TABLE OF CASES
Adams v. Cape industries (1990) 2 WLR 657 34
Agbakoba v. Director State Security Services (1994) 6 NWLR pt. 351
- 475 75
Attorney General of Gambia v. Momodu Jobe (1984) 1 AC 689 73
AG Ondo State v. AG Federation & ors (2002) 27 WRN 1 225
Allar Irou v. Shell BP Development Company. Unreported suit no.
W/89/71Warri High Court 218
Amos v. Shell BP(1974) 4 ECSLR 486 p. 190 220
Amachree v. Kalio and Others (1914) 2 NLR 108 177
Ataguba and Companies v. Gura Nigeria Ltd, (2005) 6 NWLR (pt. 927) P. 429 88
Barcelona Traction Case (Belgium v. Spain) (1970)
ICJ Reports 3 at 44; 46 ILR 178 133
Boson v. Sandford (1690) 91 ER 382 189
Carlen v. University of Jos (1994) 1 NWLR (pt. 323) 631 88
Chinda v. Shell BP (1974) 2 RSLR 1, p. 670 219
Chief Odebalor v. Odukurudu, W/149-153/56 176
Chief G. B. A. Tiebo VII & Ors v. Shell Petroleum Development Company
(Nig) Ltd, Suit No. YHC/14/88 9, 27/2/992 194
Connelly v. R. T. Z. Corp Plc (1997) 3 WLR 373 56
Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania) (1949) ICJ Rep.22 132
Chernobyl pollution 194
Danzig Courts Jurisdiction case, (1922-1946) PCIJ Ser. B, No. 15, 27 130
Dato Menteri Othman Bin Baginda v. Dato Ombi Syed Alwi bin
Syed Idrus(1981) 1 MLJ 29 at 32B 73, 74
David Toriola and Erinoso v. Oseni Ikoto and Bisiriye (Ake, A Native Court 20/1950/Egna Court of Appeal 1/1951) 177
Disu Omisanya v. Gabriel Adeshina (Ijebu –ode Native Court, 1033/1955) 176
EC Commission v. Belgium (1993) 1 CMLR 365 128
ENA v. Aliar (Native Court of Ake Grade “A” Abeokuta of 21/1/24) 176
Fasunape v. Disu, Idowa (Native Court 25/1948. Judicial Council 85/948) 176
Ferguson v. Baker Hughes Inc No. 2002 – 14960 (Tex. Dist. Ct.
filed 25 March 2002) 223
Goa Foundation & Anor. v. The Konkan Railway Corporation & Ors AIR
1992 Bom. 471 26
Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR (pt. 18) 621 107
Germany v. Poland (Chorzow Factory case) (1928) PCIJ Series A, No. 17 127
Green v. Green (2001) 45 W. R. N. 90 129
Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Case(Slovakia v. Hungary)
(1997) 78 ICJ Reports 92-4 132
Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg v. Cie. Luxembourgeoise de Telediffusion
(91 ILR) at 281 126
Hilton v. Thomas Burton (Rhodes) Ltd and Anor (1961) 1 A. E. R 74 65
Iyere v. BFFM Ltd (2001) 7 NWLR (pt. 711) 76 188
IykeMedical Merchandise v. Pfizer Inc. (2001) FWLR (pt. 53) 62 87
Jonah Gbemre v. Shell Petroleum Development Company Nigeria Ltd & 2
ors (2005) Suit No. FHC/B/c5/53/05 201, 204
Joel Odim & Ors v. Shell BP Petroleum Development Company (Nig)
Ltd & Anor (1974) 2 RSLR 93 195
Lennard’s Carrying Co. Ltd v. Asiatic Petroleum Co. Ltd (1915) AC 705 89
Lubbe v. Cape Plc (2000) 1 W. L. R. 1545 56
- C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Ors, AIR 2000 SC 1997 129
- C. Mehta & Ors. v. Union of India 1987 AIR 1086 SC 963 (Constitution
Bench Division) 129
Middleton v. Fowler (1699) 91 ER 247 188
Military and Paramilitary Activities Case (Nicaragua v. U. S) 1980
- C. J Rep. 14 131
Minister of Home Affairs v. Fisher (1980) 2 AC 319 73
Mobil Producing (Nig.) Unlimited v. Monokpo (2003) 18 NWLR (pt. 852) 346 217
Mosul Case, PCIJ (1925) Ser. B, No. 12, 32 130
North Sea Continental Shelf cases(Federal Republic of
Germany v. Netherlands) 1969 I. C. J. Rep. 3 132
Nuclear Tests Cases (Australia v. France) (1974) I. C. J Reports p. 253. 131
New Zealand v. France 1974 I. C. J. Rep. 457 131
Ololo v. Nig. Agip Oil Co. Ltd (2001) 13 NWLR (pt. 729) 88 91, 188
Onyekwuluye v. Benue State Government (2005) 8 NWLR (PT. 28) 614 87
Palmas case (United States v. Netherlands), PCA. 2 UN Rep Int’l Arb. Awards 829 (1928) 84 54
Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno (1981) 454 U. S. 235 56
- v. Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and Regions,
ex parte First Corporate Shipping Ltd, (2001) ECR. 1-9235 63
Re Union Carbide Corp. Gas Plant Disaster at Bhopal, India (1984) 634 F.
Supp. 842, 54 USLW 2586 (S. D. N. Y, May 12 1986) 56
Robinson International Inspectorate Ltd v. Isegholi (2000) 1 FHCLR 410 87
Rotimi v. Adesunle and Anor (1959) 1 NSCC 14 65
Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) 1 LR HL 330 90, 221,189
Salomon v. Salomon (1877) AC 22 34, 187
Samuel, Bale of Idoma v. Abiodun Koya (Illugun Native Court, 85/1956) 176
Sarei v. Rio Tinto PLC 650 Supp. 2d 1004 91
Shrimp/Turtle case (1999) 38 ILM 121 63
Shell Petroleum Development Corporation (Nig) Ltd v. Amaro (2000)
10 NWLR (pt. 675) 248 221
Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria v. Dr. Pere Ajuwa
and Honourable Ingo Mac-Etteli (2007) CA/A/2009/06 217
Shell Petroleum Development Company v. Ambah (1999) 3 NWLR (pt.593) 1 220
SPDC v. Tiebo VII (1996) 4 NWLR (pt. 445) 657 220
SPDC v. Chief Graham Otoko (1990) 6 NWLR (pt. 159) 693 221
SPDC v. Chief Graham Otoko (2000) 10 NWLR (pt. 675) 248 221
SPDC v. Isaiah (1997) 6 NWLR (pt. 508) 236 220
Seismograph Services v. Mark (1993) 7 NWLR (pt. 304) 203 220
Seismograph Services (Nigeria) Ltd v. R. K. Ogbeni (1976) 4 SC 85 220
Seismograph Services v. Akporuovo (1974) All NLR 95 220
Spanish Zone of Morocco Case 1925 (2 RIAA, pp. 615, 640) 134
Serbian Loans Case PCIJ, series A, No. 14, pp. 41-2 121
Seveso Hoffman La Roche case (1976) 172
Texaco v. Libya (1975) 53 ILR 389 132
Trail Smelter case (United States v. Canada) Arbitral Trib., 3 U.N. Rep. Int’l Arb. Awards 1905 (1947) 80 37, 54
The Rhine (Sandoz) disaster case (1986) 173
The Estai case (Spain v. Canada) ICJ Rep. 1998, 432 50
TheChile Swordfish case of 2000 50
Uganda Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd v. De Samaline Inc. Ltd
Misc. Cause No. 181 of 2004 (High Court of Uganda) 82
United States vs. Northeastern Pharmaceuticals and Chemical Co (1986)
810 f.2d 726.17 ELR 20603 201
Umudje v. Shell BP (1975) 9-11 SC (pt. 155) 160 221
Vellore Citizen’s Welfare Forum vs. Union of Indiaand OrsAIR 1996 SC 2715 37
Wayland’s Case (1707) 91 ER 797 189
TABLE OF STATUTES
National
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and
Enforcement) Act Cap A9 LFN 2004 212
Agriculture (Control of Importation) Act Cap A13 LFN 2004 210
Associated Gas Re-Injection Act Cap 20 LFN 2004
- 4 103
Animal Disease (Control) Act Cap A 17 LFN 2004 217
Bees (Import Control and Management) Act Cap B6 LFN 2004 217
Companies and Allied Matters Act, Cap C20 LFN 2004
Ss 41 and 279 215
- 54 219
S.331 218
- 332 (1) 218
- 334 218
- 342 218
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 cap C23
- 20 199
- 12 199
- 33 77
- 34 199
Criminal Code Cap C38 LFN 2004
Chapter 23 212
Environmental Guidelines and Standard for Petroleum Industry
in Nigeria (EGASPIN, Revised 2002) 217
Environmental Impact Assessment Act Cap E12 LFN 2004
- 2 (1) 202
- 2 (4) 202
S.2 (2) 203
S.3 (13) 203
S.60 203
Energy Commission of Nigeria Act Cap E10 LFN 2004 215
Exclusive Economic Zone Act Cap E17 LFN 2004
- 5(1) 207
Factories Act Cap F1 LFN 2004 212
Federal Environmental Protection Agency Act Cap 131 LFN 1990
- 36 180
Federal Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (1991)
- 108 104
Freedom of Information Act No. 4 of 2011
- 31 103
Harmful Waste (Special Criminal Provisions) Act Cap H1 LFN, 2004
- 7 104
- 2 203
- 6 203
S.12 104
Inland Fisheries Act Cap 110 LFN 2004
- 3 207, 104
Land use Act Cap L5 LFN 2004 217
Live Fish (Control of Importation) Act Cap L14 LFN 2004 217
Mineral and Mining Act Cap M12 LFN 2004 217
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer 1987
Article 2 and 4 158
Native Courts Law Nigeria
- 2 176
Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Act Cap N123 L.F.N 2004 217
National Park Service Act Cap N65 LFN 2004 (it repealed Kainji
Lake National Park Act) 217
Nigerian Tourism Development Authorities Act Cap R9 LFN 2004 217
Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation Act Cap N137 LFN 2004 217
Nigerian Atomic Energy Commission Act Cap N91 LFN 2004 217
National Water Resources Institute Act Cap N83 LFN 2004 217
National Crop varieties and Livestock Breeds (Registrations etc)
Act Cap vN27 LFN 2004 217
National Agricultural Seeds Act Cap N5 LFN 2004 217
National Agricultural Land Development Authority Act Cap N4 LFN 2004 216
National Maritime and Safety Agency (NIMASA) Act 2007 38
Natural Resources Conservation Agency Council Act Cap 286 LFN 1990 217
National Environmental Standards and Regulation Enforcement Agency
(NESREA) Act (2007)
- 2 200
- 7 200
- 8 (1) (k) 200
- 27 201, 104
National Environmental (Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals, Soap and Detergent Manufacturing Industries) Regulations S. I. No. 36 of2009
Reg. 1 201
Reg. 2 (a) (b) (d) 201
Reg. 6 201
Reg. 5 201
National Environmental (Food, Beverages and Tobacco Sector)
RegulationsS. I. No. 33 of 2009 201
National Environmental (Textile, Wearing Apparel, Leather and Foot Wear Industry) RegulationS. I. No. 34 of 2009 – 201
National Environmental (Ozone Layer Protection) Regulation S. I. No. 32 of 2009– 201
National Environmental (Mining and Processing of Coal, Ores and Industrial Minerals) Regulations S. I. No. 31 of 2009 201
National Environmental (Sanitation and Waste Control) Regulation S. I No. 28 2009 202
National Environmental (Standards for Telecommunications and Broadcast Facilities) RegulationsS. I. No. 11 of 2011 202
National Oil Spills Detection and Remediation Act LFN 2007 103
Nigerian Coal Corporation Act Cap N95 LFN 2004 217
Nigerian Mining Corporation Act Cap N 120 LFN 2004
- 16 103
Niger-Delta Development Commission (NDDC) Act Cap N86 LFN 2004
- 7 (1) 213
Nigerian Urban and Regional Planning Act Cap N 138, LFN 2004 104, 203
Oil in Navigable Waters Act Cap 06 LFN 2004
- 6 104
- 7 203, 204
- 3 204
- 6 204
Oil Pipeline Act Cap 07 2004
- 11 (5) 104, 207
S.17 (4) 207
Petroleum (Amendment) Regulations S. 1. 4 1996 216
Petroleum Control Act Cap 351 LFN 1990 (omitted from LFN 2004) 216
Petroleum Refining Regulation
- 45 104
Petroleum Products and Distribution (Anti Sabotage) Act Cap P 12,
LFN 2004 209
Petroleum Act Cap P10 LFN 2004
- 2 (1) (a) 208
- 2 (i) (b) 208
- 2 (i) (C) 208
Petroleum (Drilling and Production) Regulations S. I No. 9 2006
Regulation 25 208
Reg. 4 208
Reg. 21 208
Penal code (Northern states) Federal Provisions Act Cap P3 LFN 2004.
Chapters XXXV and XXXVI 212
Population Activities Fund Act Cap P22 LFN 2004 216
Quarantine Act Cap Q2 LFN 2004 104
River Basins Development Authorities Act Cap R9 LFN 2004 216
Sea Fisheries Act Cap 54 LFN
- 10 104, 206
Standard Organization of Nigeria Act Cap S9 2004 216
Territorial Waters Act Cap T5 LFN 2004 216
The Civil Aviation Act Cap C13 LFN 2004 210
The Federal National Park Service Act Cap N68 LFN 2004 212
The Endangered Species (Control of International Trade and Traffic) Act
cap E9 LFN 2004 205
The Oil Terminal Dues Act Cap 08 LFN 2004 207
The Hydrocarbon Oil Refineries Act Cap HS LFN 2004
- 1 203
- 9 203
The Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection Act Cap 142 LFN 2004
- 4 (1) 209
The Pest Control of Produce (Special Powers) Act Cap P9 LFN 2004 210
Water Resources Act Cap W2 LFN 2004
S.1 (a) 211
- 3 211
- 5 211
- 6 211
- 18 104, 211
Regional/International
Alien Tort Claims Act 91, 193
Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador 1988
Ch. 5 188
- 2. 188
Art. 86 188
Article 87 188
Article 91 188
Comprehensive Environment Response Compensation Liability
Act United States Law 42 U.S.C.ss 9601-9676 37
New Zealand Resources Management Act No. 69 of 1991 28
The UK Companies Act 2006
SS 1044 – 1048 218
United Kingdom Environmental Protection Act (1990)
- 1 (2) 28
Table of Conventions/Treaties
Alpine Convention of 1991
Article 2 (c) 59
Amsterdam Treaty 1998 150
Bangkok Principles on the Rule of Law and Human Rights 1965 107
Basel Convention on the Control of Trans-boundary Movements
of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, 1989 152
Congress of Athens
Principle 6 107
Congress of Delhi 107
Cotonou Agreement 2000
Article 32 169
Convention on the Law of Non-Navigational Use of International
Water Courses, U. N. Doc. A/RES/51/229 May 21 1977 118
Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, 1958 64
Convention on the Continental Shelf, 1954 64
Convention on the High Seas 1958 64
The Convention on Fishing and Conservation of Living Resources, 1958 64
Constitutive Act of the African Union 2000 212
Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment
Stockholm Declaration 1972
Principle 1 174
Principle 21 and 2 54, 113,148
Paragraph 7 to the Preamble 135, 181
European Commission Community Guidelines on State Aid for
Environmental Protection (2001) 36
IMO Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention 1980 59
ILO Occupational Safety Convention 1990 59
International Ships (Ratification and Enforcement) Act No. 15 2007 212
International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas (1969) 59
International Court of Justice Statute
Article 38 123
Lome Convention
Article 35 59
Maastricht Treaty 1992 150
OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (OECD 2011)
Ch. II (A) 141
Ch. II (A) (1) 141
Ch. II (A) (2) 141
Ch. II (A) (3) 141
Ch. II (A) (5) 141
Ch. II (A) (6) 141
Ch. II (A) (7) 141
Ch. II (A) (8) 141
Ch. III (2) (F) 142
Ch. III (4) 142
Ch. IV (1) 142
Ch. IV (2) 142
Ch. IV (3) 142
Ch. IV (4) 142
Ch. IV (5) 142
Ch. IV (6) 142
Article 60 143
Introductory paragraph to Ch. VI 143
Ch. VI (1) (a) 143
Ch. VI (1) (b) 143
Ch. VI (1) (c) 143
Ch. VI (2) (a) 143
Ch. VI (2) (b) 143
Ch. VI (4) 143
Ch. VI (5) 143
Ch. VI (6) (a), (b), and (d) 144
Ch. VI (8) 144
Persistent Organic Pollutant (P. O. P) Convention 2001
Article 1 59
Article 3 59
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992
Principle 10 174
Principle 11 182
Principles 15, 14, 16 149
Principle 13 182
Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for
Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International
Trade (Ratification and Enforcement) Act 2005 213
Strasbourg Resolution 1997
3rd Paragraph to Article I 163
Treaty Establishing the African Community
Article III 59
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992 156
United Nations Charter (1945)
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Preamble 141
Valdez Principle of September 7, 1989 (U.S) 39
Vienna Convention on Assistance in the case of Nuclear Accident and
Radiological Emergency 1986 194
Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer 1985
Art. 2 (b) 157
Yaoundé Declaration on the Conservation and Sustainable Management
of Forests, 38 ILM, 783 50
BILLS
The Bill on Corporate Social Responsibility2008
S.5 (i) (k) 213
- 5(i) (h) 213
S.5 (i) (a) 213
S.5 (i) (M) 213
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
ER: English Reports
EFQM: European Foundation for Quality Management
AC: Appeal Cases
FEDEN: Foundation for Environmental Development and Education in Nigeria
FHCLR: Federal High Court Law Reports
NLR: Nigerian Law Report
- Q. R: Law Quarterly Review
RSLR: River State Law Report
RIAA: Reports of International Arbitral Awards
NWLR Nigerian Weekly Law Report
NSCC: Nigerian Supreme Court Cases
NYUJ: New York University Journal
HILJ: Harvard International Law Journal
EJIL: European Journal of International Law
ECSLR: Eastern Central State Law Reports
- Supp: Federal Supplement
USLW: United States Law Week
SDNY: Southern District of New York
AMJIL: American Journal of Int’l Law
BUILJ: Boston University International Law Journal
ILC: International Law Commission
AAAJ: Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
OECD: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
AJIL: American Journal of International Law
BYIL: British Yearbook of International Law
BCILR: Boston College International and Comparative Law Review
ICLQ: International & Comparative Law Quarterly
ICJ: International Court of Justice
ILR: International Law Review
SYBIL: Singapore Year Book of International Law
AER: All England Report
ICJ: International Court of Justice
ILM: International Legal Materials
ECR: European Court Reports
PCIJ: Permanent Court of International Justice
PCA: Permanent Court of Arbitration
MLJ: Malaysian Law Journal
MEA: Multilateral Environmental Agreement
AIR Bom: All India Reporter Bombay
All NLR: All Nigerian Law Report
CMLR: Common Market Law Reports
YIEL: Year Book of International Environmental Law
WLR: Weekly Law Reports
WRN: Weekly Reports of Nigeria
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE: GENERAL INTRODUCTION.. 1
1.1. Background to the Study. 1
1.1.1. Conceptual Definition of Environment 2
1.3. Aim and Objectives of Study. 6
1.6. Scope and Limitation of Study. 7
CHAPTER TWO: THEMATIC CONCEPTS FOR CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY 22
2.1. Definition and Concept Formation. 22
2.2. Evolution and Viability of Corporate Environmental Responsibility. 33
2.3. Nature and Characterization of Corporate Environmental Responsibility. 38
2.4. Adjoining Systems of Corporate Environmental Responsibility. 43
2.5. Legal Frontiers and Limitations of Corporate Environmental Responsibility. 53
3.1. The Conceptual Disposition of Corporate Responsibility. 63
3.2. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) 67
3.2.1. The Charity Principle. 71
3.2.2. The Stewardship Principle. 72
3.3. Corporate Legal Responsibility (CLR) 76
3.4. Corporate Environmental Responsibility. 80
3.5. The Nature and Definition of Environmental Law.. 91
3.6. Framework of Corporate Environmental Responsibility under International Law.. 96
3.6.2. Instruments Regime. 110
CHAPTER FOUR: EFFECTIVENESS OF CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY IN NIGERIA.. 150
4.1. Development and Viability of Environmental Law in Nigeria. 150
4.2. The Nexus and Correspondence between Environmental Law and Corporate Responsibility 156
4.3. Legal Frameworks under Domestic Regulations. 173
4.4. Violations and Enforcement Problems. 192
CHAPTER FIVE: FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 201
ABSTRACT
Globalization has transformed, and to a remarkable degree been driven by, the growing role and operations of multi-national corporations and national industries at national and international scale. Thus, the fusion of international and domestic economic orders, and the subjection of their operations to certain standards and principles in respect of sustainable development – following the rapid change in institutional factors allied to the progressive process of globalization has now obliged companies and their associates to accountability, especially in matters of environment and human rights – the twin vistas of sustainable development. It is now obvious that a transformed governance of environmental value system, such as globalization of environmental law, requires compliance to legal principles and rules of sustainable development embedded in an environmental value system. Therefore this work examines the nature, viability and operations of Corporate Responsibility (CR) within environmental protection. After elucidating on the concept of environmental protection and law, it treats the legal literature, and jurisprudence of environmental protection and Corporate Environmental Responsibility (CER). The ideas and legalism of obligation and liability, and the practice of Corporate Environmental Responsibility in terms of pollution of environment are largely resulting in environmental crisis in Nigeria. The study adopts the descriptive, analytical, explanatory and comparative study design in reviewing the CER principles and practices in other jurisdictions. Reliance was placed on primary source materials such as legislative Acts and other legal instruments of both international and national laws. Also, secondary source materials relied on will include case law, textbooks and other legal research and academic materials such as journals, magazines, Internet sources, law reports, unpublished cases, DVDs, etc. It outlines the pitfalls, characterization and issues of corporate environmental responsibility as they affect environmental protection and development, including human rights and socio-economic progress. This work draws attention to the incidence of corporate responsibility and human rights problems in Nigeria’s oil producing areas known as the Niger -Delta, and the generic experience in other parts of the country. It has investigated the limit of law in the dimension of Corporate Responsibility towards the environment, and assesses the legal regime and practice in Nigeria. The study recommends that legislations meant to regulate CER practices by MNCs especially with legal means and methods of improvement as well as domestic firms need a total and complete overhaul and that government and environmental protection agencies will do well by creating general awareness on the need to be socially responsible to the environment and the dangers of acting otherwise. The study concludes on the need to promote CER values bearing in mind that the success of compliance with it will largely be determined by a positive attitudinal change of firms and the government to societal needs and sustainable developments above the orthodox position of maximum profit-making and economic interests/benefits to the detriment of the society.
CHAPTER ONE
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.1.Background to the Study
This study is an analysis of the concept of corporate environmental responsibility, its laws and a critical examination of its practice level in Nigeria, showing that government and corporations may no longer plead it as a mere voluntary self-regulatory venture and consideration on international legal norms of a near soft law. The importance of corporate environmental responsibility in any legal and social system cannot be overemphasized. It is indeed, one of the lessons of globalization and the new international economic order, now metamorphosing into a legal order with increasing awareness that the enforcement and achievement of human rights require legal mechanism for responsibility and liability of corporations, as well as states and individuals. This is undeniably, a cornerstone in the realization of sustainable development, nationally and internationally. The importance of such a legal system lies not only in the protection of civil liberties and prosecution of criminals but also in using responsibility regime as a means of promoting and advancing fair, just and efficient relationship between communities and corporations, for the sustainability of environment and guarantee of human rights and development for the citizenry.
International minimum standards have emerged, and have set the benchmark for the domestic enforcement of human rights. Judicially and theoretically, these standards include the duty of care and the liability for breach of states and corporations in the dimension of environmental protection.[1] As it develops, international environmental law raises main issues already contained in international human rights law. In environmental protection, questions related to the existence and application of liability and responsibility law and the expected role of individuals, to the state and corporations in the legal process have raised analogous issues to those within the realm of international human rights law. These issues are closely related, overlapping and interoperable in the developing activities of environmental legal systems. However, the development of international human rights law predated environmental law and all the elements that flow from it, such as corporate responsibility and liability doctrine. It has been affirmed that human rights law provides a rich source of experience for the understanding and applicability of environmental law from which the doctrine of corporate responsibility sprang.[2]
Therefore, the issues of the responsibility or liabilities of corporations for environmental damages or activities negatively affecting the environment, the question of proceedings that may be instituted and undertaken are herein raised. This approach is explored further, illustrating that another emerging legal principle, very widely accepted even as novel as it is, in some countries, is the notion of Corporate Environmental Responsibility.
1.1.1. Conceptual Definition of Environment
The concept of environment is as old as nature itself. It is a composite term referring to condition in which organisms live, and it is the living source of life[3]. Environment has been defined by several scholars, authors, as well as statutory and case laws[4]. In the analysis made by Swamy, environment as a composite term refers to conditions in which organisms consisting of air, water, food, sunlight, etc; thrive and become living sources of life for all the living and non-living beings including plant life. The term also includes atmospheric temperature, wind and its velocity.[5] It has been seen as both conditions and surroundings, and thus referred to mean the circumstances that surrounds one; the totality of circumstances surrounding an organization or group of organisms especially the combination of external physical conditions that affect and influence growth, development and survival of organisms, as well as the complex of social and cultural conditions affecting the nature of an individual or community.[6] Osibanjo sees it as man’s immediate surroundings (that is water, air, land including associated living and non-living resources) which provides support system for mankind.[7] According to Edward Ekpo and Wali, while admonishing that any attempt to conceive a universal definition of environmental law without understanding first, the meaning of “environment” and “law” would render such approach not only difficult but vacillating, in making reference to Thornton and Beckwith’s writing, they criticized Albert Einstein, the greatest physicist of the century for limiting the expansive nature of environment in his statement thus: “environment is everything that isn’t me”. According to them, Einstein did aim at telling the world that there is hardly any structure which is not part of the environment, and hardly any activity that does not have environmental impact. It is submitted that even as Einstein however talked about the complex nature of environment, he was slightly wrong when he excluded himself as part of environment. This is because man is an essential part of the, or sub-media of environment. Man lives, breeds, exploits and breathes the whole of the environment. [8] Thus, added that environmental law operates principally for man, so the phrase ‘that isn’t me’ made by Einstein, was an overstatement (sic).[9] The temporary and spatial dimensions of environmental law have now established and sustained the notion of anthropogenic concept of right and responsibility, thus depicting that man is the central factor in the destruction as well as the protection of sustainable development.[10]
According to the United States Council on Environmental Quality, “Environment” means man’s total environmental system including not only the biosphere, but also his interactions with his natural and man-made surroundings.[11] Under the Nigerian statutory law, “Environment” is defined by Section 37 of the National Environmental Standards and Regulatory Enforcement Agency Act.[12] In the Act, environment consists of all or any of the following media, namely, air, water and land. The most comprehensive definition of environment is in the New Zealand Resources Management Act (1991)[13] thus, environment is defined as:
(a) Ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities; (b) all natural and physical resources; (c) amenity values; and socio-economic, aesthetic and cultural conditions which affects the matters in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), or which are affected by them.
Professor Alexandre Kiss on his part has corroborated to the above copious quotation. Kiss emphasizes that environmental law is concerned with our “natural” and our “cultural heritage. The natural heritage includes the atmosphere, the oceans, plants and animals, water, soils and other natural resources, both renewable and exhaustible. Our cultural heritage includes the intellectual, artistic, social, and historical record of mankind. Natural heritage is linked with cultural heritage, the survival, protection and progress of being interdependent. Man is the bridge between the two.[14] Accordingly, environment comprises the features and natural systems products of both the natural world and those at human civilization.[15] To us, the above definition and analysis is a comprehensive and truest understanding of the concept of environment – what environment is and what it represents. Gaining from both the pedagogical and legal point of view, we must join to see environment as a total or wholesome structure made up of the ecological and aesthetic conditions and which man stands as the central influencer and affecter. This level of concept understanding is of greater relevance to the readers of this work.
1.2.Statement of Problem
Implementation of corporate responsibility on the environment presents greater regulatory and applicability problems to both the international and national legal systems. Although basic rules of international and municipal laws provide that corporations, just like states, have responsibility towards the environment, it has however, been subject to a process of reinterpretation in the field of human rights and the environment. Indeed, two approaches stand as drawback to the best practice of corporate environmental responsibility. It is of course obvious that government and companies, including individuals, accept the relevance of corporate responsibility and view it as a universally acceptable standard. First, even though CER is a universally acceptable approach, going by the classical understanding of the notion of corporate social responsibility, it is mistakenly, viewed as practice of voluntary basis. Secondly, there is virtually limited literature to an extent that knowledge assimilation of the CER context results in ineffectiveness or passive-ineffectiveness to the best practice of CER.
Undoubtedly, there is now much aspirations and eulogies of companies on their practice of corporate social responsibility even in the specific dimension of environmental protection. Unfortunately the citizens and academicians awareness on the assessment of the practical value and legality of such companies’ acclaimed practice is too low let alone the means for making the laws in this area enforceable. This scenario is antithetical not only to civil rights of a service dimension, but also to the treatment of environmental rights toward achievement of sustainable development which is the prime purpose of environmental law. Yet, the citizens’ awareness and their human rights that flow from CER ought to be of paramount importance.
1.3.Aim and Objectives of Study
Considering limited literature in this area of knowledge and ignorance of the legal framework in Nigeria, the choice of this topic was motivated by the need to contribute in some way, to the development and evaluation of environmental law, particularly in the dimension of the seeming soft laws of corporate responsibility in Nigeria through the assessment of the extant practices and a possible development of a solid and advanced legal practice.
Therefore, the aim of this study is to achieve the objectives of appraising the concept of corporate responsibility in the specific context of corporate environmental responsibility (CER), evaluate its advantages, legal intricacies and ontological elements, and to critically examine its practice in terms of compliance with the CER’s global goals and demands within the environmental legal system of Nigeria. It will identify the existing international and national laws of the CER and show whether they are effective and consistent with the goals and objectives of CER. In order to achieve this aim, specific objectives are fixed:
- To identify and discuss the existing corporate environmental related international and national laws and examine the extent to which they are consistent with the goals of international law on the environment.
- To examine the importance and the practice level of such laws in Nigeria.
- To identify and examine the overview of global and regional approaches to legalization and regulation of environmental responsibility, with particular emphasis on corporate environmental responsibility (CER).
- To make recommendations on the improved legal mechanism for best practice in Nigeria.
1.4.Research Questions
The study will address four main questions, which include:
- What are the existing international and municipal laws of corporate environmental responsibility?
- What are the environmental risks associated with ineffective CER?
- Are companies complying and taking responsibility within the international norms and existing laws of CER to minimize environmental risks in Nigeria?
- How do policies and legislation for corporate responsibility address environmental risks in Nigeria?
1.5.Research Methodology
The study adopts the descriptive, analytical and explanatory study style. The study also adopted comparative study style in reviewing the CER principles and practices in other jurisdictions. Reliance was placed on primary source materials such as legislative Acts and other legal instruments of both the international and national laws. Also, secondary source materials relied on include case laws, textbooks and other legal research and academic materials such as journals, magazines, Internet sources, law reports, unpublished cases, DVDs (Digital Video Discs), etc. Analysis of expert opinions and jurisprudential authorities from direct reports and institutional documents were also used. These options put together helped in appraising the level of corporate environmental responsibility in Nigeria.
1.6.Scope and Limitation of Study
This work focuses on corporate environmental responsibility and assesses the current level of practice in Nigeria. It is not a work on the generic concept of corporate responsibility. In addition, though the work does not go deeper into analysis of corporate responsibility, but not without a brief conceptual revelation. The greatest limitation has been constraint of time to embark on direct visit to companies to assess their files or records on corporate environmental programmes.
1.7.Literature Review
There is sparse discussion on the specific thematic area of corporate environmental responsibility. However, from the generic concept of corporate responsibility flows the academic and legal perceptions that are also emphatic about environmental protection – by respecting the duty to cover the environmental implication of the company’s operations, products and facilities, by eliminating waste and emissions, maximizing the efficiency and productivity of its resources, and maximizing practices that might adversely affect the enjoyment of the country’s resources by future generations.[16] From the perspectives of international law and domestic law, and from social and legal literature, the doctrine of corporate social responsibility – a semi-generic concept which also flows from, and also has distinction with corporate responsibility – a largely generic concept, believed to be that of self-regulation and voluntary practice, the environmental dimension of the responsibility regime, in particular, corporate environment responsibility, at present time, is a compliance – oriented mechanism, a legal obligatory aspect of corporate responsibility regime.
The principle of corporate environmental responsibility has developed from the doctrine of corporate social responsibility (CSR) – which depicts the fulfillment of equity and the recognition of the fact that as companies grow their business advantages, there are impacts of such business operations on the society, and thus, it is reasonable to recognize special needs of the community and its people. Such needs should be taken into account in the design and implementation of the companies’ projects.[17]
The principles of corporate responsibility regime include two elements. The first attaches to the social responsibility of firms to consider different circumstances on the basis of equity and to assist or lavish social advantages in consideration of the social needs of the community in which they operate. This is however, not highly legalistic considering the argument that CSR be limited to consideration of voluntary business activities which approach tends to discourage the introduction of legislation/regulation as a response to be raised in CSR issues.[18] The second concerns the common responsibility of firms for the protection of the environment, particularly in relation to the firm’s contribution to the creation of a particular environmental problem as it affects the society. This includes the duty of care, to minimize or control environmental threats. In essence, the liability of such firms under this notion is a jurisprudential reality.[19] In the words of Piotr Mazurkiewics:
In the emerging global economy, where the internet, the news media and the information revolution shine light on business practices around the world, companies are more frequently judged on the basis of their environmental stewardship. Partners in business and consumers want to know what is inside a company. This transparency of business practices means that for many companies, corporate social responsibility is no longer a luxury but a retirement.[20]
The above quoted passage tends to substantiate a direct link between the operating companies and the communities they operate in and the duties required by environmental law. Corporate responsibility is no longer a luxury or charitable undertaking – but a legally affirmed duty required by the principles of international environmental law such as the precautionary principle,[21] the polluter-pays principle [22] and the principles of sustainable development.[23] Thus, there is certainly sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the evolving legal status of Corporate Environmental Responsibility (CER) reflects a principle of environmental law,[24] and has now achieved a customary status. Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that international courts and municipal courts have, for now been faced by either reluctant practice or the concept of unknown (that is where stakeholders appear to have little or no knowledge of CER) because of the vast array of cognizance of its non-frequent jurisprudential practice. This reluctance or concept of unknown may be understandable by virtue of the novelty of environmental legal system as well as the commonsensical perspective of corporate responsibility regime. The general belief is that corporate social responsibility, the root-stage of corporate environmental responsibility is a matter of charitable obligation or extract obligation, even if the practical consequences of such perspective has failed to establish a basic rationalization both on the point of law and morality.
Further to the above, there can be no doubt that this emerging principle of law maintains a potent reality in modern jurisprudence of environmental law, and thus, obligates corporations to their roles and duties in protecting the environment, and guaranteeing social advantage of host communities, including to support environmental sustainability as required by the primary international environmental law instruments such as Principle 9of the Stockholm Declaration (1972)[25] and Principle 21 of the Rio Declaration (1992).[26]
What makes the corporate responsibility concept a doubtful authority for enforcement is the frequent and popular use of the word “social”. It is submitted that although the concept of corporate environmental responsibility (CER) has a traceable root to corporate social responsibility (CSR), they are of two distinct approaches within a particular regime.[27] While CSR is a soft-law approach within an overall objective of responsibility regime with intrinsic value, CER is a positive-legal approach beyond a mere systemic and subjective intrinsic value. An example of such approach is characterized by the Precautionary principle and Polluter-pays principle of environmental law. Precautionary principle is a strategy to cope with possible risks where scientific understanding is yet incomplete, such as the risks of nano technology, genetically modified organisms and systemic insecticides; when human activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that harm such as harm to humans or the environment that is threatening to human life or health, serious and effectively irreversible, inequitable to the present or future generations or imposed without adequate consideration of the human rights of those affected.[28] Polluter-pays principle is an environmental policy principle which requires that the costs of pollution be borne by those who cause it. In its original emergence the Polluter Pays Principle aims at determining how the costs of pollution prevention and control must be allocated: the polluter must pay.[29] It is part of some Nigerian laws and also customary international law pursuing the achievement of sustainable development. In the case of Vellore Citizen’s Welfare Forum v. Union of Indiaand Ors,[30] the Supreme Court of India held that the precautionary principle was an essential feature of sustainable development, and as such, part of customary international law. On the other part, the European Commission did apply the polluter-pays principle in relation to state aid,[31] and also, the Trail Smelter case (1941)[32] which laid down the core obligation of customary international law with regards to environmental pollution. It established the responsibility of state towards the environment and also the liability of state subjects, such as industrial corporations which may be the actual operator. This takes us to the legal principles of corporate liability in environmental legal system. For example, Article V of the International Conventions on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (1969),[33] provides that where oil escape from a ship and causes damages on the territory or territorial sea of a contracting party, the ship owner is strictly liable for such damage, which includes the cost of preventive measures and further loss of damage caused by such measures. Claims may be brought in the court of the contracting party and judgments on such claims are recognizable and can be enforced in any of the party’s courts. Certain Nigerian municipal instruments have recognized this trend.[34]
According to Valerie Ann Zondorak, she submitted that:[35]
At present, corporate environmental responsibility is compliance – oriented. Corporations are motivated to be responsible for the environment to the extent necessary to avoid liability under laws such as the Comprehensive Environment Response Compensation Liability Act (CERCLA),[36] the federal security laws [37] andthe community right-to-know laws. [38] As the scope of liability under environmental laws expands,[39] business managers increasingly turn to environmental consultants to determine whether company operation comply with federal and state statutory standards.[40]This approach to corporate environmental responsibility is marginally effective. Environmental regulation statutes set forth the corporate community minimum standards of responsibility with which corporations must comply or face costly liability.
Kel Dummett has posited that despite obvious failing, western governments are increasingly adopting policies involving market solutions for environmental problems. He analyzed Eckersley’s position which illustrates that environmental governance involving free market approaches is not entirely laissez-faire. That market-based instruments such as carbon trading schemes, green taxes, waste levies, etc, are becoming increasingly adopted by governments, require active role and incentives or disincentives to gain sound environmental outcomes.
Eckersley pointed out thus:
… in lieu of imposing’ rules of conduct and performance standards and applying criminal sanctions to environmental offenders, environmental policy makers are increasingly looking in the direction of bureaucratic streamlining, economic incentive, market-based instruments, tradable permits and the privatization of environmental assets and wastes.[41]
As too much can never be written on environmental matters in the world, modern jurisprudence suggests that environment holds the key to our survival and when there is a threat to environment, it becomes a serious danger to humanity. This calls on corporations to protect the environment aggressively, not on the exclusive method of compliance to minimum environmental standards of governments and institutions, but also on the need for corporate self-regulation and liability response. Thus certain principles have evolved from this trend. [42]
As far as environmental law is concerned, an age of corporate environmentalism – attributed to the rise of environmental groups, is according to Wilson, an expanded dimension of corporate social responsibility and is notable as a recent expansion.[43] It is revealed by this current trend, that in the United States, companies make some reference to sustainable practice on its websites, and that majority of these companies have web pages devoted entirely to sustainable environmental practices.[44] For example, ExxonMobil, Dupont, Alcoa and General Electric have websites that are specifically designed for environmental practices, and yet, regrettably, these companies mentioned above rank among the top ten companies that are active air polluters in the United States as of 2010.[45] This demonstrates the conflict between “programme agenda” which is borne out of intention and “practice” which is made tangible by law. From a purely theoretical perspective, the practice of corporate social responsibility has generally been construed to be a voluntary-based performance of companies. At recent time, it is noted that environmental crisis such as global warming, climate change and their effects, government regulations will have to restrict pollution, and corporations will have to oblige to regulations – both of self –initiated programmes in the form of programmes agenda or solution agenda and compliance to environmental ethics and regulations. It thus demonstrates that at present, corporate environmental responsibility is compliance – oriented. Zondorak emphasized this point and stressed the fact that corporations must comply with environmental responsibility or face costly liability.[46] Other perspectives with corporate environmental responsibility have also developed through certain independent proposals. For example, the Valdez principles – a prongless oriented approach was proposed.[47] It is a form of a voluntary code of conduct. It implies that the balance dimension of corporate environmental responsibility requires companies to aggressively protect the environment, not merely in the form of compliance to environmental standards of the governments but also as self-regulatory code of conduct voluntarily designed and followed by the companies. [48]
Interestingly, Piotr Mazurkiewicz, who amongst many sees environmental protection traditionally, as the consideration of “public interest” and “external to private life” observes that the roles of sectors have been changing, with the private sector becoming an active partner in environmental protection[49]. According to him:
Many governments and businesses are now realizing that environmental protection and economic growth are not always in conflict. Since the Brundlandt report was published in 1987 as a result of World Commission on Environmental work (Sic), business and management scholars have been grappling with the question of how and why corporations should incorporate environmental concerns into their own strategies. Today many companies have accepted their responsibility to do no harm to the environment. An earlier emphasis on strict governmental regulations has ceded ground to corporate self – regulation and voluntary initiatives.[50]
Reinhardt, in his view, classified the willingness of customers to pay or reduce cost in some states of the world as part of the stewardship within the practicability of the roles of corporate environment responsibility and other aspects of responsibility regime [51] thus amplifying the test of due diligence – a standard that is accepted generally as the most appropriate within the responsibility law.[52]
The understanding of the classical corporate responsibility approach founded upon corporate social responsibility (CSR) is now, particularly problematic. The generally misconstruedview of social responsibility, has made corporations see duty to environment as self-regulatory and voluntary and makes even the government, such as the Nigerian government to act on the dictates of the multinational companies and continue to relegate the health and environmental well-being of the citizenry to the background.[53] This corroborates the submission of Rowland Benjamin who adumbrated thus:
Corporate responsibility has always been voluntary but voluntary mechanisms do not work well in market based system. Corporations are not working to protect the environment. It is against their interest to take initiatives to reduce consumption and most corporations oppose laws designed to protect the environment because they hurt their businesses. Corporations have caused environmental destruction globally for many years and the scale of the problem is increasing.[54]
Accompanying the above postulation, Benjamin also added that companies do not have a deliberate intent to harm the environment. Greed and laziness are behind their destructiveness.[55] He calls for astute legalization of corporate social responsibility in the context of environmental responsibility.[56] However, as added by Uwuigbe and Jimoh, the state of the world’s environment and the impact of mankind on the ecology of the world have led to increased public concern and security of the operations and performances of organizations. Corporate environmental disclosures have increased globally in both size and complexity over the past two decades, though with variations among countries. [57]
This point has also been emphasized by Deegan.[58] It has been added that popularity of the stand of research and current knowledge of man be attributed to increasing recognition within the business community of the importance of major stakeholders attached to socially and environmentally responsible corporate behavior[59]. Wilmshurst and Frost on their own part, argued on the particular form of corporate environmental responsibility bordering on the human rightsto environmental information – the disclosure principle.
According to them:
If the members of the community are becoming more interested in the environmental impact of companies, it is likely that the senior management will be called on to explain the company’s activities affecting the environment. Such accessibility may be promoted through disclosure within the annual report.[60]
In furthering the importance of corporate responsibility in environmental protection and the difficulty affecting effective practice, Osemene has asserted that many organizations in Nigeria are driven by the need to make more and more profits to the detriment of all the stakeholders. Some do not adequately respond to the needs of environmental protection and community development amongst others.[61] He added that research shows that CSR can increase profitability, sustainability, integrity and reputation of any business that includes it in its policy, and emphasized that there is the need for industries’ activities to not compromise the lives of Nigerians and environment.[62]
The European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) has fragmented CSR into three dimensions, namely; social, economic and environmental dimensions. According to EFQM, the social responsibility entails training and developing local labour, contributing expertise to community programmes, human rights, amongst others; while environmental responsibility involves precautionary approaches to prevent or minimize adverse impacts, support for environmental sustainability initiatives, developing and diffusing environmentally friendly technologies including policy and legislation and economic development[63]. Thus, the concept of sustainable development can be seen as the primary goal of corporate responsibility. This indeed, has formed the popular pyramid of corporate social responsibility.[64]. As noted by several authors and institutions, Klaus J. Zink, has joined to state that corporate social responsibility which of course, reproduce corporate environmental responsibility, as a concept of sustainability has been advanced by a number of international networks especially those of the United Nations system and global allies. Thus, the Rio de Janeiro Conference on Environment and Development in 1992 was a starting point to promote these ideas, which in the mean time have been included in several evaluation concepts.[65] Altschuller on his part believes in the workability of corporate responsibility through a legal framework and actions through law.[66]
Dominic Asada has stated that the need for corporate social responsibility in the management of our environment remains a pertinent issue more than ever before.[67] He adds that environmentally, the compact principles touch on the need to support a precautionary approach to environmental challenges undertaking initiatives to promote greater environmental responsibility and encourage the development and diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies.[68]
Collins C. Ngwakwe, stresses on the nexus between sustainable business practice and firm performance and links the increase in global environmental awareness and the campaign for sustainable economic development as the factors redirecting the attention of firms towards environmental sensitivity. According to him, the quest for sustainability has caused an emergence of many global institutions enunciating varying norms that guide human interaction with the environment. [69]
Emeka Okafor, Adedoyin Hassan and Adeola Hassan, writing on the environmental degradation, sustainable development, environmental audit, corporate social responsibility, and environmental management strategies knitted to one issue, raised a question where concern for the environment is integral to each of the organizations’ performance. Using the crisis in the Niger-Delta as illustration, they adumbrated that organizations have realized that environmental issues need to be addressed for a number of reasons such as consumer pressure, legislation, ethics, etc.[70]
It has been noted that until recently, most companies both in the western world and developing countries did carry out their business operations in a manner as if human rights and environmental matters were no business of theirs. Progressing with the emergence of international environmental law, the global trend of corporate responsibility began to gain ground. Canadian professor of law, Craig Forcese, opined that businesses should introduce human rights codes of conduct and abide by country guidelines.[71] Fogan has adduced the fact that a corporation has the responsibility towards human rights and the environment and that it incurs criminal and civil liability upon actions that constitutes violability of environmental human rights.[72] Manby on his part copiously writes on substantiating a greater precision of the linkage between human rights and the environment with specific reference to the petroleum industry’s operations and the concept of corporate responsibility.[73]
[1] M.Uibopuu, “The Internationally Guaranteed Right of an Individual to a Clean Environment” 1 Comparative Law Yearbook (1977), p. 101; W. Gormley, “The Legal Obligation of the International Community to Guarantee a Pure and Decent Environment: The Expansion of Human Right Norms” 3 Georgetown International Environmental Law Review (1991) p. 85.
[2] See P. Sands, Principles of International Environmental Law, 2nd edn; United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 292.
[3] N. M. Swamy, Textbook on Environmental Law, Hyderabad: Asia Law House, 2004, p. 1.
[4] See for example, the National Environmental Standards and Regulatory Enforcement Agency Act No. 25 of 2007. See also the United Kingdom Environmental Protection Act as cited in the body of this essay. For case law reference, see the case of Goa Foundation & Anor. vs. The Konkan Railway Corporation & Ors (AIR 1992 Bom. 71 (422 – 477) DB where the Division Bench of the Indian Court viewed environment as all-encompassing nature that affects human beings and to the extent that the destruction of it is tantamount to violation of human rights .
[5] N. Swamy, Op.cit.
[6] See www.thefreedictionary.com/environment , last accessed on 08 January, 2013.
[7] O. Osibanjo, “Industrial Pollution, Worker’s Health and the Environment,” 1998, in A. Oshuntogun (ed), “Poverty, Health and the Nigerian Environment”, FEDEN Lagos, pp. 150 – 165, in P. Z. Cletus, A. F. Okilo and A. Clinton, “An Evaluation of Community Relations Impact in Managing Environmental Related Crisis in the Niger Delta”, European Journal of Business and Management, Vol. VI, No.12, 2014.
[8] J. Thornton and S. Beckwith, Environmental Law, London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1997, p. 2, in note 7 below.
[9] C. Edward-Ekpo and C. Wali, op.cit, pp. 2 and 5.
[10] Note that Principle 1 of the Stockholm Declaration (1972) states that man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality, and adequate conditions of life in an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being and he bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for present and future generations.
[11] First Annual Report of the USCEQ (1970) p.6.
[12]“Environment” includes water, air, land and all plants and human beings or animals living therein and the inter-relationships which exist among these or any of them.
[13] New Zealand Resources Management Act No. 69 of 1991. See also United Kingdom Environmental Protection ACT 1990, s. 1 (2)
[14] C. Edward-Ekpo and C. Wali, op. cit, p. 593.
[15]Ibid
[16] P. Mazurkiewicz, op.cit, p. 2. See also P. Mazurkiewicz, “Corporate Self-Regulations and Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue,”Handbook of Voluntary Environmental Agreement, Springer, Dordrecht 2005.
[17] P. Hohnen, “Corporate Social Responsibility: An Implementation Guide for Business”, (2007) available at www.iisd.org/pdf/2007/csr_guide.pdf, last accessed on 1st July 2013.
[18] H. Ward, “Legal Issues in Corporate Citizenship”, Swedish Partnership for Global Responsibility, 2003, 8 in O. Amao, Corporate Social Responsibility, Human Rights and the Law: Multinational Corporations in Developing Countries, Routledge 2011, p. 70.
[19] Note that the issues of corporate responsibility as against individual responsibility is traceable to the case of Salomon v. Salomon (1877) AC 22 which is the decision of the House of Lords that laid foundation for the modern context of company Law. See for specific reference to environmental responsibility of corporations, the case of Adams v. Cape industries (1990) WLR ALL ER, 657.
[20] P. Mazurkiewicz, “Corporate Environmental Responsibility: Is a Common Corporate Social Responsibility Framework Possible?”, available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTDEVCOMSUSDEVT/Resources/csrframework.pdf, in P. Subai, “Whistle Blower Protection and Environmental Corporate Responsibility”, Law and Petroleum Industry in Nigeria – Current Challenges, Lagos: Malthouse Press, 2009, p. 330.
[21] For analysis on the precautionary principle see H. Hohmann, Precautionary Legal Duties and Principles of Modern International Environmental Law (1994) in P. Sands, Principles of International Environmental Law, op.cit ; J. Cameron and J. Abouchar, “The Precautionary Principle: a Fundamental Principle of Law and Policy for the Protection of the Global Environment”, 14 Boston College International & Comparative Law Review (1991) at 2; L. Gundling, “The Status in International Law of Principle of Precautionary Action”, International Journal of Estuarine and Coastal Law, vol. V (1990), p. 23; D. Freestone, “Caution or Precaution: A Rose by Any Other Name…?’’, 10 YIEL (1999) p. 25.
[22] For analysis on the polluter pays principles see E. Gaines, “The polluter–pay Principles: From Economic Equity to Environmental Ethos”, 26 Texas International Law Journal (1991) 462-3; P. Sands, Principles of International Environmental Law, op.cit, p. 279.
[23] For detailed analysis on the principle of sustainable development see C. Edward-Ekpo and C. Wali, Environmental Law: Human Right and Globalization – Development and Dynamics, Port Harcourt: Multi-intelligence Publishers, 2010, p. 20 – 25.
[24] See generally, S. C. McCaffrey, “The Work of International Law Commission Relating to Transfrontier Environmental Harm”, New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, Vol. XX (4th December 1987); A. Henrikson, “Negotiating World Order: The Artisanship and Architecture of Global Diplomacy” and Blanka Kudej, “International Environmental Law: Selected Bibliography”, NY University Journal of International Law and Politics: Development and Environment Symposium, Vol. XX, No. 3. Spring, 1988, on the liability topic of Article 4 of ILC Draft Articles on International Liability for Injurious Consequences Arising out of Acts not Prohibited by International Law; V. P. Nanda, International Environmental Law, V. P Nanda, vol. II, Michigan, Transnational Publishers, 1995, p. 155-6; M. N Shaw, International Law, 5th edn; United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 760; B. D. Smith, State Responsibility and the Marine Environment, Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1988 ; R. Linda and C. Raper, “Limitation of Liability for Oil Spill Pollution: Domestic and International Solutions” 5 Journal of Natural Resources Law, Fall, 1985; R. Lefeber, Transboundary Environmental Interference and the Origin of State Liability, The Hague 1996: “The Exercise of Jurisdiction in the Antarctic Region and the Changing Structure of International Law: The International Community and Common Interests”, 21 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, 1996. J. Post, A. Lawrence, and J. Weber, Corporate Strategy, Public Policy and Ethics: Business and Society, 9th edn; Boston: Irwin/McGraw Hill, 1999, p. 56, 61 and 69; S. L. McShane and M. A. Von Glinow, Organizational Behaivour, New York: McGraw-Hill and Irwin (2006) p. 17; W. Cunningham, M. Cunningham and B. Woodworth Saigo, Environmental Science: Global Concern, 8th edn; New York: McGraw-Hill 2005, p. 35; D. L. Mathison, “European and American Executive Values”, Business Ethics: A European Review, vol. II, April 1993, p. 99- 100; Committee for Economic Development, Social Responsibilities of Business Corporations, New York: Committee for Economic, 1971;S. Zadek, “The Civil Corporation”, Ch. 9 in Organizational Behaviour, op.cit, in C. Edward-Ekpo and C. Wali, “Environmental Law: Human Rights and Globalization , Development and Dynamics, op.cit.
[25] Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, which held in Stockholm between 5th and 16th June, 1972.
[26] Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, which held in Rio de Janeiro between 3rd and 14th of June 1992.
[27]Responsibility regime includes: corporate, state and international responsibility.
[28]The Precautionary Principlehttp://www.precautionaryprinciple.eu/ (last accessed 24th April 2016).
[29]Polluter pays Principle, The Encyclopedia of Earth, http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/155292/ (Last last accessed 24th April 2016).
[30] Writ Petition (c) No. 914 of 1991. Judgment of 28 August 1996. Para 11-11.
[31] European Commission Community Guidelines on state aid for environmental protection (2001) OJ C37
[32] 35 AJIL (1941)
[33] Amended by the Protocol on Liability in 1992
[34] See for example the National Maritime and Safety Agency (NIMASA) Act 2007, the National Oil Spill Detection and Remediation Agency (NOSDRA) Act 2006 and the Oil in Navigable Waters Act 1969 Cap. 06 LFN 2004.
[35] V. A. Zondorak, “A New Face in Corporate Environmental Responsibility: The New Valdez Principles”, 18Boston College Envtl. Aff. Law Review, 457 issue 3 1991, p. 1 – 2.
[36] United States Law 42 U.S.C.ss 9601-9676.CERCLA is also known as Superfund Act and was enacted by the U.S Congress in 1980 (Pub. L. No. 96-510, 94 stat. 2501 (1980). The CERCLA major objective is to facilitate the cleanup of hazardous waste release, and also, to hold responsible parties liable in site clean-up costs. The U.S CERCLA has comparative objective of the Nigeria’s National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency (NOSDRA) Act 2006. However, NOSDRA Act is specifically an arrangement for oil spillage caused by the petroleum industry.
[37] In the United States, Securities and Exchange Commission Act makes provision for public corporations to disclose the material effects that compliance with environmental protection laws may have upon corporations and business. See also The Nigerian Environmental Impact Assessment Act (EIA) No. 56 of 1992 which requires that every project undertaken in Nigeria must display the environmental effect of such project to the public.
[38] Note that the Environmental Impact Assessment Act of 1992 in Nigeria represents the community right-to-know laws pertaining to environment systems and that the right of access to justice established for the citizens under the African Charter on Human and Peoples Right (1981) CAP A9 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, also carries the people’s right to environmental protection and the knowledge of law thereof. Corporations can be made answerable to the people under these laws.
[39] Note that since after the Rio Declaration regime, environmental legal system has expanded to accommodate state, international and corporate responsibilities. See for example, M. Pallemaerts, “International Environmental Law from Stockholm to Rio: Back to the Future?” in P. Sands, “Greening International Law”, Environnement et Droits de l’Homme (ed.P. Kromarek), Paris, 1987, p. 1, 8.
[40] Ibid at note 20.
[41] R. Eckersley, Markets, the State and the Environment: Towards Integration, Robin Eckersley, Melbourne: Macmillan, 1995.
[42] See for example, the Valdez Principle of September 7, 1989 (U.S); see also Feder, “Who Will Subscribe to the Valdez Principles!?” N.Y. Times, 10 September, 1989 (COL. 1) p. 6.
[43] D. Wilson, “Corporate Environmental Responsibility”, Harvard Political Review, 04 October 2010, P. 1.
[44]Ibid
[45]Ibid
[46] Zondorak, op. cit p. 457
[47] The Valdez Principle was proposed by the Coalition for Environmental Responsible Economies (CERES) in the U.S.A on 07 September, 1989.
[48] Feder, “Who Will Subscribe to the Valdez Principle”, op.cit, s. 3, p. 6, col 1.
[49] P. Mazurkiewicz, op.cit, (first article) p. 1.
[50] Ibid, p.2; see also P. Mazurkiewicz, op.cit, (second article).
[51] F. L. Reinhardt, “When Might It Pay to Be Green?” Environmental Protection and the Social Responsibility of Firms: Perspectives from Law, Economics, and Business, Washington D.C RFF Press, 2005 in Manda Salls, “Corporate Responsibility and the Environment: What is the Right Thing to do?” Note that other aspects of responsibility regime include “state” and “international responsibility”.
[52] See the International Law Commission (ILC) Commentary on the Draft Articles on Prevention of Trans boundary Harm from Hazardous Activities (2001) Report of the ILC on its 53rd Session, A/56/10, p. 392.
[53] C. Evoh, “Gas flares, Oil Companies and Politics in Nigeria”, available at http://ngrguradiannews.com, last accessed Jan 7th, 2013).
[54] R. Benjamin, “Corporate Responsibility and The Environment”, p. 2, available at http:// www.evancarmichael.com/evansabout.html. (last accessed on 3rd of January, 2013.
[55]Ibid, p.3
[56]Ibid.
[57] U. Uwuigbe and J. Jimoh, “Corporate Environmental Disclosures in the Nigeria Manufacturing Industry: A study of Selected Firms” African Research Review, Vol. VI (3), Serial No. 26, (July 2012) p. 71.
[58] C. Deegan, “The Legitimizing Effect of Social and Environmental Disclosure – a Theoretical Foundation”, Accountancy, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. IV, No. 1, (2002) p. 32-38.
[59] S. Zadek, “Balancing Performance, Ethics and Accountability”, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. XVII, 1421-1441, available at http:// dx. Doi.org/10.1023/A. 100609 56 14267. (Last accessed 13th January 2013).
[60] U. Uwuigbe and B. Egbide, “Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosures in Nigeria; A Study of Listed Financial and Non-Financial Firms”, Journal of Management and Sustainability, Vol. 2, No. 1, March 2012) P. 161.
[61] O. Osemene, “Corporate Social Responsibility Practices in Mobile Tele-Communications Industry in Nigeria” European Journal of Business and Management, Vol. IV, No. 8, (2012) p. 149.
[62] Ibid, p. 149 and 150
[63] European Foundation for Quality Management (2004) EFQM Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility (Brussels).
[64] O. Adeyanju, “An Assessment of the Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Nigerian Society: the Examples of Banking and Communication Industries”, Universal Journal of Marketing and Business Research,Vol. I (i), (2012) pp 18-19.
[65] K. Zink, “Stakeholder Orientation and Corporate Social Responsibility as a Precondition for Sustainability”, University of Karserslautern, Germany: Total Quality Management, vol. XVI, No. 8-9 (2005), p. 1049.
[66] S. A. Altschuller, “Distinctions with Differences: The Lawyers Roles in Distinguishing CSR and Corporate Philosophy”, 39 International Law News, I, (2010) pp. 11-13.
[67] D. Asada, “Corporate Social Responsibility of Companies and Sustainable Development in Nigeria: Recent Trends and Lessons from other African Countries”, 24 Property and Commercial Law Journal, 2010.
[68]Ibid.
[69] C. Ngwakwe, “Environmental Responsibility and Firm Performance: Evidence from Nigeria”, International Journal of Human Social Sciences, 2009, 6 p. 384.
[70] E. Okafor, A. Hassan, and A. Hassan “Environmental Issues and Corporate Social Responsibility. The Nigeria Operations, 23 J. Hum Ecol 2 (2008) p. 106
[71] A. Njoku, “Human Rights and Business Community under the 1999 Constitution”, The Guardian, 26 September, 2000.
[72] P. K. Fogan, “Company Law and the Corporate Polluter: Who to Blame”, in J. A. Omotola, “Environmental Laws-Including Compensation”, University of Lagos, Faculty of Law Publication, (1990) pp. 87 – 97.
[73] Bronwen Manby, “The Price of Oil: Corporate Responsibility and Human Rights Violations in Nigeria’s Oil Producing Communities”, Volume 2156 of Human rights documents: General, (1999), pp. 9 – 20.
This material content is developed to serve as a GUIDE for students to conduct academic research
APPRAISAL OF CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY PRACTICES IN NIGERIA
A1Project Hub Support Team Are Always (24/7) Online To Help You With Your Project
Chat Us on WhatsApp » 09063590000
DO YOU NEED CLARIFICATION? CALL OUR HELP DESK:
09063590000 (Country Code: +234)
YOU CAN REACH OUR SUPPORT TEAM VIA MAIL: [email protected]
09063590000 (Country Code: +234)
