<p>Wildfires, droughts, floods and typhoons have been ravaging countries around the world. Climate change and high global temperatures over the past several years have contributed to these environmental harms. The current state of the environment can be charged to the actions of corporations, the majority of which are based in the Global North. In 2020, for the third time in a row, Coca Cola, Pepsico and Nestle were named as the most polluting companies in the world.</p>.<p>How can we hold these companies liable and ensure that they change their business practices?</p>.<p>The recent Royal Dutch Shell case, decided by the Dutch Supreme Court, has been a pathbreaking step regarding liability for climate change. The Shell verdict was the first time that a multinational corporation was found liable for an ineffective climate policy. Indeed, the decision has broad implications for the international community.</p>.<p>Large multinational companies are causing many types of environmental harm. Unsustainable water use, for instance, is an issue of major concern. Several companies around the world have been reporting water shortages owing to excessive withdrawals of freshwater resources. This is particularly the case with packed food manufacturers. Their largest environmental impact comes from the effects that their supply chains have on local water supplies.</p>.<p>Companies around the world are engaging in ecocide, a lot of which escapes the public eye. Recognition of ecocide as a crime would make corporations accountable for a plethora of environmental harms. Ecocide— defined as "extensive damage to, destruction of, or loss of ecosystem(s) of a given territory… To such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory has been or will be severely diminished"— brings within its scope key environmental harms that are endangering biodiversity and human life and health.</p>.<p>Current law is not able to hold multinational corporations sufficiently liable for the entire spectrum of environmental harms. Criminal sanctions can help to achieve this liability. Recognising ecocide as a crime would be a powerful tool.</p>.<p>Another serious issue is the fact that a large number of major global corporations, in fact, outsource their environmental impacts to their supply chains. A great deal of the environmental harm they cause escapes public scrutiny— whether from unsustainable water use, carbon emissions, pollution or deforestation.</p>.<p>Criminal sanctions for ecocidal acts would enable a shift in our thinking regarding environmental harm. It would clearly spell out the line of acceptability: What is the level of environmental harm that we as a society are no longer willing to accept.</p>.<p>For too long we have adhered to the view that development comes at the cost of the environment. As poverty levels continue to increase, the fissures in the development model are becoming more and more clear. As global poverty levels have increased owing to the Covid-19 pandemic, climate change impacts and conflicts are more apparent. A truly sustainable model of development has become the only way forward.</p>.<p>International law on ecocide would give a voice to poorer victims in developing countries. It could be useful in prosecuting environmental crimes that cross national jurisdictions. It would usher in an era of heightened liability and accountability for environmental harms.</p>.<p><em>(The writer is associate professor, director, Environmental Law and Science Advocacy Forum; and assistant dean, Student Affairs at Jindal School of Environment and Sustainability, O P Jindal Global University) </em></p>
<p>Wildfires, droughts, floods and typhoons have been ravaging countries around the world. Climate change and high global temperatures over the past several years have contributed to these environmental harms. The current state of the environment can be charged to the actions of corporations, the majority of which are based in the Global North. In 2020, for the third time in a row, Coca Cola, Pepsico and Nestle were named as the most polluting companies in the world.</p>.<p>How can we hold these companies liable and ensure that they change their business practices?</p>.<p>The recent Royal Dutch Shell case, decided by the Dutch Supreme Court, has been a pathbreaking step regarding liability for climate change. The Shell verdict was the first time that a multinational corporation was found liable for an ineffective climate policy. Indeed, the decision has broad implications for the international community.</p>.<p>Large multinational companies are causing many types of environmental harm. Unsustainable water use, for instance, is an issue of major concern. Several companies around the world have been reporting water shortages owing to excessive withdrawals of freshwater resources. This is particularly the case with packed food manufacturers. Their largest environmental impact comes from the effects that their supply chains have on local water supplies.</p>.<p>Companies around the world are engaging in ecocide, a lot of which escapes the public eye. Recognition of ecocide as a crime would make corporations accountable for a plethora of environmental harms. Ecocide— defined as "extensive damage to, destruction of, or loss of ecosystem(s) of a given territory… To such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory has been or will be severely diminished"— brings within its scope key environmental harms that are endangering biodiversity and human life and health.</p>.<p>Current law is not able to hold multinational corporations sufficiently liable for the entire spectrum of environmental harms. Criminal sanctions can help to achieve this liability. Recognising ecocide as a crime would be a powerful tool.</p>.<p>Another serious issue is the fact that a large number of major global corporations, in fact, outsource their environmental impacts to their supply chains. A great deal of the environmental harm they cause escapes public scrutiny— whether from unsustainable water use, carbon emissions, pollution or deforestation.</p>.<p>Criminal sanctions for ecocidal acts would enable a shift in our thinking regarding environmental harm. It would clearly spell out the line of acceptability: What is the level of environmental harm that we as a society are no longer willing to accept.</p>.<p>For too long we have adhered to the view that development comes at the cost of the environment. As poverty levels continue to increase, the fissures in the development model are becoming more and more clear. As global poverty levels have increased owing to the Covid-19 pandemic, climate change impacts and conflicts are more apparent. A truly sustainable model of development has become the only way forward.</p>.<p>International law on ecocide would give a voice to poorer victims in developing countries. It could be useful in prosecuting environmental crimes that cross national jurisdictions. It would usher in an era of heightened liability and accountability for environmental harms.</p>.<p><em>(The writer is associate professor, director, Environmental Law and Science Advocacy Forum; and assistant dean, Student Affairs at Jindal School of Environment and Sustainability, O P Jindal Global University) </em></p>