L'écocide pourrait bientôt être considéré comme l'un des crimes les plus graves au monde. Cela pourrait en fait être bon pour les affaires.
Cette série d'articles de blogs invités se veut un espace dédié aux nombreux mouvements/campagnes du monde entier qui luttent contre la destruction des écosystèmes, afin qu'ils puissent partager leurs histoires, leurs récits et leurs points de vue.
This guest blog was authored by Charlotte O’Leary, CEO of the impact investment firm Pensions for Purpose.
For years, a growing global movement has been working to define the crime of ecocide—the mass destruction of the environment—and to advocate for its inclusion in the Rome Statute, the founding document of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The most severe forms of environmental damage—such as massive oil or chemical spills, the clearcutting of primary rainforests, or the destruction of an entire river system—are having disastrous impacts on our ecosystems and communities. Businesses aren’t shielded from the consequences: Climate change and the collapse of ecosystems disrupt operations and increase costs, weakening our economies. While most individuals and organizations claim not to intentionally harm nature, too often companies remain willfully ignorant of the environmental damage they cause, a behavior enabled by weak regulatory frameworks that offer limited mechanisms for protection.
In its 2019 statement to the International Criminal Court’s annual Assembly, Vanuatu became the first state to publicly advocate for the ICC to recognize ecocide as a crime. Under ecocide legislation, individuals in the most senior positions of decision-making power could be held criminally accountable if their choices result in mass damage and destruction of nature.
In addition to it being a clear environmental klaxon, the financial implications of international criminal law being leveraged in this way would be profound and could reshape global business dynamics.
In my role as CEO for Pensions for Purpose, much of my work centers around impact investing, a term often used in the financial sector but rarely fully understood. At its core, impact investing means generating positive environmental and social outcomes alongside financial returns. Pension capital, often the quiet giant in the climate space, has phenomenal potential to drive positive change. However, the majority of pension schemes have failed to set robust net-zero commitments.
The UK pensions industry, for example, is so embroiled in enabling carbon emissions that, if it were a country, it would be in the top 20 emitters globally. Of the £3 trillion in UK pensions, around £88 billion is invested in companies actively fuelling the climate crisis. This is often without the knowledge of those whose pensions are at stake. Oil and gas, deforestation, and mining are common sectors in pension funds, to name but a few prominent examples.
Bucketwheel excavator in opencast coal mine. Credit: Chris Münch/ Unsplash.
Changing the laws and frameworks that underpin business and investment is crucial because asset owners, like pension funds, rely on these entities to “do the right thing.”
While impact investing is often seen as a positive force, it remains largely misunderstood and underutilized. The broader financial system continues to reward short-term profits at the expense of long-term sustainability, creating fundamental misalignment between financial incentives and environmental protection. To drive systemic change, we must overhaul the incentives by imposing penalties on environmentally harmful practices and actively rewarding investments that prioritize sustainability. This shift will realign the market with long-term ecological goals, ensuring that financial gains are directly tied to the health of our planet—a strategy I strongly advocate for.
While the alternatives might not have the same financial history or backing, they are straightforward and easy to understand. If institutional investors direct capital toward investment that prioritizes long-term sustainability, the sector would expand more rapidly, innovate more effectively, and gain momentum. This would not only bring us closer to achieving net zero but also help mitigate the profound and widespread biodiversity challenges threatening the health of our societies.
On September 9, three developing countries—Vanuatu, Fiji, and Samoa—proposed a formal recognition by the ICC of the crime of ecocide. If ecocide were adopted as the fifth crime under the Rome Statute, that transition toward mitigating environmental destruction would become far easier. The prospect of being associated with such a crime is a deterrent of the highest order. If legally legitimized by the ICC, it would carry the same weight as genocide, war crimes, the crime of aggression, and crimes against humanity. For the financial sector, this also presents an opportunity to make a meaningful difference.
Imagine being a top-tier decision-maker at an investment firm. Previously, you could be accused of making unethical decisions should your money end up linked with a case of severe environmental harm—but there would be no real repercussions. Factor in the possibility of legal prosecution, however, and those decisions become far more cautious, particularly when alternatives in the form of sustainable and impact investment strategies already exist.
But this is not just about deterrence—it’s about creating incentives. Ecocide law could provide a new global framework within which companies are supported in their moves toward sustainability. It would turbo-charge green innovation, redirect finance and investment away from the most harmful practices, and help meaningfully bridge the intolerable gap between environmental protection and economic development.
Investing in the future, rather than clinging to legacy industries that harm our planet, is increasingly emerging as the prudent choice for the finance industry. Supporting ecocide legislation will drive ecological justice, making the decision to invest sustainably the logicalchoice for businesses worldwide. It may soon be, quite literally, a crime not to.