Ecocide: redefining environmental justice and sustainability

The global environmental crisis has reached an unprecedented scale, with human activity altering over 75% of the Earth’s land surface and causing wildlife populations to decline by 69% since 1970. These issues are outlined in the reports of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). In 2021, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that climate change has exacerbated these issues, with global temperatures rising by 1.1°C since pre-industrial times. This warming has contributed to severe weather events, biodiversity loss, and social inequalities. The economic toll is equally alarming, with the World Bank estimating that ecosystem degradation could cost the global economy USD 2.7 trillion by 2030.

Amid this crisis, the concept of ecocide, defined as large-scale environmental destruction, has gained traction as a potential international crime in many jurisdictions. This reflects a growing collective determination to not only combat environmental harm but also to hold perpetrators accountable and ensure the protection of critical ecosystems.

# I.  History and development of ecocide

Ecocide is not a new concept. Its origins trace back to the Vietnam War (1955-1975) when Professor Arthur W. Galston coined the term to describe the devastating effects of Agent Orange, a defoliant used by the US military. This marked the first recognition of large-scale environmental harm as a distinct and systemic issue that requires global attention.

In 1978, the United Nations Sub-Commission on Promotion and Protection of Human Rights proposed adding ecocide to the Genocide Convention. This proposal aimed to align the intentional destruction of the environment with the same level of gravity as genocide. Although the initiative failed to materialize at the time, it laid the groundwork for a growing global movement advocating for the recognition of ecocide as a crime under international law. Fast forward to 1998, ecocide was considered for inclusion as an international crime against peace, during the drafting of the Rome Statute, which was established by the International Criminal Court (ICC). However, the proposal was ultimately excluded. Despite this setback, advocates have continued to push for ecocide's recognition, arguing that its criminalization is necessary to address the escalating climate crisis and the environmental degradation threatening global ecosystems and societies.

In recent years, the movement to recognize ecocide has gained significant momentum. In 2017, Stop Ecocide International (SEI) was founded to drive the force behind the ecocide movement by collaborating with governments, corporate leaders, academic experts, indigenous groups, and non-government organizations (NGOs). SEI also established the Stop Ecocide Foundation (SEF) to fund and commission initiatives that advance the cause. In June 2021, the Independent Expert Panel for the Legal Definition of Ecocide, convened by SEF, announced its consensus definition of ecocide. The proposed definition is:

SEI and other NGOs are now lobbying to amend the Rome Statute of the ICC to include ecocide as a fifth international crime, alongside genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. Unlike suing and fining corporations (who simply budget for this possibility), making ecocide a crime creates an arrestable offense. This shift would hold individuals, including corporate executives and policymakers, accountable for decisions that cause severe environmental harm, marking a paradigm shift in addressing environmental destruction globally.

# II. Ecocide in the context of ESG

Ecocide is not yet widely recognized as a significant ESG risk, and its adoption and integration into ESG practices remain limited. However, ecocide aligns closely with the broader ESG framework.

• Ecocide directly impacts the “E” aspect of ESG. By driving biodiversity loss, habitat destruction, and the acceleration of climate change, it disrupts critical ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration, water purification, and soil fertility. These environmental harms not only exacerbate the climate crisis but also threaten the global ecological balance that jeopardizes natural resources essential for human and economic survival.
• Ecocide disproportionately impacts vulnerable and marginalized communities. By disrupting livelihoods, threatening food and water security, and forcing displacement, it contributes to social unrest and humanitarian crises. It also impacts indigenous populations and local communities.
• Ecocide disrupts supply chains by depleting natural resources. It also increases the risk of operational shutdowns due to environmental damage, such as deforestation or water pollution, which can make supply chains vulnerable. Furthermore, companies linked to ecocidal practices may face legal liabilities, reputational damage, and loss of consumer trust, further destabilizing their supply chain networks.
• If ecocide is recognized as an international crime, companies and executives could face prosecution for acts causing severe environmental destruction. This development underscores the need for robust governance structures that prioritize environmental risk management, ethical decision-making, and compliance with emerging legal standards.

# III. Industries implicated in ecocide

Ecocide risks are prevalent in various industries, including:

• Extractive industries –  mining, oil and gas drilling, and unregulated logging cause extensive deforestation, habitat destruction, and pollution.
• Agriculture – industrial-scale agriculture, involving pesticide/fertilizer overuse and monocultures, degrades soil health, biodiversity, and water systems.
• Infrastructure – large-scale development projects without proper impact assessments endanger ecosystems through habitat fragmentation and pollution.
• Chemical and manufacturing – industrial pollution of air, water, and land has long-term environmental and health consequences.
• Financial industry – banks and asset managers providing loan investments, and financial services to companies operating in sectors with high ecocidal potential.

# IV. Key regulations addressing ecocide and recent developments

Regulatory efforts to address ecocide are evolving alongside the movement to criminalize it. These national efforts reflect a growing recognition of the need for robust legal measures to prevent and address environmental destruction.

---

Copyright 2024 RepRisk AG. All rights reserved. RepRisk AG owns all intellectual property rights to this report. This information herein is given in summary form and RepRisk AG and/or the third party contributors to this report make no representation or warranty that any data or information supplied to or by it or them is complete or free from errors, omissions, or defects. Without limiting the foregoing, in no event shall RepRisk AG and/or the third party contributors to this report have any liability (whether in negligence or otherwise) to any person in connection with the information contained herein. Any reference to or distribution of this report must include a link to the content to provide sufficient context. The information provided in this presentation does not constitute an offer or quote for our services or a recommendation regarding any investment or other business decision, and is not intended to constitute or to be used as a substitute for legal, tax, accounting, or other professional advice. Please note that the information may have become outdated since its publication. Should you wish to obtain a quote for our services, please contact us.