In recent years two Swedish companies, Telia and Lundin Petroleum, have had to work hard to legitimate their actions as a result of allegations of criminal activity. In this paper, the corporate framings employed to deal with allegations of crime will be analysed on the basis of Stanley Cohen's (2009) theoretical work on processes of denial and neutralization techniques. More specifically, the paper focuses on the temporalization of neutralizations of corporate crime and aims to answer the following questions: How have the corporations' defence mechanisms changed over time? How might the types of crime of which they have been accused, and their corporate structures, affect the ways in which particular defence mechanisms are employed? The analysis demonstrates that although there are similarities, such as both companies framing their businesses as contributing to the development of democracy, human rights, prosperity and peace, the companies follow two different lines of development in their defences. While Telia moves from literal denial to confession, Lundin Petroleum stays with its literal denial in parallel with a strong condemnation of the condemners. These differences seem to be grounded both in the crimes of which the companies have been accused and their respective corporate structures.

近年来，由于犯罪活动的指控，两家瑞典公司Telia和Lundin Petroleum不得不努力使其行为合法。本文将以斯坦利·科恩（Stanley Cohen，2009）关于否认和中和技术过程的理论工作为基础，分析用于处理犯罪指控的公司框架。更具体地说，本文着眼于公司犯罪中和的暂时性，旨在回答以下问题：公司的防御机制随着时间的变化如何？被指控的犯罪类型及其公司结构如何影响采用特定防御机制的方式？分析表明，尽管存在相似之处，例如，两家公司都将自己的业务定为为民主，人权，繁荣与和平的发展做出贡献，两家公司在国防方面遵循两种不同的发展路线。当Telia从直面否认转为坦白时，Lundin Petroleum坚持其直面否认与对谴责者的强烈谴责。这些差异似乎都基于被指控的犯罪及其各自的公司结构。