By – Samvidha Rastogi

The world continues to have burning temperatures, melting ice caps, storms, execution vans, suffocated fish, extinct tigers, and the streets run with blood where roosters and humans fight to the death. There is an environment for the destruction of biodiversity, the disruption of the climate, and the depredation of resources. Irrespective of a desire to ignore it, the planet weighed down by the excesses of an industrial revolution finds that it is impossible to do so and is therefore being pushed towards justice in its relationship with its inhabitants. 

Criminology was initially as blind to ecological crimes as it was to corporate crimes and the law was unconcerned so long as they supposedly did not “hurt” anyone, at least economically. Increasingly, in front of the right diagnosis, it is clear that there is a need for ‘green criminology’ as the central critique of a ‘mighty predator state’ to be supported by a green state as the only answer that can efficiently take up the ecological challenge. 

Green criminology is an emerging field of study that focuses on the intersection of environmental harm and criminal justice. It encompasses the study of both the criminal actions that harm the environment and the justice system’s response to these actions. Green criminology delves into the study of environmental crimes and harms, focusing on the violations of environmental laws and regulations. In the Indian context, the significance of green criminology has grown amidst concerns about environmental degradation, pollution and unsustainable practices. In India, green criminology has gained prominence in recent years due to the increasing recognition of environmental issues and their impact on society. The Indian legal system has taken several steps to address environmental issues and regulate activities that cause harm to the environment. One of the key legislations in India that addresses environmental issues is the Environmental Protection Act, 1986.

Understanding Environmental Harm: Concepts and Definitions

Environmental harm is a complex and multi-faceted issue that requires a thorough exploration from various perspectives. From an eco-justice standpoint, White emphasizes the importance of understanding environmental harm through a lens that incorporates wider definitions and implications. This perspective highlights the interconnectedness between environmental issues, social justice, and sustainability. By considering environmental harms within a broader context, we can better address the complexities and ethical considerations involved in environmental damage.

Taking an integrated approach to exploring environmental issues, Kemp delves into the various dimensions of environmental harm. This comprehensive approach allows for a deeper understanding of the causes and consequences of environmental degradation. By examining the interplay between different factors such as policy, economics, and social dynamics, we can uncover the intricate web of influences that contribute to environmental harm. This integrated perspective is essential for developing effective strategies for mitigating and preventing further environmental damage.

In the realm of green crime, Hall introduces the legal, social, and criminological contexts of environmental harm, shedding light on the complexities of defining and addressing green crimes. The inclusion of animals and the broader environment within the concept of social harm underscores the interconnected nature of environmental harm and its impact on various aspects of society.

The conceptualization and definition of environmental harm are crucial in navigating the complexities of this issue. By expanding our understanding of environmental harm to include social, legal, and criminological perspectives, we develop more holistic approaches for addressing and mitigating environmental damage; which is vital for promoting sustainability, social justice, and ethical considerations in managing environmental harm effectively.

Exploring environmental harm from various scholarly perspectives provides valuable insights into the interconnected nature of environmental issues and their implications for society. It is imperative to continue researching and analyzing environmental harm to develop effective strategies for addressing and preventing further damage to our planet and its inhabitants.

Corporate Environmental Harm and Accountability

Corporate environmental harm poses significant challenges to ecosystems, public health, and social well-being. While corporations drive economic growth, their operations often have adverse environmental impacts, ranging from pollution to habitat destruction. Holding corporations accountable for their environmental harm is crucial for promoting sustainability and safeguarding the planet. 

In India, while the legal framework provides a basis for corporate liability and accountability, challenges persist in enforcement and compliance. Addressing these challenges requires concerted efforts from regulators, corporations, civil society, and the public to ensure effective environmental governance and protection.

1.1 Regulatory Framework

Governments worldwide enact environmental regulations to mitigate corporate environmental harm. These regulations impose obligations on corporations to comply with environmental standards, obtain permits, and implement pollution control measures. For instance, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 establishes emission limits and water quality standards that corporations must adhere to. The discharge of industrial effluents is regulated by the Indian Standard Codes and recently, water quality standards for coastal water marine outfalls have also been specified. Regulatory agencies enforce compliance through inspections, monitoring, and penalties for violations. The threat of regulatory sanctions incentivizes corporations to adopt environmentally sustainable practices and technologies.

1.2 Legal Framework for Corporate Environmental Accountability

In India, corporate environmental accountability is primarily dependant on statutory provisions, judicial precedents, and regulatory mechanisms. The keystone legislation that emphasises the cause of environmental protection is the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, which empowers the Central Government to take measures to protect and improve the environment. Additionally, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, institute dictatorial frameworks for water and air pollution control, respectively.

The principle of corporate liability for environmental harm has been recognized by Indian courts through various judgments however, the most famous being M.C Mehta v. Union of India. In M.C Mehta v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that industries causing environmental pollution are strictly liable for damages, irrespective of fault. This principle, known as the “polluter pays” principle, imposes financial liability on corporations for the environmental harm caused by their activities.

Furthermore, corporate environmental accountability is reinforced through The Companies Act, 2013, through the mandates regarding certain qualifying companies to spend a portion of their profits on Corporate Social Responsible activities, including environmental sustainability initiatives. 

1.3 Challenges and Gaps in Corporate Environmental Accountability

Despite the existing legal framework, challenges persist in ensuring effective corporate environmental accountability in India. Enforcement of environmental laws often faces hurdles due to inadequate resources, corruption, and bureaucratic inefficiencies. Additionally, regulatory agencies may lack the capacity to monitor and enforce compliance effectively, leading to regulatory gaps and leniency towards non-compliant corporations.

Another challenge lies in the lack of stringent penalties for environmental violations. Although the law provides for penalties and sanctions, they are often insufficient to deter corporations from engaging in environmentally harmful practices. Moreover, the legal process for holding corporations accountable for environmental harm can be protracted and complex, resulting in delays and inadequate remedies for affected communities.

1.3.1 Enhancing Corporate Environmental Accountability

Addressing the challenges in corporate environmental accountability requires a multi-faceted approach involving legislative reforms, strengthened enforcement mechanisms, and increased public participation. Firstly, there is a need for stricter enforcement of existing environmental laws through increased monitoring, inspections, and imposition of deterrent penalties on non-compliant corporations.

Secondly, legislative reforms should focus on enhancing transparency and accountability in corporate environmental reporting. Mandating corporations to disclose their environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and compliance status can facilitate greater public scrutiny and accountability. Additionally, incorporating environmental risk assessment requirements into corporate governance frameworks can help identify and mitigate potential environmental liabilities.

Moreover, promoting stakeholder engagement and community participation in decision-making processes concerning environmental issues can foster accountability and ensure that corporate activities align with local environmental priorities and concerns. Civil society organizations, academia, and affected communities should be empowered to hold corporations accountable through advocacy, litigation, and public awareness campaigns.

Global Jurisprudence and Climate Change

We argue that being green implies more than holding values favouring environmental protection: it also entails a political stance wherein it is acknowledged that solutions to environmental degradation may require substantial economic and political reorganization

The European Court of Human Rights in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland upheld the rights of a Swiss association whose members are all older women concerned about the consequences of global warming on their health. The Court held that individuals under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights have a right to effective protection from the adverse effects of climate change. Such right is exercised against the state authorities. 

In the case of Urgenda Foundation v. State of Netherlands, the Dutch Supreme Court acknowledged the need to adopt climate policies with respect to Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, mentioned that the rapidly changing climate and the raising temperature of the planet harbours the potential to endanger human rights and disturb the family dynamics. It was also held by the apex Dutch court that Article 8 extends to environmental issues that directly impair these rights and that the countries are required to take reasonable measures for the protection of such rights. 

The Supreme Court of India pronounced a verdict on March 21, 2024 that was build upon the bulwark of jurisprudence in place since 1986 i.e M.C Mehta v. UOI, M.C. Mehta V. Kamal Nath, Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana. The Supreme Court has recognised the right to clean environment along with right to clean air, water and soil free from pollution which is absolutely necessary for the enjoyment of life. 

The Supreme Court in M.K. Ranjitsingh & ors v. Union of India & ors held that the people have a right under Article 14 and 12 to be safe from the adverse effects of climate change. The judgment solidifies that the duty to maintain the ecological balance and clean environment is that of the State. The inability to adapt with the changing needs forced on to the socially, culturally and economically vulnerable sections of the society, as a result of climate change will lead to the violation of right to life as well as the right to equality. If climate change and environmental degradation lead to acute food and water shortages in a particular area, poorer communities will suffer more than richer ones, said the judgment. Specifying the right to a healthy environment that is not tainted with the aftermath of climate change is a “fundamental human right”, the Supreme Court noted that “Violations of the right to a healthy environment can reverberate across numerous rights domains, including the right to life, personal integrity, health, water, and housing, as well as procedural rights such as information, expression, association, and participation… Unequal energy access disproportionately affects women and girls due to their gender roles and responsibilities such as through time spent on domestic chores and unpaid care work.”

This judgment comes at a time when, although, there are several rules and regulations regarding the safeguarding of biodiversity, the environment, and protection from several types of pollution; there seems to be a lack of an umbrella legislation that addresses all such problems in a systematic manner. 

Crimes Against the Environment

The process of globalization has led to open or less strictly enforced borders, better connectivity around the world, advanced ways of communication, and technological advancements, and with these meticulous advantages, there have been collaborations and the development of tech-friendly and evasive criminal networks. Transnational criminal networks traverse international borders, infiltrate illicit markets, penetrate fragile governments, and threaten safety and security around the world. Organized crime would have an element of continuity and resilience because these groups are of a long-standing nature. 

Environmental crime, encompassing illicit activities such as illegal logging, wildlife trafficking, and hazardous waste dumping, poses significant threats to ecosystems, biodiversity, and human well-being. Driven by perceptions of low risks and high profits, environmental crime has become a significant new form of organized criminal activity with disastrous impacts on the environment and costs for future generations. Moreover, criminal organizations shift their focus or diversify their portfolio from ‘traditional’ criminal activities, such as drug or human trafficking, to the illegal trade in natural resources. In India, these crimes are often perpetrated through intricate networks of organized crime syndicates, exploiting regulatory loopholes and weak enforcement mechanisms. Organized environmental crime poses a significant threat to the sustainable development and ecological balance of nations. With its rich biodiversity and burgeoning economy, India faces challenges in combating black markets and illicit trading routes that exploit its natural resources. The smuggling of ivory and minerals by criminal organizations involved in the weapons and ammunition trade or drug cartels that exchange timber for drugs or weapons illustrate the nexus between environmental crime and other serious crimes. 

India’s vast natural resources, including wildlife, forests, minerals, and marine ecosystems, attract illegal exploitation and trade. The existence of black markets and clandestine trading routes exacerbates the challenge of combating organized environmental crime in India. Criminal syndicates operate across porous borders, exploiting regulatory gaps and corrupt practices to smuggle contraband goods. The northeastern states, with their proximity to international borders, serve as hotspots for wildlife trafficking, while remote forested regions become hubs for illegal logging and mining activities. Additionally, India’s extensive coastline provides avenues for illicit trade in marine resources, including endangered species and marine products.

Legislative Framework in India

India has enacted various legislations to address organized environmental crime and preserve its natural heritage. The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, prohibits the hunting and trade of endangered species and their derivatives, while the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, regulates the felling of trees and forest land diversion. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, empowers the government to take measures for environmental protection and conservation. Furthermore, international conventions like the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) provide a framework for cooperation and regulation of wildlife trade.

While India has robust legislative frameworks in place, their effectiveness in curbing organized environmental crime remains a subject of debate. Enforcement agencies face challenges such as inadequate manpower, limited resources, and corruption, hindering their ability to combat sophisticated criminal networks. Moreover, the fragmented nature of environmental governance, with multiple agencies responsible for enforcement, leads to coordination issues and jurisdictional overlaps.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the field of green criminology stands at a critical juncture, poised to address pressing environmental issues in innovative ways while confronting emerging challenges in the 21st century. As we move forward, several key future directions and emerging issues come to the forefront.

Firstly, advancing interdisciplinary collaboration remains paramount. Green criminology thrives on the convergence of various disciplines such as sociology, environmental science, law, and economics. Strengthening these interdisciplinary ties fosters holistic understandings of environmental harm and effective strategies for prevention and intervention.

Secondly, there is a growing need to prioritize global perspectives and tackle transnational environmental crimes. As environmental degradation transcends borders, international cooperation becomes essential in combating activities like illegal wildlife trafficking, pollution dumping, and deforestation.

Furthermore, harnessing technological advancements offers promising avenues for research and enforcement. From satellite imaging to big data analytics, technological innovations provide invaluable tools for monitoring environmental crimes, identifying perpetrators, and implementing preventative measures.

Additionally, the field must grapple with emergent issues such as climate change-induced displacement and environmental justice disparities. Addressing these challenges requires nuanced approaches that consider the intersecting factors of race, class, and gender, ensuring that marginalized communities are not disproportionately burdened by environmental harm.

Finally, fostering public awareness and advocacy is crucial for effecting meaningful change. Empowering communities to engage in environmental activism, hold corporations and governments accountable, and advocate for sustainable policies is essential for creating a more just and ecologically sustainable future.

In essence, as green criminology evolves, it must remain adaptive, collaborative, and responsive to the complex environmental challenges of our time.