, 2019b). Official noise monitoring and
complaints mechanisms that constitute the major parts of the regulatory system of noise
can be described as ‘regimes of permission’ (Whyte, 2014; Bernat and Whyte, 2017),
which will be addressed below. In such a system, seeking justice through legal means is
not possible for those who are affected by aircraft noise exposure as airports are made the
primary authority to address noise complaints. Green criminology has addressed some of
the vicissitudes of endowing such powers to corporations (Walters 2014; Saad-Diniz and
Gianecchini 2021).
Relatedly, aircraft noise is invisible because there is a lack of knowledge. This is despite
the large amount of evidence and the experiences of affected communities. It is known
that aircraft noise impacts thousands in London, UK (CAA, 2011). Studies have well-
documented the mechanism by which noise leads to serious health conditions through
inducing stress (inter alia Babisch 2011; Munzel etal 2014). In addition, aircraft noise
is found to be more disruptive than other sources of transportation noise, therefore more
likely to be inflicting health consequences (Brink et al. 2019). However, there are “no
official statistics” (Jupp etal. 1999) which accurately picture the degree and scale of the
noise emissions as well as the associated health risks to inform the public. Nor do the facts
receive sufficient media attention to spark a public debate about the consequences of the
pollutant. Together with the lack of politics, the lack of knowledge enables aircraft noise
to remain highly intangible, perhaps more so than other types of environmental pollutants
that are already visually traceable (e.g. Natali 2016).
Finally, aircraft noise, or transportation noise in general, has been absent in criminology
as a research topic. Green criminology has explored numerous harms including air
pollution (Walters 2013; 2014), water pollution (McClanahan 2014), land pollution (Natali
2016), oil spills (Bradshaw 2014), and biopiracy (Wyatt 2014). Features of “no theory,
no research” (Jupp etal. 1999) in noise pollution also contribute to the invisibility of the
issue. The role of the ocularcentrism that once remained unchallenged within the discipline
should also be highlighted (Brown and Carrabine 2017). Promising steps have been taken
towards embracing sensory experiences in criminology. Noise as a sensory phenomenon
has been emerging within cultural criminology in exploring the symbolic significance of
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

710
A.Yıldırım
sounds for the actors in spaces of crime and punishment (Ruiz and South 2018; Herrity
etal 2021). Incorporation of the sensory into green criminology has also been put firmly
into the research agenda (McClanahan and South 2020). Nodding to these developments,
this paper brings noise into the attention of critical-green criminology, stressing the
relevance of the subject in terms of being an urgent social harm that needs to emerge
within the research agenda.
Environmental Victimisation ofAircraft Noise
There is less doubt today about the need to reveal the processes of victimisation to be able
to reflect the reality of environmental harms (Spencer and Fitzgerald 2013; Natali 2015;
Hall, 2017). In their pioneering article, Williams (1996), based on Fattah (1989), expands
the definition of the victim to anyone who suffers the consequences of violating the “norms
relating to human rights” (but not necessarily local laws). This definition is along a similar
line as the radical victimological project, which considers “the victims of oppression of
any sort” (Quinney 1972: 315). Broadening the definitions has prompted various studies
to explore victimisation in different contexts (Davies 2014; White 2015; Hall 2013; 2017;
Natali 2016; Natali and Budo 2018).
It should be noted that the poor (Bullard 2018) and those living in the Global South
(White 2003) are more likely to be affected by environmental degradation. However,
there is a peculiarity of the combination of London as research setting and aircraft noise
as an environmental harm as it presents a different picture of victimisation. Contrary to
the observation above, participants who contributed to the present study live in relatively
affluent boroughs. Moreover, these neighbourhoods are also the most overflown areas
including Richmond, Fulham, Chelsea, Kensington on the west as well as Greenwich and
other boroughs in the proximity of London City Airport on the southeast. It should be
stressed that not all individuals have the same capacity to navigate aircraft noise within
the boundaries of the city, however wealthy. The role of gender, ethnicity, or health and
disability in coping with aspects of noise should be acknowledged. Nevertheless, the main
focus of the paper is to highlight the state-corporate mechanisms that serve to make aircraft
noise intangible, regardless of social groups.
Victims of environmental harm are not detected by the radar of the criminal justice
system often because of the lack of a legal mechanism to protect the individuals and the
immense corporate power in maintaining the environmental harm (Wolf 2011; Spapens
etal. 2014; White 2015; White 2018; Saad-Diniz and Gianecchini 2021). The explanation
for the scale and persistence of corporate wrongdoings often goes beyond the mere failure
or ignorance of the state to consider victims and the harms. Notable critiques suggest
that we need to start viewing states and corporations in an intense symbiotic relationship
whereby extensive powers and concessions are endowed to corporations in business,
trade, investment and financial matters (Tombs 2012; Whyte 2014). These powers are
conceptualised under ‘regimes of permission’ which historically included specific breaches
of law, gaining of rights, and evading liability in wrongful activities (Whyte, 2014).
Through this concept, the lack of prosecution in aviation noise can be viewed as a major
permission given to corporations. Descending from this regime of permission, therefore,
airports have both the right to make noise as well as the powers to protect business
accumulation by dealing with aircraft noise complaints.
The complexity of detecting environmental pollutants, including noise, can also be
exploited. As Williams (1996: 26) has clarified, corporations are encouraged by the existing
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

711
Ways of“Not Hearing”: Corporate Denial intheCase ofAircraft…
complexity of establishing a causal relationship between the environmentally harmful event
(e.g. noise) and the outcome (e.g. a stroke). This is a highly valid observation in the case
of aircraft noise. Similar to the governance of other types of emissions where corporations
are allowed to emit pollutants and toxins to a certain level (Wolf 2011; Walters 2013),
aircraft noise in England is monitored but without prosecution upon the violation of the
limits (DEFRA, 2019b). Compounded with noise monitoring and management powers,
the high-level expertise on noise measurements using metrics (ibid.) make the airports
the only authority in officially establishing causal relationships of liability. Through the
responsibility to address complaints processes and expertise, the airports officially hold the
means to “prove” whether or how noise events took place.
A disincentive for corporations to avoid responsibility is the “scale of remediation”
(Williams 1996:26) for environmental harms caused by their activities. The scale of
remediation may vary depending on the type of harm, but this will ultimately entail a
reduction in profit (Tombs and Whyte 2020). In the present case, lessening aircraft noise
emissions would ultimately mean reducing the number of flights and, therefore, profit.
Capital accumulation itself is a much more central concern than preventing the health risks
of emissions (ibid). As a result, the harm may be presented as a normal part of the business,
creating the illusion of its inevitability (Bourdieu 1999; Walters 2013; 2014). If the scale of
remediation includes profit loss, noise also becomes “inevitable”, further deflecting from
the suffering of the victimised.
Within such a mechanism that “contribute(s) to the victims” (Mawby and Walklate
2002:19) and the harm, analysing victims’ experiences would become powerful in terms
of methodology and justice-seeking. As such, individuals who provided valuable insights
for the present study through their first-hand experiences in aircraft noise complaints
procedures helped make power dynamics become visible. Denial occurs in their narratives
in a highly repetitive and systematic manner. In what follows, I will first outline corporate
denial as a conceptual framework. Then, the paper will move on to the empirical sections
to present and analyse participants’ accounts.
Corporate Denial asConceptual Frame
State-corporate symbiosis entail multiple strategies to sustain capital accumulation (Tombs,
2012; Bernat and Whyte, 2017), as in the example of aircraft noise. The existing regulatory
regime of noise provides exclusive powers to the airports to monitor noise and deal with
noise complaints. Denial appears as both a distinct strategy and a useful unit of analysis
within the wider set of strategies of state-corporate collaboration. Within the criminological
literature, corporate techniques of neutralisation, or forms of corporate denial, have been
well-categorised and analysed (Whyte 2016; Schoultz and Flyghed 2019). In the context
of green crimes and harms, Wyatt and Brisman (2017) examined state-corporate denial
in the discourses on biopiracy and climate change. Whyte (2016) evaluated types of
corporate denial in detail and demonstrated common sense understandings underpinning
these strategies. While this body of literature has so far analysed the official statements
of corporations, state persons and CEOs, the present study examines denial through the
accounts of the victims, intending to make their experience visible, providing an outlet to
express their concerns (Natali 2015).
The repertoire of corporate denial typologies is based on the Techniques of
Neutralisation theory (Sykes and Matza 1957), which has been originally developed to
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

712
A.Yıldırım
understand how individual offenders justify their wrongful acts or omissions. According to
Sykes and Matza (1957), the neutralisation techniques offenders have used would function
as a tool to undermine social values, moral requirements and the law, providing grounds for
the act. The five main techniques the authors have identified are as follows:
• Denial of responsibility: External factors or people are presented as the cause of the
wrongful act, which usually happens beyond the offenders’ control.
• Denial of injury: The effects of the action are downplayed, or it is entirely rejected that
the action inflicts any harm.
• Denial of the victim: The offender claims that the victim deserved what happened to
them, or there is no victim at all.
• Condemnation of the condemners: People or organisations who claim that the offender
is responsible are blamed, criticised or punished.
• Appeal to higher loyalties: The harmful act is justified with reference to a superior
entity or authority which is above people, society, law or moral codes.
Stan Cohen (2001) notably applied these techniques to explain how states or
organisations employ forms of denial to justify or legitimise serious harms such as
genocide or torture. According to Cohen (ibid: 7–9), the neutralisations used by the states
and organisations fit into three categories: Literal denial (outright denial of the facts),
interpretive denial (the facts are presented differently), and implicatory denial (the various
implications of the facts are denied). Cohen thus highlighted more subtle strategies that
go beyond individuals and take a collective form. The interpretive and implicatory types
of denials are not simply unconscious responses that have to do with the psychological
defence of the subject. They are calculated strategies, carefully devised to represent a
version of the truth that is in line with the interest of the state or organisation responding to
harm caused by their activities.
Denial types have often been found in the statements of various corporate industries
avoiding accusations or convictions (Box 1983; Huisman, 2010; Whyte 2016; Schoultz and
Flyghed 2019). Whyte (2016) has identified nuanced forms of denial explaining specific
situations which do not fall neatly into a few of the original categories of Cohen (2001)
and Sykes and Matza (1957). One such type is the denial of deviance, which “projects the
condemned behaviour as the cultural norm” (ibid:175). This is not exactly literal denial
as there is an attempt to neutralise the act through reference to industry norms, such as
the ratio of accidents. Secondly, Whyte (ibid: 175) argues that corporations may engage in
denial of cause—or, technical denial of cause (Schoultz and Flyghed 2019:748)—which
stems from the capability to represent the action “as not abnormal or deviance in technical
industry terms”. The typology differs from “denial of harm” by identifying the use of a
technical language in which the action is re-constructed by the corporation. The findings of
the present study confirmed the presence of some of the abovementioned types of denial in
the official responses to noise complaints. On the other hand, this study has found elaborate
specificities of the technical denial of cause which will sketch out a more detailed picture
of the regulatory system of noise.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

713
Ways of“Not Hearing”: Corporate Denial intheCase ofAircraft…
Method
The qualitative data this paper utilises have been obtained from open-ended, in-depth
interviews I conducted in 2021 with 26 participants who were affected by aircraft noise
in their homes in London. The participants were recruited through social media adverts
and e-mails circulated among the members of the campaign group HACAN (Heathrow
Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise). There are participants who are not members
of such groups, however. Calls for participants attracted an enthusiastic and highly
knowledgeable group of people who have been exposed to aircraft noise for a long time
who have provided valuable insights into their experience and surrounding issues. The
sample consisted of working or retired individuals who are older than 35, residing across
different parts of London. Although all of them are in a relatively privileged position,
it should be kept in mind that aircraft noise in London is virtually ubiquitous, as the
wealthiest boroughs (Richmond, Fulham, Chelsea) are overflown in addition to other areas
(e.g. Lewisham, Waltham Forest, Sidcup) (HACAN, 2017). I used pseudonyms instead
of the real names of the participants and indicated the boroughs they live in to maintain
confidentiality.
In the interviews which typically took 1 hour, broadly framed questions exploring the
personal, policy and sociological aspects of aircraft noise were asked. Other prompts were
also given as relevant to keep the conversation developing. The present paper is based
on the findings on the policy aspect of the interviews, elicited by the question “Have
you ever made a formal complaint to the airports?” and the related prompts. Complaints
experiences have shown “thick” (Ahmed 2021:127) of the policy/political side of aircraft
noise experience as harm; the intricacies of such dynamics and the role of denial as they
unfolded.
The salience of using qualitative methods in studying environmental victimisation has
been on the agenda for more than a decade (Heckenberg and White 2012; Brisman and
South 2014; Hall 2017; Brisman 2017). This approach has been suggested to understand
how cultural and social perceptions shape the experience of being an environmental
victim. Natali (2016) and Natali and Budo (2018) have explored via visual and sensory
methods the culture of victimisation of visible and olfactory pollution. Auditory methods
have so far been brought to the research agenda for researching mainly the cultural
interpretations of sound and noise (Ruiz and South 2018:12). Focusing on victims’
experiences to aid specifically in a critical approach, to better make sense of the power
dynamics in environmental harm (see Natali 2015) has not been the priority of green-
critical criminology for a long time, however. The present method responds to this need
by marrying the radical victimological approach (Williams 1996; Mawby and Walklate
2002) with the qualitative method of open-ended interviewing (Brinkmann 2018:
576–599). This method can elicit in more detail issues or topics that may not be captured
through structured or semi-structured interviews by bringing in the dialogical process and
conversation to the fieldwork (ibid.; Parker 2011). Similar approaches have been adopted
in critical ethnography in a bid to challenge existing power relations while inviting more
participant (and researcher) involvement in the process (Madison, 2005; Leslie 2005;
Denzin 2017). The purpose of the method is especially relevant for the empowerment of
the victims of aircraft noise where there is an absence of official outlets through which
victims can make their voices heard and be taken seriously.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

714
A.Yıldırım
Results
The following sections will present the accounts which were subjected to theoretical-
thematic analysis where the existing theoretical frameworks—in this case, the typology
of corporate denial—are applied to reveal some aspects of the data (Braun and Clarke
2006:12). The sections will explore multiple ways in which airports have responded to the
noise complaints as the participants reported. The framework of denial will be applied to
the accounts as relevant and the implications for victimisation will be discussed.
From Literal Denial toDenial ofResponsibility
The interviews show that corporate denial in complaints procedures was significantly
visible, directly observed, abundant and repetitive. Informants held strong—negative—
views about the complaint procedures and responses to complaints in general. They
gave detailed justifications for their opinions as well as insights on how the complaints
procedures affected them personally when they engaged with the process.
According to the participants, one common feature of the responses they would
receive from the airports regarding their noise complaints is their standardised form.
Mary (Lambeth, southeast London) is one of the participants who have engaged with the
complaint procedures and attended public consultation meetings with the airport whose
planes overflow their neighbourhood. As she recounts, the noise they receive has increased
over the years because they have “felt more and more overflown”. When she raised the
issue to the airport in her complaints, she was told “Nothing has changed”. Mary adds
that it is a “standard response”, emphasising “‘There is no difference.’ [they say] It’s just,
you know, ‘Thank you for your complaint, we’ve registered it’”. Asserting nothing had
changed about the flights or flight paths which bring noise over Mary’s neighbourhood can
be described as literal denial (Cohen 2001:7) where the facts are rejected: Mary’s claim is
not true or did not happen. There is no change in flights, therefore there is no noise. This
is the most simple and standardised response that the participants often received. As Kate
(Southwark, southeast London) also confirmed:
They’d even deny that they came over you, full stop. And that’s it. And they’ve got a
set of responses […], but they never actually address the particular point that’s made.
And they have enough complaints coming in that they’ve got their replies down to a
fine art.
Kate stresses that the responses, however standardized and simple they may seem,
are carefully constructed to evade dealing with the main point in the complaint. The
standardised, repetitive denials are not accidental statements. Echoing Cohen’s (2001)
clarification, they are not unconscious defence mechanisms, but carefully thought and
calculated strategies tailored to the types of complaints to avoid facing any accusations.
Kate’s claim that airports “never actually address the particular point that’s made”
also chimes with the aims of other various denial strategies. This is the point made by the
participants about the other, more detailed corporate responses. As Mary’s exemplified,
whenever she asked for their flight schedules or the possibility of a respite, the airport
said: “Well, it’s not our fault. Someone else controls the flight paths.” The second type,
denial of responsibility, occurs as such. In this case, it is elicited when the corporation
is challenged with follow-up questions. As mentioned, the corporation is claiming that a
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

715
Ways of“Not Hearing”: Corporate Denial intheCase ofAircraft…
third party is in control of the events or actions, not them. The control of the flight paths
becomes an isolated event that is presented as outside of the operations of the airport.
Overseeing the airspace is a highly complicated matter (which indeed deserves analysis)
and it is accurate that the flight paths are subjected to air traffic management of National
Air Traffic Services (NATS) in the UK. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), the public
corporation for airspace regulation, is also “responsible for administering the airspace
change process and providing guidance on the process to stakeholders” (CAA 2021: 20).
But the denial is in the deflection from noise and the responsibility thereof. Moreover,
control of the flight paths, one component of the event that includes a whole set of strategic
plannings, agreements and material arrangements, forms the main point of the response.
Finally, it is important to note that the control of the flight paths differs from the existence
of the flight paths. And while the first is used in the denial of responsibility, the latter is
relevant for literal denial. As such, truths and facts are merged, emptied or distorted to fit
into the narrative that suits the type of denial that corresponds to the level of the challenge
that came from the participants in the complaint procedures. The management of the flight
paths emerges as an important point and the technical explanations regarding this will be
the topic of the next theme.
Technical Denial ofCause
Results in this section present the repetitive type of response which I argue is specific to
aircraft noise complaints, namely, technical denial of cause, where the corporation presents
an explanation regarding their actions using specific details of flight operations. This type
of denial has already been employed by other industries (Whyte 2016:175). Here, I will
present two distinct uses of this strategy characterised by the frequency and the content
of the issues included in the response. I will show that the denial may include at least two
types of content which yield different effects at the discursive level.
Reconstructive Use
As Andrew (Waltham Forest, east London) recounted:
There was a particular day when it just seemed to be incredibly noisy (…) and I
wrote a complaint. I got this quite reasonable reply, telling me about the heights the
aeroplanes fly at, and how they have to fly those heights because of the Heathrow
aircraft above them. And while they do appreciate that noise is a factor for some
people and it’s regrettable - get on with it! Because there’s nothing you can do. It’s
almost like, you know, when someone punches you in the face and then explains to
you quite reasonably, “Well, the reason I punched you in the face is because I don’t
like the way you’ve grown your beard and your hair colour doesn’t really appeal.”
And you can think, “Okay, so that’s why I’ve got a bloody nose: because you don’t
like my beard and my hairstyle.”
Responses which Andrew and some other participants received contain the details on
how the flight (or noise) event took place, such as time of day, the type of the aircraft as
well as altitude and direction. Here, the denial is formed by presenting the crude facts as
the cause for an explanation, disengaging noise from the actual happening of the event.
This is what I call the reconstructive use of the technical denial of cause, whereby the
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

716
A.Yıldırım
representation of the event includes basic information on flights and excludes the actuality
of harm, evading liability. Noise becomes disengaged from the actual event not through
the outright denial of the event or referring to someone else for responsibility, but through
actively producing the sequence of the events, a different narrative based on the criteria of
inclusion and exclusion. This is illustrative of what Foucault (1972; 1980) outlined as the
formation of discourses. By reconstructing the flight event with the basic facts, noise—
and therefore responsibility—is excluded from the actions and the claims of the individual.
The victimised is once more dismissed—or, re-victimised—and the power asymmetry is
amplified. As Kate reported:
It’s impossible to put them on the spot. They just slide out. […] “Miss Wright may
not know. But winds are predominantly westerly in her part of London, and therefore
the planes are flying in over her.” This is the level of patronising responses that all of
us are getting.
In Kate’s case, by explaining the noise with wind direction—or, not explaining anything
at all—the denial bypasses the flight-noise relationship. Disengaging the responsibility
from noise becomes possible through reconstructing the event based on the wind,
presenting a different version of events, complicating the causality. The assemblage of
industry-flight-noise becomes impossible to “put on the spot”, as Kate has put it. The next
use of the denial of cause will reveal another elusive way in which aircraft noise is made
complicated in corporate responses.
Obfuscation Use
A particular explanation for the concentration of flight paths that ultimately refutes their
role in noise emissions is often mentioned in the participants’ accounts. Like Mary, most
participants complained to the relevant airport about the incremental increase in aircraft
noise in their area throughout the years. An increase in noise means an increase in the
number of flights, but not all areas experience the same amount of change. Communities
sensed that flight paths have gradually been concentrated across London, which meant
more noise for certain parts of the city and somewhat less for others. For example, daily
arrivals over Greenwich had increased by 165 between the years 2011–17, according to
HACAN and Plane Hell Action (2018). The specificities of technical denial of cause have
to do with the technical descriptions for the concentration of the flight paths, namely,
Performace Based Navigation (PBN) (CAA 2022). As Rick (Greenwich, southeast London)
confirmed, “When I raised [concentration of the flight paths] [in the meeting] they said ‘It’s
performance-based navigation.’”
Mary’s account summarises the explanation she once received about the increased noise
due to the concentration of flight paths in their area:
[According to the airport] the reason for this is the navigation system which allows
planes to be more accurately guided down a single path. So whereas flights were
dispersed over a wider area, as the technology has got more precise, and more flights
have come in [to the airport], they put their nose to tail over a single, concentrated
flight path. For a long time they’ve said “No, no, nothing has changed in this area”.
The narrative of the PBN system provided to account for the increase in aircraft
noise over Mary’s area sounds like a “reasonable explanation”, in Andrew’s words,
in the first glance. Indeed, there is a causal relationship between the increase in noise
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

717
Ways of“Not Hearing”: Corporate Denial intheCase ofAircraft…
and an increase in flights due to guiding more planes to the specific area where flights
are concentrated before arriving at the airport. However, the effect of this explanation
operates to conceal, not to resolve the noise issue claimed by the individual. The reason
for the noise, according to the responses, lies purely in the technical strategy of PBN,
which becomes even more normalised in the meantime. Instead of reconstructing the
events from scratch, therefore, the corporation uses what is already available to them:
technical details and reasons for how exactly PBN works. This detailed description
loaded with aviation terms puzzles the complaining individual who typically is not an
expert in the relevant area. Hence the obfuscation use of the technical denial of cause
whereby the industry expertise is mobilised to confuse and deflect from the reason and
responsibility for environmental harm.
It is useful to note here that PBN strategy itself as a main part of UK official airspace
design plans (CAA 2023) (i.e., how to use the airspace more efficiently to potentially
accommodate more flights) already has political implications in terms of aircraft noise
management. As Chloe (Richmond, southwest London) has also underlined, the use
of PBN results in a reduction in the number of people who are significantly affected
by noise. The technique means fewer people are exposed to higher noise emissions,
creating “noise ghettos”, as campaigner John Stewart has put it (AirportWatch 2014).
It becomes more efficient to “manage” noise with fewer complaints coming from
smaller, ghettoised communities rather than more cases of the moderately-disturbed
individuals scattered around larger areas. This would be a highly precarious position
for the residents living under already-concentrated flight paths even more so should the
planned airport expansion projects go through (Topham 2018). For example, the flights
to and from Heathrow are already frequent, with a flight every 90 seconds, as Leigh
from Hounslow (west London, where Heathrow is located) also reported. The increased
concentration concentration of the flight paths for Leigh, therefore, would mean that
they will be overflown even increased frequently, making unbearable conditions
wholly unliveable. Part of a highly elaborate plan (CAA, 2021), PBN deepens the
environmental injustice by disproportionately affecting certain areas significantly more
than the remaining parts of the city. As mentioned before, environmental harms tend
to be distributed unequally whereby the poor are made much more vulnerable. The
distribution of aircraft noise in London, again, seems to present a different picture
through affect wealthy (such as Richmond) and poorer boroughs alike. From this
respect, London presents a specific case in which aircraft noise reaches a truly special
status, transgressing social and spatial boundaries which are thought to determine the
‘conventional’ distribution of the pollutants. It is a case whereby capital accumulation
radically configures the environment.
The concentration of flight paths becomes a dominant corporate narrative on (obscuring)
aircraft noise. While making the noise an harm invisible, it inflicts its “slow violence”
(Nixon, 2011) over communities which experience the noise on an increasingly intense
level compared to others. The carefully calculated implementation of the PBN suggests
that the targets of noise are always “known in advance” (Walters 2014:151), as exemplified
through the participants’ accounts. The use of the explanations for PBN, in other words, is
always the product of deliberate planning and strategizing of the responses and their effects
(see Cohen 2001). The technical denial of cause by using details for PBN creates confusion
in individuals and obfuscates environmental harm and victimisation.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

718
A.Yıldırım
Effects ofDenial
Denial faced by the participants in the complaints does not merely sustain what is
already happening. As Ahmed (2021:127) has analysed, the complaint process itself can
make the ordeal more unbearable and painful. It exacerbates the suffering already caused
by the constant noise exposure, in addition to the various health effects. Moreover, the
individuals know about the futility of complaining before even being confronted with
denial. As Leigh (Hounslow, west London), who has never complained, admitted:
You feel completely powerless, don’t you? It’s [complaining] something that I
haven’t even looked into because you just know that you’re going to be fighting a
losing battle. […] It’s just too big. Where do you even start?
Leigh feels helpless in the face of the massive power and scale of the state-corporate
system, which leads to highly negative thoughts and impressions that prevent the individual
from complaining or even researching about how to make a complaint in the first place.
This point was also raised by other participants. Sally (Ealing, west London) never officially
complained because she thought it would make her “vexatious”, while Mary confirmed she
was “one of those quite obsessed people” and she likened the complaint mechanism to a
“black hole”. Knowing that they do not have a genuine listener, the tendency to self-blame
by describing themselves as “obsessive” or “vexatious” was persistent. Joseph (Richmond,
southwest London) comments that “You end up just winding yourself up. Because you
do more harm than good” as a result of going through the complaint processes. As such,
complaining intensifies the distress directly caused by the noise, implying secondary
victimisation (Campbell etal. 2001; Campbell and Raja 2005).
Finally, as Kate interprets in relation to the denial of cause:
I’m the person who’s affected. And I’m not going to spend time trying to understand
why two and two make four. […] I want to respond and put in my comment as an
effective person. But I don’t understand half the technicality that they’re talking
about, and I shouldn’t have to, is what I feel.
Kate describes the feeling of frustration occurring as a result of the corporate obscuring of
what they have been going through. But Kate refuses this obfuscation: As she envisions, the
individual does not have to feel guilty about not understanding the technical language of air-
crafts. Indeed, the inadequacy is not in the individual, but rather in the current design of com-
plaint mechanism which in the first place makes the individual vulnerable in the face of such
treatments. While being exposed to noise is painful, and the impression that the corporation
is too powerful to challenge is strong, complaining adds another layer to the issue, a potential
for obsession, self-blame and disappointment. Individuals enter the system only to be once
more ignored, “patronised”, to feel distressed and defeated. The effect of the noise complaint
mechanism becomes the point of the mechanism (Ahmed 2021:128) (italic is mine).
Conclusion
This paper articulated the specific types of denial inherent to aircraft noise complaints
mechanisms that reveal how the invisibility of victimisation is maintained at the
institutional level. I argued that noise management in aviation is too unjust which only
adds more suffering to the first-hand victimisation caused by noise, instead of addressing
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

719
Ways of“Not Hearing”: Corporate Denial intheCase ofAircraft…
the actual issues. On the one hand, because the notoriousness of the process is well-known
within the communities subjected to noise, some people remain reluctant to complain.
Complaining, on the other hand, does not change the status quo of noise. It turns into a
process to be avoided unless one would like to endure additional distress caused by being
confused, rejected, or dismissed. As such, complaints would lead to the re-victimisation
of the victim. But regardless of whether the complaint occurs, the state-corporate
collaboration seems to successfully achieve the invisibility and impunity of aircraft noise
emissions while protecting business-as-usual and capital accumulation.
To be able to address environmental injustices, it is evidently central to re-state that the
victims and harms are often made invisible. However, without understanding the specifici-
ties of the institutional processes which enable such issues to remain invisible, a reform for
justice may not be prompted. As illustrated through the participants’ accounts, it may seem
natural to hear about the technical explanations of an airport when it comes to explaining
noise caused by flights which require a high level of aviation expertise in understanding
how they operate. However, it makes sense to differentiate between explaining the mecha-
nism which makes noise and preventing the mechanism from making “noise”—with all the
metaphorical and literal meanings (see Malaspina 2018) intended. It is important to note the
many nuances of denial as a vehicle to maintain invisibility, illustrated by the reconstructive
and obfuscation sub-types of denial of cause. The point is not to understand the concentra-
tion of flight paths, but to pinpoint how a certain narrative about the flight paths becomes
operational in dismissing, defeating and making intangible the aircraft noise as harm.
As part of the wider regulatory system of noise, denial strategies not only disable liabil-
ity and help the corporation achieve impunity, but also drone out the voice of the victims,
hindering the ways in which justice for them can be established. As such, various, elabo-
rate forms of denial can be a salient part of the environmental issue and more research is
needed to reveal more nuances on such official responses to various types of environmental
harms. As shown, denial types vary from literal to technical according to individual sub-
missions of complaints. It should also be noted that more collective forms of complaints
also face denial, however differently. As the author (Yildirim 2022) has analysed else-
where, corporate communication in public consultation events can take a different, ‘friend-
lier’ form, including references to aviation industry working for the ‘benefit for all’. While
elevating the corporate profile, the strategy further contributes to evading impunity and
responsibility. The regulatory strategies including denial, therefore, are not fixed, and can
take many forms suited to the context of the complaint.
The flexibility and multiplicity of these strategies suggest that the ability to pinpoint reg-
ulatory strategies including denial is crucial. It should be cultivated to empower the envi-
ronmental victim and to subvert the corporate narrative, which would work to prevent self-
blame and pave the way for justice. The awareness would initiate creation of outlets through
which the individuals’ voices can be heard and ultimately challenge the legal and political
mechanisms to adopt eco-justice-oriented policies. Focusing on victims’ experiences is thus
central to critical-criminological endeavours, even more so in the face of the environmental
issues that are made intangible. Listening to those who are affected by such issues reveals
the constructedness of processes, or ‘ways of not hearing’, which at first seem natural.
Acknowledgements This study reports findings from the author’s PhD research which has been funded by
the Turkish Ministry of Education, completed in 2022 at Goldsmiths, University of London. I would like to
thank the anonymous reviewers for their encouragement and thoughtfulcomments whichhavehelpedele-
vatingthis paper includingits theoretical background. Many thanks also to various anti-noise organiza-
tionsacross London, HACAN in particular, whichassisted with the participant recruitment process of this
study.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

720
A.Yıldırım
Funding Open access funding provided by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye
(TÜBİTAK).
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly
from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
Ahmed, S. (2021) Complaint! Durham: Duke University Press.
AirportWatch (2014) London City Airport was accused of creating a ‘noise ghetto’ with proposed concen-
trated flight paths. https:// www. airpo rtwat ch. org. uk/ 2014/ 09/ london- city- airpo rt- accus ed- of- creat ing-
a- noise- ghetto- with- propo sed- conce ntrat ed- flight- paths/
Alvesalo-Kuusi, A. (2002) Downsized by law, ideology and pragmatics: Policing white collar crime. In G.
Potter (Ed.), Controversies in White Collar Crime (pp.149-164). Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing.
Babisch, W. (2011) Cardiovascular effects of noise. In J.O. Nriagu (Ed.), Encyclopedia of environmental
health (pp.532–542). Burlington: Elsevier.
Bernat, I. and Whyte, D. (2017) State-Corporate Crime and the Process of Capital Accumulation: Mapping
a Global Regime of Permission from Galicia to Morecambe Bay. Critical Criminology. 25(1), 71–86.
Bourdieu, P. (1999) Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Box, S. (1983) Power, crime and mystification. London: Routledge.
Bradshaw, E.A. (2014) State-corporate environmental cover-up: The response to the 2010 Gulf of Mexico
oil spill. State Crime Journal, 3(2), 163–181.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology,
3(2), 77–101.
Brink, M., Schäffer, B., Vienneau, D., Foraster, M. (2019) A survey on exposure-response relationships for
road, rail, and aircraft noise annoyance: Differences between continuous and intermittent noise. Envi-
ronment International, 125, 277-290.
Brinkmann, S. (2018) The interview. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qual-
itative research (pp. 576–599). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Brisman, A. (2017) On narrative and green cultural criminology. International Journal for Crime, Justice
and Social Democracy, 6(2), 64-77.
Brisman, A. and South, N. (2014) Green cultural criminology: Constructions of environmental harm, con-
sumerism, and resistance to ecocide. Oxon: Routledge.
Brown, M. and Carrabine, E. (2017) Routledge international handbook of visual criminology. Oxon:
Routledge.
Bullard, R.D. (2018) Dumping In Dixie: Race, class, and environmental quality. New York: Routledge.
CAA (2011) Insight Note 2: Aviation Policy for Environment.
CAA (2021) CAP1616. Airspace change: Guidance on the regulatory process for changing the notified
airspace design and planned and permanent redistribution of air traffic, and on providing airspace
information.
CAA (2022) Performance-based navigation. https:// www. caa. co. uk/ Comme rcial- indus try/ Airsp ace/ Commu
nicat ion- navig ation- and- surve illan ce/ Perfo rmance- based- navig ation/
CAA (2023) About the strategy: Airspace modernisation strategy. https:// www. caa. co. uk/ comme rcial- indus
try/ airsp ace/ airsp ace- moder nisat ion/ airsp ace- moder nisat ion- strat egy/ about- the- strat egy/
Campbell, R. and Raja, S. (2005) The sexual assault and secondary victimization of female veterans: Help-
seeking experiences with military and civilian social systems’, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29(1),
97–106.
Campbell, R., Wasco, S.M., Ahrens, C.E., Sefl, T., Barnes, H. (2001) Preventing the ‘Second Rape’: Rape
survivors’ experiences with community service providers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16,
1239–1259.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

721
Ways of“Not Hearing”: Corporate Denial intheCase ofAircraft…
Cohen, S. (1993) Human rights and crimes of the state: The culture of denial. Australian & New Zealand
Journal of Criminology, 26(2), 97–115.
Cohen, S. (2001) States of denial: Knowing about atrocities and suffering. Cambridge: Polity.
Coleman, J.W. (1987) Toward an integrated theory of white-collar crime. American Journal of Sociology,
93(2), 406–439.
Davies, P.A. (2014) Green crime and victimization: Tensions between social and environmental justice.
Theoretical Criminology, 18(3), 300–316.
Davies, P., Francis, P. and Wyatt, T. (2014) Invisible crimes and social harms. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
DEFRA (2015) Statutory nuisances: how councils deal with complaints https:// www. gov. uk/ guida nce/ statu
tory- nuisa nces- how- counc ils- deal- with- compl aints
DEFRA (2019a) Noise action plan: Agglomerations (urban areas) environmental noise (England) regula-
tions 2006, as amended.
DEFRA (2019b) Strategic noise mapping (2017). https:// assets. publi shing. servi ce. gov. uk/ gover nment/ uploa
ds/ system/ uploa ds/ attac hment_ data/ file/ 902825/ strat egic- noise- mappi ng- round3. pdf
Denzin, N.K. (2017) Critical qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(1), 8–16.
Environmental Protection Act, 1990, s. 79
EU Commission (2002) European Union Noise Directive 2002. 2002/49/EC.
Fattah, E.A. (1989) Victims of abuse of power: The David/Goliath syndrome. In E.A. Fattah (Ed.), The
Plight of Victims in Modern Society (pp.29-73). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Foucault, M. (1972) Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Tavistock Publications.
Foucault, M. (1980) Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977. New York:
Vintage Books.
HACAN (2017) The Most Overflown Boroughs in London. https:// hacan. org. uk/ wp- conte nt/ uploa ds/
2014/ 12/ Most- overfl own- borou ghs- in- London- 1. pdf.
HACAN and Plane Hell Action (2018) Corridors of Concentration Report: Flight Paths over SE London
Study. https:// hacan. org. uk/ wp- conte nt/ uploa ds/ 2018/ 04/ Corri dors- of- Conce ntrat ion- Report- 1. pdf
Hall, M. (2013) Victims of environmental harm: Rights, recognition and redress under national and
international law. Oxon: Routledge.
Hall, M. (2017) Exploring the cultural dimensions of environmental victimization. Palgrave Communi-
cations, 3(1), 1–10.
Heckenberg, D. and White, R. (2012) Innovative approaches to researching environmental crime. In N.
South and A. Brisman (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of green criminology (pp.110-
131). London: Routledge.
Herrity, K., Schmidt, B.E. and Warr, J. (2021) Sensory penalities: Exploring the senses in spaces of pun-
ishment and social control. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
Hillyard, P., Pantazis, C., Tombs, S., Gordon, D. (2004) Beyond criminology: Taking harm seriously.
London: Pluto Press.
Huisman, W. (2010) Business as usual?: Corporate involvement in international crimes. The Hague:
Eleven International Publishing.
Jupp, V., Davies, P. and Francis, P. (1999) The features of invisible crimes. In P. Davies, P. Francis, and
V. Jupp (Eds.), Invisible crimes: Their victims and their Regulation (pp. 3–28). London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Krain, M. (1997) State-sponsored mass murder: The onset and severity of genocides and politicides. The
Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41(3), 331–360.
Leslie, H.Y. (2005) Tongan doctors and a critical medical ethnography. Anthropological Forum, 15(3),
277–286.
Madison, D.S. (2005) Critical ethnography: Method, ethics, and performance. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Malaspina, C. (2018) An epistemology of noise. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Mawby, R. and Walklate, S. (2002) Critical victimology: International perspectives. London: SAGE.
McClanahan, B. (2014) Green and grey: Water justice, criminalization, and resistance. Critical Crimi-
nology, 22(3), 403–418.
McClanahan, B. and South, N. (2020) ‘All knowledge begins with the senses’: Towards a sensory crimi-
nology. The British Journal of Criminology, 60(1), 3–23.
Munzel, T. etal. (2014) Cardiovascular effects of environmental noise exposure. European Heart Jour-
nal, 35(13), 829–836.
Munzel, T. etal. (2018) Environmental noise and the cardiovascular system. Journal of the American
College of Cardiology, 71(6), 688–697.
Natali, L. (2015) A critical gaze on environmental victimization. In R.A. Sollund (Ed.), Green harms
and crimes: Critical criminology in a changing world (pp. 63–78). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

722
A.Yıldırım
Natali, L. (2016) Visual approach for green criminology: Exploring the social perception of environmen-
tal harm. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Natali, L. and Budo, M. (2018) A sensory and visual approach for comprehending environmental vic-
timization by the asbestos industry in Casale Monferrato. European Journal of Criminology, 16(6),
708–727.
Nixon, R. (2011) Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Parker, I. (2011) Qualitative psychology: Introducing radical research. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Pyko, A. etal. (2015) Exposure to traffic noise and markers of obesity. Occupational and Environmental
Medicine, 72(8), 594–601.
Quinney, R. (1972) Who Is the Victim? Criminology, 10(3), 314–323.
Ruiz, A. and South, N. (2018) Surrounded by sound: Noise, rights and environments. Crime, Media,
Culture: An International Journal, 15(1), 125-141.
Saad-Diniz, E. and Gianecchini, J.V. (2021) Regulatory rollbacks in the Amazon rainforest: A nuanced
look into the effects of environmental victimization. State Crime Journal, 10, 257–283.
Schoultz, I. and Flyghed, J. (2019) From ‘We Didn’t Do It’ to ‘We’ve Learned Our Lesson’: Develop-
ment of a typology of neutralizations of corporate crime. Critical Criminology, 28(4), 739–757.
South, N. (1998) A green field for criminology?: A proposal for a perspective. Theoretical Criminology,
2(2), 211–233. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 13624 80698 00200 2004
Spapens, A.C., White, R. and Kluin, M. (2014) Environmental crime and its victims: Perspectives within
green criminology. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing.
Spencer, D.C. and Fitzgerald, A. (2013) Three ecologies, transversality and victimization: The case of
the British Petroleum oil spill. Crime, Law and Social Change, 59(2), 209–223.
Sykes, G.M. and Matza, D. (1957) Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Socio-
logical Review, 22, 664–670.
Tombs, S. (1991) Injury and ill-health in the chemical industry: Decentring the accident-prone victim.
Organization & Environment, 5(1), 59–74.
Tombs, S. (2012) State-Corporate Symbiosis in the Production of Crime and Harm. State Crime Journal,
1(2), 170–195.
Tombs, S. and Whyte, D. (2020) The shifting imaginaries of corporate crime. Journal of White Collar and
Corporate Crime, 1(1), 16–23.
Topham, G. (2018) Heathrow third runway noise would affect 2.2m people, analysis finds’, The Guardian,
9 April. https:// www. thegu ardian. com/ envir onment/ 2018/ apr/ 09/ heath row- third- runway- noise- affect-
people- gover nment- docum ents
UNEP (2022) Frontiers 2022: Noise, Blazes and Mismatches - Emerging Issues of Environmental Concern.
Nairobi.
Vienneau, D., Saucy A., Schaffer, B., Fluckigeret, B., Tangermann, L. (2022) Transportation noise exposure
and cardiovascular mortality: 15-years of follow-up in a nationwide prospective cohort in Switzerland.
Environment International, 158, 106974.
Walters, R. (2013) Air crimes and atmospheric justice. In N. South and A. Brisman (Eds.), Routledge inter-
national handbook of green criminology (pp.134–149). London: Routledge.
Walters, R. (2014) Air pollution and invisible violence. In P. Davies, P. Francis, and T. Wyatt (Eds.), Invis-
ible crimes and social harms (pp.142–160). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
White, R. (2003) Environmental issues and the criminological imagination. Theoretical Criminology, 7(4),
483–506.
White, R. (2015) Environmental victimology and ecological justice. In D. Wilson and S. Ross (Eds.), Crime,
victims and policy: International contexts, local experiences (pp.33–52). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
White, R. (2018) Green victimology and non-human victims. International Review of Victimology, 24(2),
239–255.
WHO (2018) Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region (2018). Copenhagen: The Regional
Office for Europe of the World Health Organization.
Whyte, D. (2014) Regimes of Permission and State-Corporate Crime. State Crime Journal, 3(2), 237–246.
Whyte, D. (2016) It’s common sense, stupid! Corporate crime and techniques of neutralization in the auto-
mobile industry. Crime, Law and Social Change, 66(2), 165–181.
Williams, C. (1996) An environmental victimology. Social Justice, 23(4), 16–40.
Wolf, B. (2011) ‘Green-collar crime: Environmental crime and justice in the sociological Perspective. Soci-
ology Compass, 5(7), 499–511.
Wyatt, T. (2014) Invisible pillaging: The hidden harm of corporate biopiracy. In P. Davies, P. Francis, and T.
Wyatt (Eds.), Invisible Crimes and Social Harms (pp.161–177). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wyatt, T. and Brisman, A. (2017) The role of denial in the ‘theft of nature’: Comparing biopiracy and cli-
mate change. Critical Criminology, 25(3), 325–341.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

723
Ways of“Not Hearing”: Corporate Denial intheCase ofAircraft…
Yildirim, A. (2022) Sounding the overflown: A critical-victimological study of environmental harm through
the example of aircraft noise in London, UK. Doctoral thesis. Goldsmiths, University of London.
https:// resea rch. gold. ac. uk/ id/ eprint/ 33028/
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com