The Cycle of Contamination: Environmental Justice and Corporate Malfeasance in Resource Extraction

Mike Buchanan - 2025

Abstract

This paper explores the environmental and social consequences of resource extraction by multinational corporations, with a particular focus on developing regions. It examines the cycle of contamination resulting from activities such as mining, which disproportionately affect marginalised communities. Key issues include acid mine drainage (AMD), heavy metal contamination and the degradation of karst environments. The study critiques corporate malfeasance highlights the urgent need for more robust regulation, community empowerment, and sustainable development. Case studies and scholarly research are used to support calls for enhanced accountability and environmental justice.

Introduction

The extraction of natural resources by multinational corporations frequently results in severe environmental degradation, particularly in developing countries where regulatory frameworks are often weak or poorly enforced. These corporations often leave behind a legacy of contamination, disproportionately impacting marginalised communities that rely on local ecosystems for their survival. This paper explores the systemic issues underpinning this cycle of contamination, examining the implications of acid mine drainage, heavy metal pollution and the unique vulnerabilities of karst environments. It further investigates the patterns of corporate malfeasance that allow such practices to persist, and the urgent need for reform.

The Cycle of Contamination Corporate Practices and Environmental Impact

Many multinational corporations prioritise profit over environmental responsibility. In the mining sector, for example, the externalisation of environmental costs is a common practice, where companies avoid bearing the financial burden of remediation, leaving local communities and governments to manage the consequences (Jones & Brown, 2019). Mining activities often lead to the leaching of heavy metals into water systems, posing long-term health risks (Smith et al., 2020). In Ghana, AngloGold Ashanti has faced criticism for contaminating rivers with arsenic and mercury, endangering agricultural and fishing livelihoods (Human Rights Watch, 2011).

Impact on Local Communities

Marginalised communities, particularly in rural and indigenous areas, bear the brunt of contamination. These populations often rely on agriculture and local water sources for survival. Contamination of these resources leads to chronic health problems, reduced food security and economic instability. Karst environments, with their porous geology and rapid water transmission, exacerbate these issues by enabling widespread dispersion of pollutants (Ford & Williams, 2007; Taylor, 2021). In the Niger Delta, oil extraction by Shell has resulted in widespread ecological damage, with limited accountability or remediation (UNEP, 2011).

The Challenge of Remediation Inadequate Cleanup Efforts

The responsibility for environmental remediation often falls on local governments, which may lack the technical capacity, financial resources, or political will to effectively manage these efforts (Williams, 2022). Karst terrains complicate remediation because contaminants spread rapidly and unpredictably through underground channels. The absence of corporate accountability in such scenarios exemplifies systemic malfeasance and disregard for geoethical obligations (Peppoloni & Di Capua, 2017).

Long-Term Consequences

The persistence of contaminants in soils, sediments, and biological systems leads to bioaccumulation, which poses long-term risks to biodiversity and human health (Green et al., 2023). For instance, in La Oroya, Peru, nearly all children exhibited dangerously high blood lead levels due to nearby smelting operations (WHO, 2007). The ecological consequences of such contamination often span generations and can render ecosystems irreparably damaged.

Potential Pathways Forward Strengthening Regulations and Accountability

Robust regulatory frameworks are essential to ensure corporate accountability in resource extraction. International legal instruments must be developed or enforced to require corporations to remediate contaminated sites and report environmental impacts transparently (Adams, 2020). Geoethical principles should underpin environmental governance to balance economic development with ecological integrity (Peppoloni & Di Capua, 2017).

Community Empowerment and Advocacy

Empowering local communities is critical for environmental justice. Grassroots organisations play a vital role in monitoring environmental conditions and advocating for rights. Legal empowerment and environmental education initiatives can enable communities to resist exploitation. For example, the Sarayaku people in Ecuador successfully halted oil drilling through litigation in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR, 2012).

Sustainable Development Practices

Developing alternative livelihoods and investing in sustainable agriculture and infrastructure can reduce communities' dependency on environmentally harmful industries. Climate-resilient technologies and practices can help adapt to environmental changes and mitigate contamination impacts (Harris, 2022). Sustainable development must be localised, inclusive, and ecologically informed.

International Support and Collaboration

Global cooperation is essential. International organisations, NGOs, and national governments must provide technical support, funding, and policy frameworks that assist affected communities. The role of the United Nations, although often criticised for limited enforcement capabilities, remains central to fostering accountability and environmental protection.

Conclusion

The cycle of contamination stemming from resource extraction underscores deep-rooted injustices and ecological vulnerabilities, particularly in marginalised communities. Addressing these challenges requires integrated strategies encompassing stringent regulation, community empowerment, sustainable development, and international collaboration. While systemic barriers persist, a coordinated, geoethically grounded response can dismantle the structural conditions that perpetuate environmental harm and promote resilience and justice for future generations.

References

1.      Adams, R. (2020). Corporate Responsibility in Resource Extraction: A Global Perspective. London: Environmental Press.

2.      Ford, D. C., & Williams, P. W. (2007). Karst Hydrogeology and Geomorphology. Chichester: Wiley.

3.      Green, T., Smith, J., & Taylor, L. (2023). The Long-Term Effects of Heavy Metal Contamination on Biodiversity. Journal of Environmental Science, 45(2), 123–135.

4.      Harris, P. (2022). Sustainable Development in Marginalised Communities. Oxford: GreenWorld Publications.

5.      Human Rights Watch. (2011). Gold’s Costly Dividend: Human Rights Impacts of Gold Mining in Ghana. Available at: https://www.hrw.org/report/2011/02/01/golds-costly-dividend/human-rights-impacts-gold-mining-ghana [Accessed 18 Jul. 2025].

6.      Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR). (2012). Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Judgment of 27 June 2012.

7.      Jones, M., & Brown, K. (2019). Environmental Externalities and Corporate Evasion: An Analysis of Mining Practices. Journal of Corporate Ethics, 14(3), 201–217.

8.      Peppoloni, S., & Di Capua, G. (2017). Geoethics: Ethical, Social and Cultural Aspects in Geosciences. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 419(1), 17–28.

9.      Smith, A., Oduro, A., & Li, M. (2020). Mining and Water Quality: A Global Perspective. Environmental Management Review, 33(4), 89–104.

10. Taylor, L. (2021). Pollution Pathways in Karst Systems. Hydrogeology Today, 12(1), 56–72.

11. UNEP. (2011). Environmental Assessment of Ogoniland. United Nations Environment Programme. Nairobi: UNEP.

class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18pt;" > 12. Williams, C. (2022). The State of Environmental Remediation in the Global South. Journal of Political Ecology, 29(1), 77–93.

13. World Health Organization (WHO). (2007). Health Situation Analysis in La Oroya, Peru. Geneva: WHO.

 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Statement on Illicit Speleothem Trading