Criminal activity has a real cost to society. That's why we've decided that certain things should be illegal in the first place. This is a measure that would reduce the number of crimes that are committed by increasing the personal costs for criminal activity (both for the would-be criminal, and for the company's leadership). Because we see criminal activity in corporations today, I would argue that the costs of committing the crime aren't currently high enough.
Taking the VW emissions scandal as an example, there's an estimate that suggests that there will be 1200 premature deaths because of the increased pollution [1]. This has an obvious personal cost to the victims & their families, and there is a larger cost to the overall economy because of the decreased worker output. This doesn't even take into account the growing cost of pollution as a factor in global warming.
Criminal activity CAN have a negative impact on society, but it doesn't always. For that to be true, either every law must be set conservatively (so that things on the edge are clearly negative) or the societal cost of breaking any law, even extremely stupid ones, must be large - large enough to outweigh the advantages of lawbreaking.
Given that most people break the law in minor ways quite often, I'm relatively sure there second is false. And I really wouldn't bet on the first being true either...
Taking the VW emissions scandal as an example, there's an estimate that suggests that there will be 1200 premature deaths because of the increased pollution [1]. This has an obvious personal cost to the victims & their families, and there is a larger cost to the overall economy because of the decreased worker output. This doesn't even take into account the growing cost of pollution as a factor in global warming.
[1] http://news.mit.edu/2017/volkswagen-emissions-premature-deat...