Could recognising ecocide as a business opportunity be more convincing?
The international movement to recognise “ecocide” as a crime on par with genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity is gaining momentum globally, with an increasing number of countries, legal experts, and environmental activists calling for urgent action. Originally proposed for inclusion in the Rome Statute, it was supported by nations such as Fiji, Niue, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Tonga, and Vanuatu, and later joined by others such as Belgium and the Netherlands. However, major economic powers like the United Kingdom and the United States blocked its adoption.
Stop Ecocide NL defines ecocide as the “mass damage and destruction of ecosystems” and advocates for holding individuals, corporations, and governments accountable for environmental harm. The ultimate goal is to have ecocide recognised as the fifth international crime and allow its prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Opposition to this movement is largely fueled by the fossil fuel and mining industries, which argue that an ecocide law could hinder economic growth and development projects
Opposition to this movement is largely fueled by the fossil fuel and mining industries, which argue that an ecocide law could hinder economic growth and development projects. What is often overlooked, however, is the substantial cost of inaction. The World Economic Forum estimates that climate change could result in global damages of $1.7 trillion to $3.1 trillion per year by 2050, including damages to infrastructure, property, agriculture, and public health, it will only increase as the effects of climate change become more severe - particularly within countries in development.
Given these estimates, the argument against ecocide laws based on potential economic harm becomes less convincing and largely redundant. Delaying action will only lead to higher costs and exacerbate economic problems for both the public and private sectors. Financial crises will become more frequent, with developing nations and emerging markets bearing the forefront of the impact, despite being responsible for scarcely 16% of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (excluding China). For economic growth to be healthy, stable, and equitable, addressing climate change and ensuring a just transition are essential.
Recognising ecocide as the fifth international crime would facilitate the shift toward mitigating environmental and economic damage. Holding high-level decision-makers accountable would promote more environmentally responsible choices. Moreover, convincing leaders that these decisions are not only crucial for avoiding prosecution but also smart for business is vital. Companies and governments that prioritise reducing their carbon footprints and enhancing ecosystem resilience are likely to benefit from investor interest in ESG standards. The global ESG market is expected to continue growing, and businesses that align with these criteria not only attract investment but also mitigate risks associated with future regulatory penalties or climate-related disruptions. In contrast, failing to adhere to environmental laws could lead to significant financial losses, legal disputes, and reputational damage.
Additionally, as consumer demand for eco-friendly products, net-zero companies, and initiatives supporting a just transition also continue to grow, there are opportunities for both public and private sectors to align their strategies with these trends. Doing so would not only meet consumer demand but also translate into higher revenue, as companies that integrate environmental responsibility into their core strategies will likely be better positioned to thrive in the evolving marketplace.
Changing the narrative to recognise ecocide is essential to provoke a legal framework change. Laws and frameworks that underpin business are necessary to guide companies and governments in the right direction, which can set a precedent for environmental protection. Moreover, having ecocide codified into the Rome Statute would empower countries with fewer resources and weaker legal systems to pursue justice on the international stage, especially those most vulnerable to climate change and environmental destruction. Recognising ecocide would help redistribute responsibility, ensuring that individuals and corporations contributing significantly to environmental damage, no matter their location, can be held accountable. And lastly, by embedding ecocide in international law, the financial sector would be incentivised to invest in sustainable projects that align with environmental goals, further supporting the transition to a green economy.
Given the vast economic benefits that environmentally friendly practices, the just transition, and meeting international agreements such as the Paris Agreement, the argument often used by the far right of putting economic growth and development ahead of climate change adaptation and mitigation loses its power. Addressing climate change is not only essential for the survival of biodiversity, future generations, avoidance of more extreme natural disasters etc – the list is endless – but it is also a smart economic decision. So if the aforementioned reasons do not seem enough to convince both the public and private sectors to undergo substantial change, maybe the promise of higher revenue and lower costs will do. Governments, businesses, and civil society must embrace this movement not only to protect ecosystems but also to ensure long-term economic stability. The sooner we act, the more viable and just our transition to a green economy will be.
www.stopecocide.nl