If you've no account register here first time
User Name :
User Email :
Password :

Login Now

Top Public Companies Cause One-Third of the World’s Environmental Damage

The estimated cost of global environmental damage caused by human activity in 2008 is $6.6 trillion, which is equivalent to 11 percent of global GDP, according to a study released by the UN-backed Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) and the UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI). The study also finds that the top 3,000 public companies were responsible for $2.15 trillion, or about one-third, of all global environmental damage.

The UN groups say the study, conducted by Trucost, is an initial effort to quantify in monetary terms the environmental harm caused by business and the possible future consequences for investor portfolios, fund returns and company earnings.

Another key finding of the study reveals that the most environmentally damaging business sectors are utilities, oil and gas producers, as well as industrial metals and mining. Those three accounted for almost a trillion dollars worth of environmental harm in 2008.

“This report sends a powerful message that the environment is also the business of business. Polluters must pay. Safeguarding the environment and using our natural assets efficiently entail collective action. Cohesive policy and regulation is required to fully account for externalities and speed up the integration of material environmental issues into investment decisions. The bottom line is that if we are to achieve a sustainable global economy, then we must stop drawing down our natural capital,” said Paul Clements-Hunt, Head, UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative.

The study, “Why environmental externalities matter to institutional investors” (PDF), estimates that the annual environmental damage from water and air pollution, general waste and depleted resources could reach $28.6 trillion in 2050, or 23 percent lower if clean and resource-efficient technologies are introduced.

Environmental damage costs are typically higher than the cost of preventing or limiting pollution and resource depletion, according to the study. One result is that workers and retirees could see lower pension payments from funds invested in companies exposed to environmental costs.

In addition, as environmental damage and resource depletion increases, and governments start applying a “polluter pays” principle, the value of large portfolios will be impacted by higher insurance premiums on companies, taxes, inflated input prices and the price tags for clean-ups, according to the study.

Study recommendations include collaboration to encourage companies and policy makers to reduce environmental impact, and regular monitoring and reporting from investment managers on how they are addressing exposure to environmental risk.

Other suggestions include targeting laggards or the most influential companies within a sector to drive improvements across an industry, addressing issues related to air pollution, waste and heavy metals, as well as risks to biodiversity and ecosystem services, in addition to greenhouse gas emissions.

EHS & Sustainability Journey Infographic
Sponsored By: VelocityEHS

Strategies for Managing Emerging Regulations
Sponsored By: Sphera Solutions

Real-Time Data as a Foundation to Drive Sustainability Performance
Sponsored By: Sphera Solutions

Environmental Leader Product and Project Awards 2016
Sponsored By: Environmental Leader


4 thoughts on “Top Public Companies Cause One-Third of the World’s Environmental Damage

  1. Let’s not pass all the blame…we, the people who give money to these top organizations, are responsible for 1/3 of the damage. We are. We blind eye the facts (corporate damage to environment) and continue to buy Coke, BP, and all of the other top corporations.

  2. We, the customers, are perhaps passive accomplices. The businesses are the perpetrators.

    But until recently, neither consumers or businesses really knew how harmful these activities are. Now that we know, consumers should make informed decisions and businesses should set carbon reduction goals. There’s no excuse for not doing so now.

  3. I say AMEN to the fact the financial lending and investor markets are finally getting smart to the industries mentioned in this article. These industries do nothing to change unless they have to after a disaster, and even then, they will revert to business as usual. If these industries start to feel the pain of not being able to secure required financing, because future liabilities put the pay back of the financiers and the investors at risk due to the cost of defending environmental law suites and the cost of the companies being responsible for environmental clean-ups, the companies will make every effort to avoid the aforementioned costs.

  4. Excellent research. As a next step, there should definitely be a drill down in terms of how much is the contribution split between developed and developing countries. This will then form the basis for Governments to issue the regulations and tax policies.

Leave a Comment

Translate »