CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME

Sebi S
Govt. Law College
Ernakulam.
ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES BY
CORPORATES

CONTENT
 Environment and environmental crimes.
 Major Environmental Crimes.
 Environmental crimes by corporate.
 International conventions and conferences on
environment.
 Environmental legislations in UK
 Environmental legislations in USA
 Comparative perspective of UK and US Environmental
Regulations.
 Environmental regulations in European Union.
 Environmental legislations in India.
 Corporate Environmental crimes in India
 Conclusion

ENVIRONMENT
Environment can be defined as a sum total of all the living and non-
living elements and their effects that influence human life. The term
environment has been derived from a French word “Environia” which
means to surround. It includes physical, chemical and other natural
forces.

ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES
Environmental crimes can be broadly defined as illegal acts which
directly harm the environment. It is the fourth largest criminal
activity in the world and is increasing by five to seven percent every
year.

CAUSES OF INCREASING ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES
The root cause of environmental crimes vary greatly, and
subsequently the design, identification and implementation of
appropriate responses must be carefully planned.
Causes of environmental crimes include:
 the low risks and high profits in a permissive environment as
a result of poor governance and widespread corruption,
 Poverty,
 minimal budgets to police, prosecution and courts,
 inadequate institutional support,
 political interference and low employee morale.
Environmental crime have in recent years received global
attention due to its serious and deleterious impact on the
environment and ecosystems, as well as on peace, security
and development.
Environmental crime includes threat finance from exploitation
of natural resources such as minerals, oil, timber, charcoal,
marine resources, financial crimes in natural resources, tax
fraud and illegal trade in hazardous waste and chemicals, as
well as the environmental impacts of illegal exploitation and
extraction of natural resources.

ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME
 Environmental crime is often understood as a collective term to
describe illegal activities harming the environment and aimed at
benefitting individuals or groups or companies from the exploitation
of, damage to, trade or theft of natural resources, including serious
crimes and transnational organized crime.
 The term environmental crime covers not only the illegal trade in
wildlife, but also forestry and fishery crimes, illegal dumping of waste
including chemicals, smuggling of ozone depleting substances and
illegal mining.
 Illegal mining is not limited to illegal extraction of resources, it also
has severe environmental impacts, whether from mercury pollution
from artisanal gold mining, or destruction of natural flora and fauna,
pollution, landscape degradation and radiation hazards, with negative
impact on arable land, economic crops and trees.
Environmental Crimes include:
o illegal trade in wildlife;
o smuggling of ozone depleting substances (ODS);
o illicit trade in hazardous waste;
o illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing; and
o illegal logging and the associated trade in stolen timber.

MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES
Wild Animal Traffic
 Regarded by the Interpol as
the third largest illegal business in
the world.
 It is to be noted that the more
endangered the species is, the
higher the price for it. The most
requested species are tropical
birds, reptiles, arachnids,
monkeys, and so forth.
 Animal trafficking does not only
intend to sell them as company
animals; we can also find such
serious cases like the sale of
elephants or rhinoceroses ivory on
the black market, used to make
decoration items and even in
traditional Chinese medicine.

Observation by Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
CITES maintain statistics over registered and reported incidents,
over 79,000 in 2016.
The number of reported incidents have varied substantially, stable
in the last five years but increased substantially in the last
decade, rising by a growth rate of 5–15% annually.
CITES also notes that there is increasing attention on illegal trade
in wildlife.
The number of rhinos killed has risen dramatically in the last
decade from 13 reported in 2007 to 1,338 in 2017.
Regarding the African elephant, the poaching rates are much higher
than their normal growth rates, CITES and IUCN (International
Union for Conservation of Nature) listed elephants as vulnerable
animals.
Unlike the African elephant, where both males and females have
tusks, in Asian elephant males have larger tusks, making them
heavily targeted and amounts to 89 percent of total deaths.

 Indiscriminate logging
It is one of the main causes of
deforestation and results in
global warming.
These illegal activities
undermine responsible forest
management, encourage
corruption and tax evasion
and reduce the income of the
producer countries, further
limiting the resources
producer countries
investment in sustainable
development.
Corporate crimes have become
a key component of forestry
crimes.

Indiscriminate logging
 Most crimes involve not the obvious direct illegal logging, but a
system of fraud, tax fraud, forged permits or permits acquired
through bribes, laundering of illegally procured wood and
extensive smuggling operations involving even small fleets of
timber vessels operating in many developing countries.
 Often palm oil or agricultural plantations or grazing, are used
through multiple temporary shell companies based in tax havens to
acquire or lease land for agricultural purposes, but in reality they
are clearing forests for timber and pulp supply.
Illegal logging is done by different ways. It include:
 1) Logging in protected areas:
 2) Logging without permits in unprotected areas;
 3) Illegal logging in conflict zones;
 4) Logging in excess of permit or concession quotas;
 5) Logging with forged or re-used permits;
 6) Obtaining logging permits illegally through bribery;
 7) Establishing or expanding palm oil, bio-fuel or other
plantations;
 8) Cattle ranching and soy production;
 9) Widening road corridors, mining or other felling without a
permit.

Electronic waste
mismanagement.
Electronic products are a complex
mixture of several hundred tiny
components, many of which
contain deadly chemicals. These
chemicals are a strain on human
health and the environment.
Most of the components in
electronic devices contain lead,
cadmium, mercury, polyvinyl
chloride (PVC), brominated flame
retardants (BFRs), chromium,
beryllium etc.
Developed countries produce around
50 million tonnes of electronic
waste every year and in this up to
75 percent is been exported to
and dumped in developing and
under developed countries.

Illegal fishing and finning
 Illegal fishing undermines food
security, livelihoods, fisheries
management and biodiversity.
 Illegal fishing threatens the
subsistence existence of coastal
communities world wide.
 It is estimated that a hundred
million sharks are captured every
year by specialised ships and up
to 70 million of them are
captured to only have their fins
cut off alive on the ship and then
be thrown back into the sea.
 This practice involves a slow and
painful death and in turn affects
the tropic chain.

ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES BY CORPORATES
 Corporations are by far the most common vehicles used to carry out
business activity around the world.
 A sea change can be witnessed in the use of criminal law in the corporate
world and Environmental Crime by Corporations’ is a recent development in
law.
 At present, the regulatory and civil nature of law enforcement against
corporations have seen a significant drift towards a criminal trial.
EVOLUTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF CORPORATION
 The endorsement of criminal liability of corporations has largely been a
twentieth century judicial development, influenced by the expansion of
common law principles. The majority of theories of corporate criminal
liability are typical of common law developments; they have been
constructed on a case by-case basis.
 Corporate criminal liability is grounded in the theory of respondent
superior: Just as in civil lawsuits, corporations are liable for the wrongdoing
of their agents, committed within the scope of their authority in order to
benefit the corporation..
 Previously, the greatest problem to impose a criminal liability on corporation
was establishing the ‘guilty mind’ (mens rea) requirement of the criminal law.
Further, there were arguments revolving “reasonable care”, “director’s
liability”, “due care and skill”, “scope of employment”, “ultra vires conduct”,
“remote relationship” and many such issues. The remedies under the law of
tort to abate environmental pollution was the oldest legal remedy.

No Soul to Damn and no Body to Kick
 In cases of corporate induced environmental pollution, the
crime in question is often committed not by individual actors,
but by persons acting on behalf of a company.
 Since a Corporation has no physical body on which the pain of
punishment could be inflicted, nor a mind which can be guilty
of a criminal intent, traditional punishments prove
ineffective, and new and different punishments have to be
devised.
 In the cases of environmental pollution caused by corporate,
the victims are dispersed as well as the corporate hierarchy
is also dispersed.
 It is difficult to find out the directing mind, especially when
the corporate have an unaccountable hierarchy or each level
of hierarchy is maintaining an arm’s length relationship.
 The benefit of corporate form given by statute comes to
help for many violators of environmental regulations and
serves as a detriment to the society at large.

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS
AND CONFERENCES ON
ENVIRONMENT

SIGNIFICANCE OF INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND
CONFERENCES ON ENVIRONMENT
 An international environmental agreement or
environmental protocol, is a type of treaty binding
in international law, allowing them to reach
an environmental goal.
 Conventions are intergovernmental document intended as
legally binding with a primary stated purpose of preventing
or managing human impacts on natural resources.
 The conventions and conferences focus on various issues,
for example climate change, wild life protection, hazardous
waste and substance policy, stratospheric ozone layer
protection, air quality, nuclear safety, chemicals and nature
conservation.
 The conventions are tools for promoting cooperation and the
development of international environmental law and actions.
Some conventions apply regionally, others globally.

RAMSAR CONVENTION
It is called the Convention on Wetlands and was adopted in the city of
Iran, Ramsar in 1971.
It came into force in 1975 for the conservation and sustainable
utilization of wetlands.
It is also known as Waterfowl convention.
 The aim of the convention is to develop and maintain an international
network of wetlands which are important for the conservation of
global biological diversity and for sustaining human life through the
maintenance of their ecosystem components, processes and benefits.
 Wetlands declared as Ramsar sites are protected under strict
guidelines of the convention.
The RAMSAR Secretariat is based at the headquarters of the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in Gland,
Switzerland.
Montreux Record
 Montreux Record under the Ramsar Convention is a register of wetland
sites on the List of Wetlands of International Importance where changes
in ecological character have occurred, are occurring, or are likely to
occur as a result of technological developments, pollution or other human
interference.
 It is maintained as part of the Ramsar List.
 Two wetlands of India are in Montreux record: Keoladeo National Park
(Rajasthan) and Loktak Lake (Manipur).

UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON THE HUMAN
ENVIRONMENT/ STOCKHOLMS DECLARATION
It was held in Stockholm, Sweden from June 5–16 in 1972.
It was the first declaration of international protection of the
environment.
One of the seminal issue that emerged from the conference is the
recognition for poverty alleviation for protecting the environment.
The meeting agreed upon a Declaration containing 26 principles
concerning the environment and development.
The conference let to increase - interest and research collaboration
which paved the way for further understanding of global warming,
which has led to such agreements as the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris
Agreement, and has given a foundation of modern environmentalism.
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has been
established by the United Nations General Assembly in pursuance of
the Stockholm Conference.

THE CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA/CITES
THE CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN
ENDANGERED SPECIES OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA/CITES
It is known as Washington Convention and was adopted in 1973 and
came into force in 1975.
The aim is to control or prevent international commercial trade in
endangered species or products derived from them. Important
shortcoming is that by design and intent it focuses on trade at the
species level and does not address habitat loss, ecosystem
approaches to conservation, or poverty; it seeks to prevent
unsustainable use rather than promote sustainable use.
BONN CONVENTION
It is a Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild
Animals which was adopted in 1979 and came into force in 1983.
It is the only convention that deals with taking or harvesting of
species from the wild. It currently protects approximately 173
migratory species from across the globe.
The Secretariat that administers the Convention was established in
1984. As of 1st November 2019, there were 130 Parties to the
Convention– 129 countries plus the European Union.
Convention has two Appendices: Appendix I lists migratory species
that are endangered or threatened with extinction.
Appendix II lists migratory species which have an unfavourable
conservation status and which require international agreements for
their conservation and management.

VIENNA CONVENTION
It is a convention for the Protection of Ozone Layer.
It was adopted in 1985 and came into force in 1988.
The members recognized the fundamental importance of preventing
damage to the stratospheric ozone layer.
MONTREAL PROTOCOL
It is an international environment protocol on substances that deplete the
Ozone Layer.
It is a protocol to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of Ozone
Layer.
It is a Universal treaty which is ratified by all UN countries and is legally
binding.
The 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone
Layer and its succeeding amendments were subsequently negotiated to
control the consumption and production of anthropogenic ozone-
depleting substances (ODSs) and some hydro-fluorocarbons (HFCs).
The adoption of the 2016 Kigali Amendment to the Montreal
Protocol was to phase down the production and consumption of
some HFCs and avoid much of the projected global increase and
associated climate change.

KIGALI AGREEMENT
It is an amendment to the Montreal Protocol.
In 2016, more than 170 countries agreed to amend the Montreal
protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer in
Kigali/Rwanda.
 The Kigali Amendment aims for the phase-down of hydro-
fluorocarbons (HFCs) by cutting their production and consumption.
 The amendment has entered into force on 1 January 2019 with a goal
to achieve over 80% reduction in HFC consumption by 2047.
 The impact of the amendment will avoid up to 0.5 °C increase in
global temperature by the end of the century.
 It is a legally binding agreement between the signatory parties with
non-compliance measures.

WORLD COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT.
The Brundtland Commission, formerly the World Commission
on Environment and Development, was a sub-organization of
the United Nations that aimed to unite countries in pursuit
of sustainable development.
The Brundtland Report is most often cited for its definition of
sustainable development as development that meets the needs
of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs.
The Brundtland Report included chapters covering, among other
topics within sustainable development, the role of the
international economy, population and human resources, food
security, species and ecosystems, energy, industry, and
proposed legal principles for environmental protection.
The report laid the foundations for the Rio Summit, held in Rio
de Janeiro in 1992, which then ultimately led to the creation
of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development that same
year.

BASEL CONVENTION
It is a convention on the Control of Trans-boundary Movements of
Hazardous Wastes and their disposal. It was adopted in 1989 and came
into force in 1992.
The treaty was designed to reduce the movements of hazardous waste
between nations, and specifically to prevent transfer of hazardous
waste from developed to less developed countries (LDCs). It does not
address the movement of radioactive waste.
The Convention is also intended to minimize the amount and toxicity of
wastes generated, to ensure their environmentally sound management
and to assist LDCs in environmentally sound management of the
hazardous and other wastes they generate.
WASTES REGULATED BY THE BASEL CONVENTION.
• Biomedical and healthcare wastes and used oils.
• Used lead acid batteries.
• Persistent Organic Pollutant (POP) wastes and Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCBs).
• Thousands of chemical wastes generated by industries and other
consumers.
However, the Convention is not legally binding on the member countries.

RIO SUMMIT
It is a United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.
In continuation of Stockholm Declaration, 1972 and the Nairobi
Declaration, 1982 the third major Declaration was held in Rio-de-Janeiro
in Brazil in the year 1992.
Hence it is termed as Rio-Declaration and attended by over 150 countries.
Hence, it is also well known as ―Earth Summit.
It discussed global and environmental problems very widely and was
the biggest International Conference in the history of International
relations – was also called as the “Parliament of the planet”.
The Rio Declaration was adopted in the conference recognizing the
universal and integral nature of Earth and by establishing a global
partnership among states and enlisting general rights and obligations on
environmental protection.
The Rio Declaration is a statement of 27 principles for the guidance of
national environmental behaviour and enlisting general rights and
obligations on environmental protection.
Rio principles placed human beings at the centre of sustainable
development concerns by stating that humans are entitled to a healthy
and productive life in harmony with nature.
The Statement of Principles on Forests, aimed at preserving the world’s
rapidly vanishing tropical rainforests, is a non-binding statement
recommending that nations monitor and assess the impact of
development on their forest resources and take steps to limit the
damage done to them.

AGENDA-21
It is a comprehensive action plan which gives a future plan in
relation to environment and development.
The Agenda emphasizes on issues like poverty, health
consumption patterns, natural resource use, financial
resources, human settlements and technological developments.
It also includes energy, climate and other wide range of issues
concerning environment and development.
Agenda-21 is not a binding document but it constitutes the key
document of the Rio.
UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON
CLIMATE CHANGE (UNFCCC)
 It is an international environmental treaty governing actions
to combat climate change through adaptation and mitigation
efforts directed at control of emission of Green House Gases
(GHGs) that cause global warming.
 It was adopted in 1992 and came into force in 1994.

In 1992, countries joined an international treaty, the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change, as a framework for
international cooperation to combat climate change by limiting average
global temperature increase and the resulting climate change, and
coping with impacts that were, by then, inevitable.
The primary goals of the UNFCCC were to stabilize greenhouse gas
emissions at levels that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the global climate.
The convention embraced the principle of common but differentiated
responsibilities which has guided the adoption of a regulatory
structure.
India signed the agreement in June 1992 which was ratified in November
1993. As per the convention the reduction orlimitation requirements
apply only to developed countries. The only reporting obligation for
developing countries relates to the construction of a GHG inventory.
Kyoto Protocol, Paris Agreement are a part of the UNFCCC.

CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY (CBD)
It is a convention for the conservation of biological diversity. It was
adopted in 1992 and it came into force in 1993.
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is a step towards conserving
biological diversity or biodiversity with the involvement of the entire
world.
The Convention on Biological Diversity was opened for signature at
the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and entered into effect
in 1993.
 The convention called upon all nations to take appropriate measures
for conservation of biodiversity and sustainable utilisation of its
benefits.
 The three main goals of the convention includes conservation of
biological diversity (or biodiversity); sustainable use of its
components; and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from
genetic resources.
 It is often seen as the key document regarding sustainable
development.
 The Convention is legally binding; countries that join it are obliged
to implement its provisions.
 195 UN states and the European Union are parties to the convention.
 All UN member states, with the exception of the United States,
have ratified the treaty.

KYOTO PROTOCOL
It is an international protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
It was adopted in 1997 and it came into force in 2005.
There are currently 192 Parties.
Goal: Fight global warming by reducing greenhouse gas concentrations in
the atmosphere to “a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system.”
Kyoto protocol aimed to cut emissions of greenhouse gases across the
developed world by about 5 percent by 2012 compared with 1990 levels.
Kyoto Protocol is the only global treaty with binding limits on GHG
emissions.
It puts the obligation to reduce current emissions on developed
countries on the basis that they are historically responsible for the
current levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
This protocol divides countries into two categories.
 Historically biggest polluting developed countries like US, UK, France,
Japan, Russia etc. (they are polluting the earth since Industrial
Revolution).
 Recently polluting developing countries like China, India, Brazil, etc.
(polluting since 1950s).

ROTTERDAM CONVENTION
It is a multilateral treaty to promote shared responsibilities in relation
to importation of hazardous chemicals, effective from 2004.
It was adopted in 1998 and it covers pesticides and industrial chemicals
that have been banned or severely restricted for health or
environmental reasons by Parties.
Convention creates legally binding obligations for the implementation of
the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure.
The ninth meeting of the Rotterdam Conference was held from 29 April
to 10 May 2019 in Geneva, Switzerland.
CARTAGENA PROTOCOL
It is an international environmental protocol on Biosafety to the
Convention on Biological Diversity.
It was adopted in 2000 and it came into force in 2003.
CBD covers the rapidly expanding field of biotechnology through
its Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
It addresses technology development and transfer, benefit-sharing and
biosafety issues.
The Biosafety Protocol seeks to protect biological diversity from the
potential risks posed by living modified organisms resulting from
modern biotechnology.

STOCKHOLM CONVENTION.
It is a convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)
It was adopted in 2001 in Geneva, Switzerland and came into force in
2004.
It aims to eliminate or restrict the production and use of persistent
organic pollutants (POPs).
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP’s)
They are organic chemical substances which possess a set of physical
and chemical properties such that when they are released into the
atmosphere/environment, they:
 Remain intact, without getting degraded, for exceptionally long
periods of time.
 Become widely distributed throughout the environment as a result of
natural processes involving soil, water and, most notably, air.
 Accumulate in the fatty tissues of living organisms including humans,
and are found at higher concentrations at higher levels in the food
chain.
POP’s tend to concentrate in living organisms through a process known
as bioaccumulation. Though most of them are not soluble in water,
they are readily soluble in fatty tissues where their concentrations
can become magnified by up to 70,000 times.

NAGOYA PROTOCOL
The aim is the implementation of one of the three objectives of the
Convention on Biological Diversity: the fair and equitable sharing of
benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources, thereby
contributing to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.
It sets out obligations for its contracting parties to take measures in
relation to access to genetic resources, benefit-sharing and
compliance.
The protocol was adopted on 29 October 2010 in Nagoya, Japan and
entered into force on 12 October 2014.
MINAMATA CONVENTION:
It is an international treaty signed in 2013.
Minamata Convention aims to protect human health and the
environment from anthropogenic emissions and releases of mercury
and mercury compounds.
The Convention is named after the Japanese city Minamata. This
naming is of symbolic importance as the city went through
devastating incident of mercury poisoning.
It is expected that over the next few decades, this international
agreement will enhance the reduction of mercury pollution from the
targeted activities responsible for the major release of mercury to
the immediate environment. It aims to control anthropogenic
releases of mercury throughout its lifecycle.

PARIS AGREEMENT
The Paris Agreement is an international treaty on climate change,
adopted in 2015. It covers climate change mitigation, adaptation
and finance.
The conference concluded a round of negotiations launched in Durban,
South Africa, in 2011 with the aim of producing a new legal
agreement among national governments to strengthen the global
response to climate change
The conference negotiated the Paris Agreement, a global agreement on
the reduction of climate change.
Once the treaty has been signed, each state will deal with it according
to its own national procedures.
The expected key result was an agreement to set a goal of limiting
global warming to “well below 2 °C” Celsius compared to pre-industrial
levels.
The agreement calls for zero net anthropogenic greenhouse gas
emissions to be reached during the second half of the 21st century.
In the adopted version of the Paris Agreement, the parties will also
“pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C.”

TEHRAN CONVENTIONS
The understanding of the necessity to protect and preserve
the Caspian Sea’s natural resources for future generations and that
this goal can only be achieved through international cooperation was
at the heart of the intent to create the Framework Convention for
the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Caspian Sea, the
Tehran Convention.
By ratifying the Convention the five Parties Azerbaijan, Iran,
Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkmenistan confirmed their readiness to
go the path of sustainable development and to take environmental
concerns into account in their development planning.
Came into force in 2006 - the Tehran Convention is the first regional
legally binding instrument signed by all five Caspian littoral states.
It serves as an overarching governance framework which lays down the
general requirements and the institutional mechanism for
environmental protection and sustainable development in the Caspian
Sea region.
The effective implementation of the Tehran Convention and its
Protocols will support the protection of the marine environment and
with it of the livelihoods, health and well-being of present and future
generations around the Caspian Sea.

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATIONS IN UK
 United Kingdom environmental law concerns the protection of
the environment in the United Kingdom.
 The history of environmental regulations in the United Kingdom can
be traced back to common law doctrines.
Important environmental regulations in UK
As early as in 1306, Edward I banned coal fires in London.
 Smoke Nuisance Abatement (Metropolis) Act 1853
 Alkali Act 1863
 Weeds Act 1959
 Control of Pollution Act 1974
 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
 Environmental Protection Act 1990
 Climate Change Act 2008
 Planning and Energy Act 2008
 Energy Act 2008
 Energy Act 2010
 Energy Act 2011

BREXIT AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
 During the Brexit negotiations, environmental law and climate policy were
two areas of considerable controversy.
 The European Union had initially requested "dynamic alignment", which would
have required the UK to keep in step with EU environmental standards post-
Brexit.
 Later it was rejected and UK/EU Trade and Cooperation
Agreement ("TCA") came into being. It covers a number of areas of law,
including environment and climate.
 The environment chapter applies to industrial emissions, air, nature and
biodiversity, waste management, the aquatic and marine environments,
chemicals and the management of impacts on the environment from
agricultural or food production.
 The TCA requires "non regression" in the level of environmental protection
by the UK from the end of the transition period. "Non regression" means
that the UK should not try to undo, either by legislation or by lack of
enforcement, the harmonised standards on environmental protection that
were in place at 31 December 2020.
 Now, TCA does not require harmonisation with EU standards, meaning that in
principle the UK can adopt its own, different, rules on environmental issues.
In its official statement on the TCA, the UK government has stated that
"the Government has embedded into this Agreement our manifesto
commitment to high environment and climate standards without giving the
EU any say over our rules."

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATIONS IN USA
 United States environmental law concerns legal standards to
protect human health and improve the natural environment of
the United States.
 In the United States, violations of environmental laws are
generally civil offenses, resulting in monetary penalties and,
perhaps, civil sanctions such as injunction.
 The history of environmental law in the US can be traced back
to early roots in common law doctrines.
Environmental protection laws in USA include:
 Landmark environmental regulatory regimes passed by
Congress,
 Other federal laws and Acts passed by the individual states,
 Administrative regulations,
 Judicial decisions and where the statutes and regulations end,
the common law begins.

IMPORTANT ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATIONS
 Mineral Leasing Act of 1920
 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934
 Atomic Energy Act of 1954
 Clean Air Act of 1963
 National Environmental Policy Act of 1970
 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972
 Clean Water Act of 1972
 Ocean Dumping Act of 1972
 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
 Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976
 National Forest Management Act of 1976
 Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976
 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
 Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982
 Oil Pollution Act of 1990

EVOLUTION OF CORPORATE CRIMINAL
LIABILITY IN UK AND USA
Lennard's Carrying Co. Ltd. v. Asiatic Petroleum Co. Ltd. [1915] AC 705.
 In this case, the need of mens rea in determining criminal liability
of corporation was discussed by the court. Here an “identification
theory” or “alter-ego” principle was formulated by the Court. It
states that:
 . . . a corporation is an abstraction. It has no mind of its own any
more than it has a body of its own; its active and directing will must
consequently be sought in the person of somebody who for some
purposes may be called an agent, but who is really the directing mind
and will of the corporation; the very ego and centre of the
personality of the corporation.
 Thus a principle was developed that if a conduct of an officer, agent
or employee of a corporation is such that it can be identified with
that of the company, the company may be held liable for the said
conduct.

EVOLUTION OF CORPORATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY
IN UK AND USA
Tesco Supermarkets Ltd. v. Nattrass. [1972] AC 153
 In this case, the House of Lords in this case observed
regarding the criminal liability of the company and held that
liability extends to the directing minds of the company.
 The directing mind includes board of directors, managing
directors, or someone to whom the function of the board has
been delegated.
Upholsterers International Union of North America,v. Hankin
and Struck Furniture, Ltd. [1965] 1 C.C.C. 110
 In this case, the decision of the British Columbia Court of
Appeal has increased the scope of vicarious criminal liability
and upheld the criminal liability of a company.

EVOLUTION OF CORPORATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY
IN UK AND USA
New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Co. v. United States in 1909
 In this case, the US Supreme Court observed regarding the criminal
liability of the corporation. In this case it was held that:
 “There was no valid objection in law, and every reason in public policy,
why the corporation which profits by the transaction, and can only act
through its agents and officers, shall be held punishable by fine
because of the knowledge and intent of its agents to whom it has
entrusted authority to act….Further, giving corporations immunity
from all punishment because of the old and exploded doctrine that a
corporation cannot commit a crime would virtually take away the only
means of effectually controlling the subject-matter and correcting the
abuses aimed at. “
 This breakthrough in liability of corporations was followed by many
cases which decided that corporations can be held criminally liable for
its fault.

COMPARITIVE PERSPECTIVE OF
USA AND UK ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATIONS
 The United States has a federal system under which the federal
legislature has competence in some areas and the states in others.
There can be controls at federal, state and even local level.
 By contrast, the United Kingdom has a unitary system of government
under which legislations is passed by parliament.
 Local authorities are also empowered by statutes to pass local laws
called byelaws, which can and do deal with environmental problems,
but these are not considered to be major tool of environmental
control.

COMPARITIVE PERSPECTIVE OF USA AND UK
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS
A second difference between the United States and England is that
the former has a written constitution. Each piece of legislation has
to be judged according to whether it breaches any provision of the
relevant constitution.
On the other hand, the United Kingdom does not have a written
constitution. Constitutional law is confined to such issues as the
relationship between the different branches of government and such
matters as civil liberties and law and order. It does not impinge on
environmental law.
There is a general right of access to governmental information in the
United States under the Freedom of Information Act. In the United
Kingdom on the other hand, environmental statutes have generally
restricted to information obtained by enforcement officers.
The present situation is somewhat different and now the British
Government recognizes that there should be a presumption in favour
of giving environmental information to the public.

 When compared with United Kingdom, the environmental laws in the
United States are streets ahead. This is evident from the volume
of legislations and regulations and the vast corpus of case law.
However British law is beginning to change rapidly and a vast
number of legislative activity is noted.
 The reasons include public awakening to the environment as an
important issue and the substantial increase in legislations from the
European community in this field.
 The regulation of waste management in both the United States and
the United Kingdom begins by defining certain categories of waste
that is subject to control.
 In the United States, the federal Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act controls solid waste. In the United Kingdom, Part 1
Control of Pollution Act 1974 covers controlled waste defined as
household, commercial and industrial waste.

 US environmental legislations has given rise to a considerable
amount of case laws unlike that of the United Kingdom.
 This is due to the fact that many US statutes provide for citizen
suits to bring into question compliance with the law and also because
of the more litigious nature of the US society.
 In England on the other hand, the tendency has been to restrict the
right of judicial review to those who have sufficient interest in the
matter.
 Although the rules of locus standi in this area have been
considerably relaxed in recent years, it is still not open to any
citizen to challenge breaches of environmental regulations.

 In the United States, practitioners have been involved in
environmental law for a number of years, and many large
firms have long established expertise in the field.
 In United Kingdom, there were only few practicing lawyers in
that area.
 Until the mid-1980s, environmental law was almost the
exclusive preserve of a few academic lawyers. However, with
the increased public awareness of environmental issues, the
interest of practitioners began to grow.
 This development was aided by the foundation in 1986 of
the U.K Environmental Law Association, which now has
around six hundred members, many of whom are practicing
lawyers.
 At present, it is mainly the large London firms that have
environmental law departments.

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS IN EUROPEAN UNION
 Originally, the environment was not an area that fell within the
purview of the European community.
 Late in 1972’s the heads of Government of European Community
member states agreed that there should be a Community
Environmental Policy. As a result, four successive action programs
have been developed that set out the Community’s goals in
environmental matters. The strategy has moved gradually from a
curative to a preventive approach.
 Community legislation takes several different forms. The most
relevant from the environmental point of view are regulations and
directives.
 Regulations are of general application and are binding in their
entirety on all member states. They are directly effective in the
sense that they do not require further implementation. They form
part of the national law in each member state and are enforceable by
and against citizens in the same way as other laws.
 Directives, on the other hand, are binding on each member state in
terms of the result to be achieved, but member states have
discretion regarding the method of implementation.

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS IN EUROPEAN
UNION
 Most environmental legislations is in the form of directives. Failure
to implement directives is a common problem.
 There is a procedure whereby the European Commission can take
action against member states for failing to implement directives .
 First, the commission invites the state to submit its observations
on the failure to implement.
 Second, the States make its observations.
 Third, the Commission issues a reasoned opinion recording an
infringement and requiring the state to comply.
 If the member state fails to comply with the reasoned opinion, the
European Commission may bring the matter before the European
Court of justice.

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATIONS
IN INDIA

INDIAN CONSTITUTION AND ENVIRONMENT
 The constitution of India is not
an inert but a living document
which evolves and grows with
time.
 The specific provisions on
environment protection in the
constitution are also result of
this evolving nature and growth
potential of the fundamental
law of the land.
 The preamble to our
constitution ensures socialist
pattern of the society and
dignity of the individual.
Decent standard of living and
pollution free environment is
inherent in this.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
The Constitution of India under part III guarantees fundamental rights which
are essential for the development of every individual and to which a person
is inherently entitled by virtue of being human alone.
Right to clean environment is also a right without which development of
individual and realisation of his or her full potential shall not be possible.
Articles 21, 14 and 19
Articles 21, 14 and 19 of this part have been used for environmental protection.
According to Article 21 of the constitution, “no person shall be deprived of his
life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”.
Article 21 guarantees fundamental right to life. Right to environment, free of
danger of disease and infection is inherent in it. Right to healthy
environment is important attribute of right to live with human dignity.
The right to live in a healthy environment as part of Article 21 of the
Constitution was first recognized in the case of Rural Litigation and
Entitlement Kendra v. State, AIR 1988 SC 2187 (Popularly known as
Dehradun Quarrying Case). It is the first case of this kind in India, involving
issues relating to environment and ecological balance in which Supreme Court
directed to stop the excavation (illegal mining) under the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986.
In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086 the Supreme Court
treated the right to live in pollution free environment as a part of
fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

ARTICLE 19
The constitution of India under Article 19 (1) (a) read with Article 21
of the constitution guarantees right to decent environment and right
to live peacefully.
 In PA Jacob v. The Superintendent of Police, Kottayam, AIR
1993 Ker 1, the Kerala High Court held that freedom of speech
under article 19 (1)(a) does not include freedom to use loud speakers
or sound amplifiers. Thus, noise pollution caused by the loud
speakers can be controlled under article 19 (1) (a) of the
constitution.
 Article 19 (1) (g) of the Indian constitution confers fundamental
right on every citizen to practice any profession or to carry on any
occupation, trade or business. This is subject to reasonable
restrictions.
 A citizen cannot carry on business activity, if it is health hazards to
the society or general public. Thus safeguards for environment
protection are inherent in this. The Supreme Court, while deciding
the matter relating to carrying on trade of liquor in Cooverjee B.
Bharucha v. Excise commissioner, Ajmer (1954, SC 220)
observed that, if there is clash between environmental protection
and right to freedom of trade and occupation, the courts have to
balance environmental interests with the fundamental rights to carry
on any occupations.

ARTICLE 32 AND ARTICLE 226
 Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 and 226 of the
constitution of India resulted in a wave of environmental litigation.
The leading environmental cases decided by the Supreme Court
includes:
 Closure of limestone quarries in the Dehradun region (Dehradun
Quarrying case/ Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun
v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1985 SC 652),
 The installation of safeguard at a chlorine plant in Delhi (M.C. Mehta
v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1037) etc.
 Diversion was done to change the course of river Beas to beautify
the motel and encroachment upon some forest land (M.C. Mehta v.
Kamal Nath & Ors (1997) 1 SCC 388)
 In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC
647, the Court observed that “the Precautionary Principle” and “the
Polluter Pays Principle” are essential features of “Sustainable
Development.”

POLLUTER PAY PRINCIPLE
“If anyone intentionally spoils the water of another … let him not only
pay damages, but purify the stream or cistern which contains the
water…” – Plato
 The ‘polluter pay’ principle essentially holds the polluter liable for
the pollution caused to the environment.
 The polluter is liable for every damage caused to the environment.
So according to the ‘polluter pay principle’, the polluter has to not
only compensate the victims of pollution but also compensate for the
restoration of environmental degradation.
 The measures to be taken by the polluter for controlling the
pollution is decided by public authorities so that the environment is
in acceptable state post the industry operation.
 The polluter bears the cost of health hazard caused to the public as
well as the cost of restoration of the environment. In other words,
the costs of the measures should reflect on the cost of the goods
and services, the production and consumption of which led to
pollution. The cost of the measures should not be accompanied by
the subsidies as it would lead to distortion in international trade and
investment.
 The polluter pays principle is part of a set of broader principles to
guide sustainable development worldwide.

PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
 The Precautionary Principle is of particular relevance and importance
in the context of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity
and living natural resources.
 The precautionary principle states that if there is risk of severe
damage to humans and/or the environment, absence of conclusive, or
definite scientific proof is not a reason for inaction.
 It is a better-safe-than-sorry approach, in contrast with the
traditional reactive wait-and-see approach to environmental
protection.
 When there is uncertainty regarding the impacts of an activity, the
precautionary principle advocates action to anticipate and avert
environmental harm.
 Article 3 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was
just one in a long list of international agreements that contained the
precautionary principle, making it one of the most popular legal
concepts in international environmental law today.
 The Principle therefore provides a fundamental policy basis to
anticipate, avoid and mitigate threats to the environment.

DOCTRINE OF PUBLIC TRUST
 The Public Trust Doctrine has its origins in Roman Law. It has been
extended in recent years, placing a duty on the state to hold
environmental resources in trust for the benefit of the public.
 It is used by the courts as a tool to protect the environment from
many kinds of degradation. In some countries, the doctrine has
formed the basis of environmental policy legislation, allowing private
rights of action by citizens for violations by the state (directly or
indirectly) of the public trust.

DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY
ARTICLE 38
Article 38 seeks to achieve welfare of the people by casting obligation on
the State to target social, economic and political justice. The social,
economic and political justice along with welfare of people enjoins a duty
upon State to protect and preserve the environment which is essential
for the well being of the country and of future generation.
ARTICLE 47
Article 47 spells out the primary duty of the State to improve public
health. Improvement of Public Health takes within itself that the
environment is free from pollution and conducive for human dwelling and
public health.
ARTICLE 48
Article 48 deals with organization of agriculture and animal husbandry. It
directs the State to take steps to organize agriculture and animal
husbandry on modern and scientific lines. In particular, it should take
steps for preserving and improving the breeds and prohibiting the
slaughter of cows and calves and other milk and draught cattle.
ARTICLE 48 -A
Article 48 -A of the constitution says that “the state shall endeavour to
protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and
wild life of the country”.

ARTICLE 51
Article 51 provide for promotion of internal peace and security and for
fostering respect for international law and treaty obligations.
Henceforth, State shall endeavour to implement international law
and treaties and foster respect for them including but not limited
to international obligations pertaining to protection of environment.
ARTICLE 51A(g)
Article 51A(g) casts the following duty upon the citizens of India to
protect and improve the natural environment including forests,
lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living
creatures.
ARTICLE 253:
Legislation for giving effect to international agreements not
withstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this
Chapter, Parliament has power to make any law for the whole
or any part of the territory of India for implementing any
treaty, agreement or convention with any other country or
countries or any decision made at any international
conference, association or other body.

 Environmental Law plays a very crucial and important role in
regulating the use of natural resources and in protecting the
environment. The success of environmental legislations mainly
depends on the way they are enforced.
 Legislation also serves as a valuable tool for educating masses about
their responsibility in maintaining healthy environment.
 Most of our environmental legislations are Acts of the Parliament or
the State Legislatures. These Acts generally delegate powers to
regulating agencies, to make rules for the purpose of their
implementation.
 The department of Environment was established in India in 1980 to
ensure a healthy environment for the country. This later became the
Ministry of Environment and Forests in 1985.
 This Ministry has overall responsibility for administering and
enforcing environmental legislations and policies.

THE WILDLIFE PROTECTION ACT, 1972
 The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 was enacted with the
objective of effectively protecting the wild life of this country and
to control poaching, smuggling and illegal trade in wildlife and its
derivatives.
 The objective is to provide protection to the listed endangered
flora and fauna and ecologically important protected areas.
 The Act was amended in January 2003 and punishment and the
penalty for offences under the Act have been made more stringent.
THE WATER (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION)
ACT, 1974
 The main objective of this Act is to provide prevention and control
of water pollution and maintaining or restoring of wholesomeness
and purity of water.
 The Water Act prohibits the discharge of pollutants into water
bodies beyond a given standard, and lays down penalties for non-
compliance.
 The Act provides for the constitution of Central and State Boards
and lays down various procedures for filing a complaint.
 At the Centre, the Water Act has set up the CPCB(Central Pollution
Control Board) which lays down standards for the prevention and
control of water pollution. At the State level, SPCBs function under
the direction of the CPCB and the State Government.

THE FOREST CONSERVATION ACT, 1980
 The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 is an Act of
the Parliament of India to provide for the conservation of
forests and for matters connected therewith or ancillary or
incidental thereto. It was further amended in 1988.
 This law extends to the whole of India to control
further deforestation of Forest Areas in India.
Objectives of the Act
 Protect the forest along with its flora, fauna and other
diverse ecological components while preserving the integrity
and territory of the forests.
 Arrest the loss of forest biodiversity.
 Prevent forest lands being converted into agricultural, grazing
or for any other commercial purposes and intentions.

THE AIR PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION ACT,
1981
 The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1981, or the Air
Act, in short, was a law passed by the Parliament of India to prevent
and control the harmful effects of air pollution in India.
 This Act is seen as the first concrete step taken by the government
of India to combat air pollution.
Objectives of Air Act
 To provide for the prevention, control and abatement of air
pollution.
 To provide for the establishment of Central and State Board with a
view to implement the Act.
 To confer on the Boards the power to implement the provisions of
the Act and assign to the Boards functions relating to pollution.
 The functions of the Board is to improve the quality of air and to
prevent, control or abate air pollution in the country.

THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT, 1986
 The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 defines environment as
“environment includes water, air and land and the interrelationship
which exists among and between air, water and land and human
beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism and property”.
 The Environment Protection Act, 1986 (the "Environment Act")
provides for the protection and improvement of the environment.
 The Environment Protection Act establishes the framework for
studying, planning and implementing long-term requirements of
environmental safety and laying down a system of speedy and
adequate response to situations threatening the environment.
 It is an umbrella legislation designed to provide a framework for the
coordination of central and state authorities established under the
Water Act, 1974 and the Air Act, 1981.
The Act also empowers any person, apart from authorised government
officers, to file a complaint in a court regarding any contravention of
the provisions of the Act.

OBJECTIVES
 Implementing the decisions made at the United Nations
Conference on Human Environment held in Stockholm.
 Creation of a government authority to regulate industry that
can issue direct orders including closure orders.
 Co-ordinating activities of different agencies that are
operating under the existing laws.
 Enacting regular laws for the protection of the environment.
 Engaging in the sustainable development of the environment.
 Attaining protection of the right to life under Article 21 of
the Constitution.
 Imposing punishments and penalties on those who endanger
the environment, safety and health.

THE BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY ACT, 2002
 The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 was born out of India's attempt
to realise the objectives enshrined in the United Nations Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD), 1992 which recognises the sovereign
rights of states to use their own Biological Resources.
 The main objective of the Act is to ensure the conservation of
biological diversity, sustainable use of its components and fair usage
of its resources in order to prevent overuse or eventual destruction
of biodiversity.
Features of the Act includes:
 Regulation of access to biological resources of the country.
 Conservation and sustainability of biological diversity.
 Protecting the knowledge of local communities regarding
biodiversity.
 Secure sharing of benefits with local people as conservers of
biological resources and holders of knowledge and information
relating to the use of biological resources.
 Protection and rehabilitation of threatened species.
 Involvement of institutions of State Governments in the broad
scheme of the implementations of the Biological Diversity Act
through the establishment of dedicated committees.

THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL ACT, 2010
 The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 has been enacted with
the objectives to provide for establishment of a National
Green Tribunal (NGT) for the effective and expeditious
disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and
conservation of forests and other natural resources including
enforcement of any legal right relating to environment and
giving relief and compensation for damages to persons and
property and for matters connected therewith or incidental
thereto.
 NGT draws inspiration from Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution which assures to provide a healthy environment to
the citizens of India. The National Green Tribunal has a total
of five places of sittings namely: Bhopal, Pune, New Delhi,
Kolkata, and Chennai, amongst which, New Delhi is the Principal
place of sitting.
 The Act envisages establishment of NGT in order to deal with
all environmental laws relating to air and water pollution, the
Environment Protection Act, the Forest Conservation Act and
the Biodiversity Act as have been set out in Schedule I of the
NGT Act.

Objectives of National Green Tribunal.
 Effective and expeditious disposal of cases that are related to the
protection and conservation of the environment, forests, and other
natural resources.
 To give relief and compensations for any damages caused to
persons and properties.
 To handle various environmental disputes that involve multi-
disciplinary issues.
Coastal Regulation Zone Notification 2011
The Ministry of Environment and Forests had issued the Coastal
Regulation Zone Notification, dated January 06, 2011 with an
objective to ensure livelihood security to the fishing communities
and other local communities living in the coastal areas,
• to conserve and protect coastal stretches and
• to promote development in a sustainable manner based on scientific
principles, taking into account the dangers of natural hazards in the
coastal areas and sea level rise due to global warming.

CORPORATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES

CORPORATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
CRIMES
 Coming back to the criminal penalties under the environmental
legislations, these are usual provision to the effect that where an
offence under the Act has been committed by a company, every
person, who, at the time of the commission of the offence, ‘was in
charges of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of
the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be
deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be
proceeded against and punished accordingly’.
 Under the proviso to this section, such company official is exempt
from punishment, if he proves that the offence had been committed
without his knowledge, or that he had exercised all due diligence. In
a way, such provisions impose a fictional liability on the company
officer.
 In context of environmental corporate crime and from an economic
point of view, one can therefore observe that, given the limited
funds of the employee, corporate criminal liability may be an
efficient instrument to urge the corporation to issue prudent
guidelines and exert effective control over its employees.
 As there is higher assets at stake within the corporation, it might
be more effective to impose monetary sanctions on the corporation
rather than on the individual.

CORPORATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
CRIMES
Position in India
 Environmental legislation in India is evolving which is evidenced by a
marked difference between the provisions of penalties in the Acts
of 1974, 1981 and 1986 and the provisions for penalty in the Act of
1995.(The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974,
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, Environment
Protection Act, 1986, The National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995)
 Even though with these legislations, there still exist an important
omission in the sense that there is no provision which could be called
as a provision exclusively dealing with the aspect of corporate
liability.
 Further, baring the provision dealing with no fault liability, there is
no other provision that lays down a minimum statutory amount of
fine, specifically for corporate.
 It also need to be noted that there is no mention of administrative
sanction which in reality could have acted as more of a deterrent
than the monetary penalties.

EFFECTIVENESS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY ON
CORPORATIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES
 Imposing liability on corporation is very important as the
majority of environment crimes are committed by companies;
merely prosecuting the corporate officers for such offences
would not sufficiently deter the company.
 By application of the principle of respondent superior the
company is held vicariously responsible for the actions of its
employees in the course of employment and for the benefit
of the company.
 Such liability would be especially useful when it is difficult
to impose liability on one particular official , as the
environmental violations are the result of the actions of
several different officers.
 The in-effectiveness of corporate criminal liability in the
cases relating to environmental pollution is evident with the
fact that there are very few reported cases of
environmental pollution by the companies. There are several
reasons for this ineffectiveness.

REASON FOR THE INEFFECTIVENESS OF
CRIMINAL LIABILITY ON CORPORATIONS
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES IN INDIA
 The law on corporate criminal liability in India is not confined to
one legislation or code, but is scattered through a plethora of
statutes with specific provisions for the same.
 Further it can be observed that it is not always easy to lift the
corporate veil so as to find the alter ego or identify the agent or
soul or body of the company to impose criminal liability.
 Moreover, the criminal law has some traditional principles which
require strict interpretation which cannot be given to
environmental crimes.

Corporate environmental crimes

United States v. International Petroleum Corporation of Delaware
(IPC)
 From 1992 through 2012, IPC operated a facility in Wilmington
which processed used oil and hydrocarbon-containing waste water
and then sold the reprocessed petroleum to various companies for
reuse.
 IPC admitted that it tampered with monthly test samples required
by CWA to determine if it was complying with its permit limitations
before discharge into a city-owned sewer.
 IPC also admitted that in June and July 2012, it transported
hazardous waste for disposal in South Carolina without the required
manifest in violation of the Resource Recovery and Conservation
Act. This waste contained concentrations of benzene, barium,
chromium, cadmium, lead, tetrachloroethene, and trichloroethene.
 International Petroleum Corporation of Delaware (IPC) was
sentenced on February 2, 2017, to a $1,300,000 fine and
$2,200,000 restitution to the City of Wilmington for environmental
crimes, including a conspiracy to violate the Clean Water Act.

United States v. Volkswagen AG 18 U.S.C. 1512
 Volkswagen AG (VW) was sentenced in federal court in Detroit
after pleading guilty on March 10, 2017, to three felony counts of:
 (1) conspiracy to defraud the United States, engage in wire fraud,
and violate the Clean Air Act; (2) obstruction of justice; and(3)
importation of merchandise by means of false statements.
 It was held by the Court that “Volkswagen has been punished for its
scheme to defeat U.S. environmental standards and cheat U.S.
consumers. This prosecution sends a strong message to Volkswagen
and others that we take our environmental laws seriously and that
federal prosecution awaits those who defraud the EPA.”
During the sentencing hearing, the court accepted the parties’ plea
agreement, which requires VW to pay a $2.8 billion penalty stemming
from the company’s decade-long scheme to sell diesel vehicles
containing software designed to cheat on U.S. emissions tests. VW
also agreed to pay an additional $1.5 billion to settle EPA’s claim for
civil penalties in connection with the importation and sale of these
cars, as well as customs fraud claims.

Berkshire Power Company Case
 Berkshire Power Company (BPC) and Power Plant Management
Services, Inc. (PPMS) were sentenced on March 23, 2017, for
tampering with air pollution emissions equipment.
 PPMS was also sentenced for submitting false information relating to
the Berkshire Power Plant in Agawam, Mass. BPC was ordered to pay
$2.75 million in criminal fines for violations of the Clean Air Act and
to make a $750,000 community service payment. PPMS was
sentenced to $500,000 in criminal fines and $250,000 in community
service. Both firms will also pay more than $3 million in civil
penalties.
 Between January 2009 and March 2011, BPC engaged PPMS to
manage the Berkshire Power Plant. During this time, the two firms
tampered with air pollution monitoring equipment and reported false
emissions data to authorities. These actions were taken to avoid lost
revenues that would have resulted from either reducing power
production or by taking the plant out of service for needed
equipment repairs.
 The former operations and maintenance manager of the Berkshire
plant pleaded guilty to three counts of violating the Clean Air Act
and conspiracy. Fred Baker was ordered to pay a fine of $5,000 and
sentenced to 30 months of probation. Scott Paterson, the plant’s
former instrument and control technician was sentenced to one year
of probation for his role in the case.

Union carbide corporation v. Union Of India, 1989 SCC (2)
540
 The Union Carbide (India) Ltd., a sister concern of Union Carbide
Corporation (UCC) owned and operated in Bhopal, a chemical plant
manufacturing pesticides, one of the ingredients in the composition
being Methyl Isocyanate (MIC), considered to be the most toxic
chemical in industrial use.
 On the 2nd December, 1984 night there was escape of MIC from
the tanks in which it was stored. And the fumes blew into the
hutments abutting the plant premises affecting the residents as also
the flora and fauna.
 About 4000 people lost their lives and the health of tens of
thousands of people was affected in various degrees of seriousness.
 Damages were sought on behalf of victims of Bhopal gas leak
disaster.
 The Court examined the prima facie material for the purpose of
quantifying the damages, and also the question of domestication of
the decree in the United States for the purpose of execution.
 The Court further examined the question- which amount of damages
would be “just, equitable and reasonable” for an over-all settlement
of the case.

The court stated that even if the company did take all precautions
necessary for preventing such an outbreak of hazardous gas, the
responsibility still lies in their hands.
The Court applied the principle of absolute liability and held that the
industry would have been absolutely liable for all damages and casualties
of citizens caused by its hazardous substance.
 Here, the Court referred to the case M.C. Mehta v Union of India (AIR
1987 SC 1086) where it was held that the measure of damages payable
had to be correlated to the magnitude and the capacity of the enterprises
because such compensation had to have a deterrent effect.
The Court decided as follows:
(1) The Union Carbide Corporation should pay a sum of U.S. Dollars 470
million (Four hundred and seventy million) to the Union of India in full
settlement of all claims, rights and liabilities related to and arising out of
the Bhopal gas disaster.
(2) The Union Carbide Corporation shall pay the aforesaid sum to the
Union of India on or before 31 March 1989.
(3) To enable the effectuation of the settlement, all civil proceedings
related to and arising out of the Bhopal gas disaster shall thereby stand
transferred to the Supreme Court and shall stand concluded in terms of
the settlement, and all criminal proceedings related to and arising out of
the disaster shall stand quashed, wherever these may be pending.

EVOLUTION OF PRINCIPLE OF ABSOLUTE LIABILITY
 The rule of Strict Liability introduced in Rylands v Fletcher is
having certain exceptions that the actual spectrum of the
liability is very narrow. This old principle as brought out in
1868, may not suit all countries as well as it did then, due to
the dynamic nature of technology and society.
 Though India did follow the laws of England since the pre-
independence era, adjustments and amendments have been
made to suit the country’s needs over time. Many rules and
concepts which were not quite suitable in the Indian scenario,
were modified to fit the criteria of Indian legislation.
 In the no-fault liability law, India followed the Strict
Liability for itself, until it realized that this could not be
properly applied to the Indian context.
 The major push came from the two incidents of the Bhopal
Gas tragedy and the Oleum Gas Leak case, which instilled a
realization of the need for a new principle for liability in
India, to meet its industrial and economical requirements.

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (The Oleum Gas Leak Case) 1987
 A writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was
brought before the Supreme Court by way of a Public Interest
Litigation in 1985 for the closure of Shri Ram on the ground of
health hazards and for laying down the principles and norms for
determining the ability of the large enterprises engaged in the
manufacture and sale of hazardous products.
 A question was raised in regard to the possibility of major leakage
of liquid chlorine from the Caustic Unit of Shri Ram and of danger
to the lives of thousands of workers and others.
 The writ petition was pending and on 4th and 6th December 1985
there was escape of Oleum gas from one units of Shri Ram and as a
result of such leakage several persons were affected and according
to the petitioner and the Delhi Bar Association, one advocate
practicing in the Tis Hazari Court also died.
 The Supreme Court, by issuing a writ directed: “The company to
deposit a sum of Rs.20, 00,000/- by way of security for payment of
compensation claims of the victims of Oleum gas. In addition to that
the court directed the company to give a bank guarantee for sum of
Rs.15, 00,000/- lakhs.”
 Later,the Supreme Court imposed on the company some other
conditions and allowed for the partial opening of the plant and the
Supreme Court included pollution free environment under right to
life guaranteed by the constitution.

Criminal liability of officers of the company
 The Court very appropriately sought to hold the Chairman
and Managing Director and other officers along with the
operator and head of the concerned plant personally
responsible for this mishap. Such officers have often been
treated as the mind, soul, and body of the corporation.
However, the outcome of this case was particularly
disappointing as the Court later decided to change the First
Order. Subsequently, the Court ordered that the officials
could be exempted from being held responsible if they prove
that the escape of the gas was due to an Act of God or vis
major or sabotage.
 The case particularly holds landmark importance in the
development of criminal law in environmental jurisprudence
 Chief Justice P. N. Bhagwati observed that:
“Rights to live in a healthy environment as fundamental right
under Article 21 of the Constitution. He stressed on the need
to develop a law recognizing the rule of strict and absolute
liability in cases of hazardous or dangerous industries
operating at the cost of environment and the human life.”

Dwraka Cement Works v. State of Gujarat 1992
 The Dwarka Cement Works, a limited company and five others who
are its Chairman, Directors and General Manager were alleged to
have committed offence under Sections 21(4), 21(5) and 31A of the
Pollution Act.
 According to the complainant since all of them were responsible for
the management of the Company, they were vicariously liable for the
alleged offences committed by the Company.
 The Chairman, Director and the General Manager who were involved
in the environmental crime contended that there was nothing in the
complaint that concerned them with regards to the management of
the industry, and, therefore, they could not be personally held liable
for the harm caused.
 The court observed that:
“The absence of a strict legal framework provides the chance to the
corporations to frame excuses to get rid of their responsibility in
environmental offences. This is one such case where the corporation
framed a lame excuse to escape liability.”
However, the Court did not allow their plea on account of their tricks
to escape liability.

Vizag Gas Leak, 2020
 The Visakhapatnam gas leak, also referred to as the Vizag gas leak,
was an industrial accident that occurred at the LG
Polymers chemical plant located at the outskirts
of Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India, during the early morning
of 7 May 2020.
 This resulted in the death of 12 persons and hospitalisation of
more than 100 people. More than 1000 people were reported sick.
 There was also damage to environment and habitat. The High Court
of Andhra Pradesh took suo motu cognizance of the incident
and vide order dated 07-05-2020, directed the State to take all
necessary steps to mitigate the loss that may be caused due to this
incident.
 The National Green Tribunal initiated suo motu proceedings in the
matter, and having regard to the prima facie material as to the loss
of lives, public health and environment and liability of the Company
engaged in inherently hazardous activity, directed the Company to
forthwith deposit an initial amount of Rs 50 crores.
 The report of the high-level committee headed by the NGT found
that the storage tanks were outdated and lacked temperature
sensors, allowing the styrene vaporization to go undetected.

Vizag Gas Leak, 2020
 With factory workers and the overall company inexperienced
in storing tanks of such dangerous chemicals, the report
blamed the incident on "gross human failure" and a lack of
basic safety norms.
 The National Green Tribunal invoked the principle of ‘strict
liability’ against LG Polymers for adversely affecting the
public health and environment through its failures.
 The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Poisonous gas leakage in
Visakhapatnam v. State of Andhra Pradesh vide order dated
22-05-2020 issued the following directions:
 The Government was ordered to seize the company premises
of the LG Polymers chemical plant, Vizag and the directors
were not allowed to enter the premises. In addition to this,
assets, fixture, machinery and contents were not allowed to
be shifted without Court’s permission. The Directors of the
Company were ordered to surrender their passports and
hence, they were not allowed to leave the country without
the Court’s permission.

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
 Even though we have a lot of environmental legislations, little has
changed over the past hundred years in the evolution of the
corporate criminal law.
 It is evident from the fact that the legal questions raised by
recent corporate scandals are remarkably similar to those in the
early 1990.
 Though the government frames a lot of policies for environmental
protection, it is not able to effectively enforce it. We can see that
even in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process introduced
or the purpose of evaluating the potential benefit and adverse
impacts of developmental projects on the environment.
 Over the decade, a series of amendments progressively weakened
the scope and stringency of the clearance process. This is because
there will be two string, one pulling towards environmental
protection and the other the development.

 There is an urgent need to have a separate provision for corporate
offences prescribing a comprehensive punishment regime for
corporate separated from the ‘individual’. For corporate there
should be more fine prescribed.
 Only imposing fine on corporate would not solve the problem, as
these corporate would try to assess the fine on a cost-benefit
analysis finding out whether the compliance would benefit them or
non-compliance.
 The environmental compliance regime has to be supplemented and
associated with the corporate social accountability at the same time
there must be some provision for stigmatization of the company for
its non-compliance of environmental legislation (47th Law
Commission Report).
 corporations must be held strictly liable without requirement of
fault for any and all damage arising from any of their activities that
cause environmental or property damage or personal injury, including
site remediation.

 Parent companies as well as subsidiaries and affiliated local
corporations must be held liable for compensation and restitution.
 States must implement individual liability for directors and officers
for actions or omissions of the corporation, including for those of
subsidiaries.
 There should be incentive awarded to the companies in terms of tax
rebate practicing good governance measures in protecting the
environment.
 There should not be mere Corporate Criminal Liability. There should
be a judicious mix of corporate criminal liability and civil liability
through regulators to put a check on environmental crimes
committed by the corporate bodies.
 An independent regulator body should be set up for environmental
protection and audit.

CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME

More from sebis1

Recently uploaded

CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME