Corporate Environmental Degradation: Polluting Our Planet For Profits

Companies have a significant impact on the environment, and their actions can have wide-ranging effects on ecosystems, animals, plants, and human health and well-being. Corporations produce almost everything we buy, use, and throw away, and they play a significant role in driving climate change. Since 1988, just 100 companies have been responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and only 25 corporations were responsible for over 50% of global industrial emissions during the same period. Companies often prioritise profits over sustainability, and they can easily choose to make their products more sustainable by using alternative methods. However, they often fail to address their full climate impact, and their actions can lead to resource depletion, air, water, and soil pollution, habitat destruction, waste generation, and the loss of biodiversity.

Fossil fuel companies and climate change

Companies have a significant impact on the environment, and their actions can have wide-ranging effects, from resource depletion to climate change. Fossil fuel companies, in particular, have been identified as major drivers of climate change, and their products and practices have contributed significantly to global warming and its associated impacts.

Fossil fuels, including coal, oil, and gas, are non-renewable resources that supply around 80% of the world's energy. When burnt, they produce carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the primary driver of climate change. As greenhouse gases, they trap heat in the atmosphere, causing global temperatures to rise. This has already led to a 1°C increase in average global temperatures, with the critical 1.5°C milestone passed in 2024. Warming above this level risks further sea-level rise, extreme weather events, biodiversity loss, species extinction, food scarcity, and worsening health and poverty for millions worldwide.

Major fossil fuel companies have been aware of the devastating impacts of their products on the climate for decades. Despite this knowledge, many have engaged in deceptive practices, spreading disinformation and obstructing climate policies. For example, companies like ExxonMobil have been accused of using subtle forms of climate propaganda and "greenwashing" to delay and discourage climate action. They have shifted their language from blatant climate denial to more subtle forms of delayism, aiming to carefully reset their public image while continuing to market a harmful product.

Fossil fuel companies have also hidden huge volumes of emissions, failing to take responsibility for the full climate impact of their activities. This includes not only the emissions produced during the use of their products but also the upstream and downstream emissions associated with the production and disposal of those products. By not accounting for these emissions, companies are not taking full responsibility for their contribution to climate change.

To address these issues, fossil fuel companies must first acknowledge the harmful effects of their products and commit to reducing their global warming emissions. Additionally, they should support a phase-out of fossil fuels and contribute meaningfully to climate change solutions. By incorporating environmental considerations into their business practices and prioritizing sustainability, companies can play a crucial role in mitigating their impact on the environment and driving positive change.

Waterway pollution

One of the primary sources of waterway pollution is industrial waste. Companies in various sectors, including chemical and plastics manufacturing, refineries, fossil fuel power plants, and meat and poultry processing, release toxic substances into waterways. These toxins include chemicals, heavy metals, and nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus, which can lead to nutrient pollution and algal blooms that are harmful to both people and wildlife. In 2020, industrial facilities in the United States released at least 193.6 million pounds of toxic substances into waterways, with Texas, Indiana, and Virginia ranking highest in toxic chemical discharges.

Another significant contributor to waterway pollution is agricultural activities. Farming and livestock production account for about 70% of global freshwater consumption and are a leading cause of water degradation. Fertilizers, pesticides, and animal waste from these operations can wash into waterways during rainfall, leading to water contamination. This type of pollution is the top source of contamination in rivers and streams in the United States and significantly contributes to pollution in wetlands, lakes, estuaries, and groundwater.

Sewage discharges and stormwater overflows also play a role in waterway pollution. While these issues may be attributed to both municipal and industrial sources, the water sector is under increasing pressure to address the problem and improve river water quality.

To combat waterway pollution, stricter regulations, higher fines, and greater accountability for corporations are often suggested. However, there are concerns about the potential negative economic impacts of such actions, including unemployment and bankruptcy. Nonetheless, the health and environmental risks associated with waterway pollution are severe, and it is generally agreed that more effective measures are needed to address this pressing issue.

Government policy and fines

Government policies and fines play a pivotal role in curbing corporate pollution, yet their effectiveness is often questioned. While governments impose fines on companies for environmental violations, critics argue that these fines are often too low to act as a sufficient deterrent. For instance, in the case of Rio Tinto, the company was fined less than a million dollars for illegal acid discharges into rivers, a minuscule amount compared to its $104 billion market cap. Similarly, Suncor Energy's fines for water contamination have never exceeded $1 million, despite substantial earnings and a history of polluting the Athabasca River.

The rationale behind these seemingly lenient fines can be attributed to various factors. Firstly, governments may prioritize economic concerns over environmental ones, fearing that substantial fines could lead to corporate bankruptcy and subsequent unemployment. This viewpoint is particularly prevalent in countries with high national debt, where job preservation takes precedence. Additionally, there is a belief that companies might not be causing significant environmental harm, or that other factors also contribute to pollution, reducing the impetus for stringent fines.

Furthermore, the social costs of emissions and the potential for collateral consequences are considered when imposing fines. In some cases, the EPA, tasked with protecting human health and the environment, may opt for quicker resolution through smaller fines to expedite compliance. While this approach fosters compliance, it does little to incentivize companies to proactively adhere to environmental laws. This is exemplified by the frequent violations committed by wealthy corporations, which view fines as a negligible cost of doing business.

To address these issues, several strategies can be implemented. Firstly, environmental laws could introduce a tier without a maximum penalty, exclusively targeting companies with substantial market capitalization. This approach would ensure that the wealthiest polluters face meaningful consequences without penalizing smaller, responsible entities. Additionally, court prosecutions, coupled with the threat of public shaming, could lead to heftier fines and spur environmental action from companies keen to maintain shareholder confidence.

While fines are an essential tool, they should be complemented by other measures. For instance, stop-work orders and the revocation of operating permits through sanctions can be employed to force polluters to address the environmental damage they have caused before resuming operations. Furthermore, settlements and consent decrees can be utilized to secure commitments from violators to restore compliance and implement corrective measures, such as installing pollution control equipment.

Fashion industry emissions

The fashion industry has been exposed for its detrimental impact on the environment, with its emissions contributing significantly to global carbon emissions. The industry's carbon emissions are predicted to rise by 60% by 2030, reaching 2.8 billion tons, which is roughly equivalent to the emissions from over 550 million cars in a year.

One of the primary contributors to the fashion industry's emissions is the production of synthetic fabrics, such as polyester and nylon. These synthetic fibres are plastic-based and have a significant environmental impact throughout their life cycle due to the emission of greenhouse gases and pollutants. Polyester, in particular, has been found to create carbon emissions three times those generated by the manufacturing of cotton, leading to air pollution. Additionally, when washed, polyester garments release microplastics into waterways, contributing to the growing issue of plastic pollution in our oceans.

The fast-fashion business model has also played a significant role in increasing the industry's carbon footprint. The need to constantly produce new garments to match evolving trends has led to a cycle of buying and discarding clothing, exacerbating environmental concerns. Establishing factories in developing countries, such as China, India, and Bangladesh, has further amplified emissions during the production and transportation process.

To address these issues, organizations are advocating for a shift to sustainable fashion and international cooperation. The Fashion Industry Charter for Climate Change, launched at COP24 in 2021, aims for net-zero emissions by 2050 within the fashion industry. Additionally, New York's Fashion Act seeks to hold big brands accountable for their environmental impact and exploitation of workers, requiring them to map their supply chains and create binding targets for improvement.

The fashion industry's emissions and environmental impact are significant, and efforts are being made to create legally binding standards and encourage sustainable practices to reduce their carbon footprint and address the climate crisis.

Food retail waste

Food waste is a significant contributor to environmental pollution, with a large environmental footprint. Food loss and waste account for a substantial proportion of global greenhouse gas emissions, with the United Nations estimating this to be upwards of 10%. Retail food waste makes up a notable percentage of overall food waste along the food supply chain, with figures of 12% in Canada and 5% in the EU.

Food waste in retail is a complex issue influenced by various factors, including government policies, consumer behaviour, and industry practices. Retailers have a significant influence on quality standards, particularly for fresh produce, and marketing standards play a crucial role in determining losses at the global supplier level. Imperfect products are often rejected by international and national chains, contributing to waste.

The environmental impact of food retail waste is significant. It encompasses the resources used and environmental damage caused during food production, processing, and packaging. Food waste generates greenhouse gas emissions from decaying food and contributes to water pollution through leaching and nutrient runoff. It is also a major source of landfill waste, further exacerbating the environmental impact.

The social and economic implications of food retail waste are also noteworthy. Food waste undermines food security, leads to financial losses, and affects resource and energy conservation. Additionally, the resources used in producing wasted food, such as pesticides and fertilizers, can have toxic effects on nearby water bodies and ecosystems.

Addressing food retail waste is crucial for mitigating environmental pollution. Strategies such as improving food inventory management, adhering to appropriate purchase and storage practices, and enhancing food waste mitigation initiatives can help reduce the environmental footprint of food retail operations.

Frequently asked questions