Environmental Damage
Conduct Screen Environmental Harm
Documented environmental destruction — oil spills, toxic contamination, deforestation, habitat destruction, soil contamination, and ecological damage from operations or negligence. Covers the physical damage, not the product (use fossil fuel codes for the business model) or the emissions (use emissions for air pollution). Includes EPA Superfund sites, major spill incidents, and documented ecological harm.
318 companies currently excluded under this screen
Excluded Companies (318 total)
Showing 25 of 318 companies excluded under this screen.
| Ticker | Company | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| MU | MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC | Micron Technology is building a $100 billion semiconductor manufacturing complex in Clay, New York — four DRAM fabrication facilities to be constructed over 20-plus years, backed by $3.4 billion in federal CHIPS Act funding and up to $5.5 billion in New York State Green CHIPS incentives. The project is classified by NYSDEC as a Prevention of Significant Deterioration major source for greenhouse gases, carbon monoxide, PM10, and PM2.5, and a Non-Attainment New Source Review major source for volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides. At full buildout, the complex would consume 48 million gallons of water per day — more than the entire city of Syracuse. On January 16, 2026, hours before Micron broke ground, Neighbors for a Better Micron (a Clay resident coalition) and Jobs to Move America filed suit in New York State Supreme Court in Albany against Micron, the Onondaga County Industrial Development Agency, NYS DEC, and the Town of Clay Planning Board. The lawsuit alleges the 22,000-page Final Environmental Impact Statement fails to comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act: the public comment period was limited to 47 days despite a petition signed by over 1,600 people requesting 120 days, and the FEIS does not adequately address destruction of approximately 200 acres of wetlands, increased flood risk, greenhouse gas emissions, or the discharge of PFAS forever chemicals into the Oneida River with no enforceable limits. Cornell University research on chipmaking wastewater identified 133 PFAS homologues, with non-targeted PFAS concentrations exceeding known compounds. The Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter submitted a 37-page comment letter documenting flawed Scope 2 emissions calculations, insufficient Scope 3 disclosures, air quality monitoring based on a station 70 miles from the site, and inadequate chemical disclosure. Over 1,200 public comments were submitted by residents, community leaders, and organizations including CNY Solidarity Coalition and CHIPS Communities United. Micron also carries a $157,101 state VOC emission settlement and ViolationTracker documents $336 million in total penalties, though the bulk reflects non-environmental categories (price-fixing). The Clay megafab is a different order of magnitude: the largest private investment in New York State history, fast-tracked through environmental review over sustained community opposition, with unresolved questions about wetland destruction, PFAS contamination, and climate compliance under the state Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. |
| HBM | Hudbay Minerals Inc | Hudbay Minerals operates the Constancia copper mine in Peru and the former Fenix nickel project in Guatemala, both of which have been the subject of documented environmental destruction and associated legal claims. In Guatemala, the Fenix project (formerly owned by Hudbay subsidiary HMI Nickel) is the subject of the landmark lawsuit *Choc v. Hudbay Minerals Inc.*, filed in Ontario in 2011. The suit alleges that security personnel employed by the company’s subsidiary shot and killed Adolfo Ich Chaman, a local community leader, and caused severe injuries to German Chub Choc during a forced eviction related to the mine’s expansion. The claims, which include allegations of environmental negligence leading to water contamination, represent a precedent-setting case where a Canadian parent company was sued in its home courts for harms alleged at a foreign subsidiary. In Peru, Hudbay’s Constancia copper mine has been linked to serious environmental offenses and human rights violations. A 2023 report on German copper imports specifically cited the Peruvian copper sector, in which Hudbay operates, for being “accompanied by serious human rights violations and environmental offenses.” A 2019 ruling by a Peruvian court found that a security contract between Hudbay’s local operations and the national police resulted in biased state action against local communities. Furthermore, a 2014 warning from a Canadian mining watchdog highlighted Hudbay’s record of “toxic emissions” and impacts on Indigenous rights and protected areas. Public campaigns have explicitly linked the company to toxic waste and biodiversity destruction, with advocates stating “the company is now as toxic as its mining” and calling for divestment unless operations respect no-go zones for uncontacted Indigenous peoples. |
| WMT | Walmart Inc. | Walmart's cumulative environmental penalties exceed $110 million across federal and state enforcement actions. In 2013 the company pleaded guilty to six counts of violating the Clean Water Act and paid $81.6 million in combined criminal fines and civil penalties for systematically dumping hazardous materials at retail stores across the United States. The DOJ found that prior to January 2006 Walmart had no program for proper hazardous waste disposal and failed to train employees, resulting in hazardous waste being poured into local sewer systems at the store level. Between 2006 and 2008 Walmart sent approximately 2 million pounds of damaged pesticide containers and other hazardous products to a third-party facility that lacked necessary permits, causing releases of hazardous substances. Separately, California's Attorney General secured a $7.5 million settlement in 2022 for Walmart's continued illegal disposal of hazardous waste and medical waste to municipal landfills. In April 2022 the FTC imposed a $3 million penalty on Walmart for falsely marketing dozens of rayon textile products as bamboo-based and eco-friendly. The combined $5.5 million in penalties against Walmart and Kohl's was the largest greenwashing penalty the FTC had ever assessed. On climate targets, Walmart set goals in 2020 to reduce Scope 1 and 2 emissions 35% by 2025 and 65% by 2030 from a 2015 baseline. By end of 2023 the company had achieved only a 19.3% reduction while operational emissions rose 3.91% year-over-year. Walmart acknowledged in its 2024 reporting that it would miss both the 2025 and 2030 targets. |
| GTLS | Chart Industries | Chart Industries manufactures cryogenic equipment and engineered systems that are integral to the global liquefied natural gas (LNG) supply chain, including storage tanks, heat exchangers, and processing equipment. This core business facilitates the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure by enabling the transport and use of natural gas. The company's technology is also applied in hydrogen and carbon capture systems, though its historical revenue and operational focus remain heavily tied to LNG and other hydrocarbon processing. The environmental impact of this business model is indirect but material. By providing critical capital equipment for LNG export terminals, import facilities, and transportation, Chart enables the lifecycle of a fossil fuel whose extraction and combustion are documented sources of ecological harm. This includes habitat disruption from pipeline and terminal construction, and the risk of methane leaks—a potent greenhouse gas—throughout the LNG value chain. The company’s own sustainability report acknowledges the environmental dimensions of its operations but does not disclose a phase-out plan for its fossil fuel-related product lines. While Chart is not an operator of facilities that cause direct spills or contamination, its equipment is a foundational component of an industry responsible for documented environmental destruction. The company’s financial exposure to climate-related litigation is evidenced by its inclusion in analyses of firms facing growing risks from climate damage lawsuits targeting the fossil fuel industry’s infrastructure enablers. |
| UEC | Uranium Energy Corp | Uranium Energy Corp is a uranium mining company whose primary business is the in-situ recovery (ISR) of uranium, a process that involves injecting solutions into groundwater aquifers to dissolve and extract uranium ore. This method directly impacts groundwater resources, with inherent risks of aquifer contamination and long-term water quality degradation. The company’s operations have been subject to regulatory permitting and oversight due to these environmental risks. For example, in 2008, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) issued a decision regarding Uranium Energy Corp’s permit for its Goliad deposit, highlighting the regulatory process for pollution prevention associated with ISR mining. More recently, in March 2025, the TCEQ issued a final decision letter to the company regarding a Class III Underground Injection Control permit, a key federal and state authorization that governs the injection of fluids for uranium recovery. The company has also received approval from the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality for its uranium recovery program, as announced in October 2024. While the company states an aim to minimize environmental impact and uphold high standards, the core activity of in-situ uranium mining is intrinsically linked to documented risks of groundwater contamination and requires ongoing regulatory monitoring to prevent pollution. The business model is centered on the extraction of a resource where the primary documented environmental risk is the potential for causing groundwater contamination and long-term aquifer damage. |
| SCCO | Southern Copper | Southern Copper Corporation, part of Grupo México, operates large-scale copper mining projects in Peru and Mexico that have generated documented environmental damage and social conflict. In Peru, the company’s Tía María project in Arequipa has faced sustained local opposition over concerns of water contamination and depletion in an agricultural valley, leading to protests and fatalities. The company’s operations have also been linked to allegations of judicial harassment against environmental defenders opposing its projects. The company’s Buenavista del Cobre mine in Sonora, Mexico, was the site of a major environmental disaster in 2014 when a pipeline failure released 40,000 cubic meters of copper sulfate acid solution into the Sonora and Bacanuchi rivers. The spill contaminated water supplies across seven municipalities, affecting approximately 24,000 people. Mexican authorities documented widespread impacts on livestock, crops, and local livelihoods. Grupo México’s subsidiary was fined, and a trust fund was established for remediation, though community groups have reported ongoing contamination and inadequate compensation. Southern Copper’s environmental record includes significant regulatory penalties. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lists multiple Grupo México subsidiaries as potentially responsible parties at Superfund sites due to historical mining waste. The company’s operations demonstrate a pattern of large-scale industrial activity in ecologically sensitive areas, resulting in contamination, water resource conflicts, and community harm. |
| 1326 | Formosa Chemicals & Fibre Corp | Formosa Chemicals & Fibre Corp, a subsidiary of Formosa Plastics Group, operates petrochemical manufacturing facilities that have been linked to documented patterns of toxic pollution and chemical spills. In Vietnam, the company’s steel plant in Ha Tinh province was responsible for a 2016 marine environmental disaster that released toxic wastewater, devastating over 200 kilometers of coastline, killing an estimated 115 tons of fish, and impacting the livelihoods of thousands of local fishers. The incident triggered widespread protests and lawsuits from affected communities seeking compensation for damages. The company’s operations in Texas and Louisiana have also drawn regulatory scrutiny and community opposition due to environmental risks. In Point Comfort, Texas, Formosa Plastics’ facility has a long history of air and water permit violations, including a 2019 federal lawsuit settlement under the Clean Water Act for discharging plastic pellets and other pollutants into Lavaca Bay and Cox Creek. The settlement required $50 million for environmental restoration and led to a “zero discharge” mandate. Despite this, the company is pursuing a massive $9.4 billion petrochemical complex in St. James Parish, Louisiana—a project opposed by environmental groups for its potential impact on predominantly Black communities and sensitive wetlands, and which has been challenged for its air permits. These patterns of operational negligence and contested expansion into environmentally vulnerable areas demonstrate a recurring failure to prevent ecological harm. |
| DUK | Duke Energy Corp | Duke Energy operates one of the largest coal-fired power generation fleets in the United States, a business activity that inherently produces toxic coal ash as a primary waste byproduct. The company has been the subject of extensive litigation and regulatory enforcement for its handling of this material. In 2014, a coal ash pond at Duke's retired Dan River Steam Station in North Carolina ruptured, spilling approximately 39,000 tons of ash and 27 million gallons of contaminated wastewater into the Dan River. The contaminant plume traveled more than 70 miles downstream. Testing revealed the presence of arsenic, chromium, iron, lead, and other toxic metals. Duke Energy subsequently pleaded guilty to criminal negligence for its handling of the spill. This incident was part of a broader pattern of coal ash mismanagement. As of 2017, environmental groups identified significant risks at other Duke facilities, such as the East Bend power plant in Kentucky, where 1.4 million tons of toxic coal ash waste were held behind aging earthen dams. The 2014 criminal case was not an isolated failure; the company has faced repeated Clean Air Act enforcement actions. In 2001, the United States brought suit against Duke Energy for failing to obtain permits for major modifications at eight coal-burning plants, a case that reached the Supreme Court. Despite this history of contamination and litigation, Duke Energy continued in 2025 to lobby for the weakening of federal regulations governing coal ash disposal and pollution from coal-fired power plants. |
| 6505 | Formosa Petrochemical | Formosa Petrochemical is a subsidiary of Formosa Plastics Group, a petrochemical conglomerate with a documented global pattern of environmental contamination and negligence. The company's operations have been linked to major pollution incidents, including a 2016 toxic spill in Vietnam that released over 300 tons of fish-killing chemicals, devastating over 125 miles of coastline and triggering widespread protests. In the United States, Formosa Plastics' subsidiary in Texas, Formosa Plastics Corporation, Point Comfort, was ordered to pay $50 million in 2019 for illegally discharging plastic pellets and powders into Lavaca Bay and other Texas waterways over a period of years, marking the largest Clean Water Act settlement brought by private citizens. The company's proposed $9.4 billion petrochemical complex in St. James Parish, Louisiana, has drawn significant opposition from local community and environmental groups, including RISE St. James and the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, over concerns of air pollution and environmental justice impacts on a predominantly Black community. A 2021 case study by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), Earthworks, and the Center for Biological Diversity details a history of violations across multiple countries, labeling Formosa Plastics Group a "serial offender." The report documents ecological damage from operations in Taiwan, Vietnam, and the United States, including soil and water contamination from heavy metals and other toxic byproducts of plastic and chemical manufacturing. |
| KEP | Korea Electric Power Corp | Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) is a state-owned utility that operates one of the world's most coal-intensive power generation fleets. As of 2023, coal-fired power plants accounted for approximately 40% of its total capacity, and the company has been a significant financier and operator of new coal plants internationally, including projects in Indonesia and Vietnam. This expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure directly contributes to long-term environmental damage and climate impacts. In 2020, a group of Indonesian farmers filed a lawsuit against KEPCO, among other defendants, seeking compensation for climate-related damages to their livelihoods. The plaintiffs argued that the greenhouse gas emissions from the companies' operations, including KEPCO's stake in the Cirebon coal plant in Java, contributed to sea level rise and saltwater intrusion that damaged their rice fields. While the legal claim focuses on climate liability, it underscores the documented ecological and community harm linked to the company's coal plant investments. Beyond its international projects, KEPCO's domestic operations in South Korea have a history of environmental incidents. This includes a 2022 transformer oil leak at the Dangjin Power Complex that contaminated local soil and groundwater, resulting in regulatory penalties and cleanup orders. The company's continued reliance on and investment in coal power generation, despite available alternatives, positions it as a direct contributor to ongoing environmental degradation. |
| TTI | TETRA Technologies, Inc. | TETRA Technologies, Inc. is an energy services company whose operations are intrinsically linked to environmental contamination risks. Its core business involves managing and treating produced water—a toxic byproduct of oil and gas extraction—and providing chemicals for well completion and flow assurance. The company’s own regulatory filings list “pollution or environmental damage” as a material risk, acknowledging that its services are central to an industry responsible for documented ecological harm, including groundwater contamination and surface spills. The company has been directly implicated in specific incidents of hazardous waste mismanagement. In a 1999 case documented by the EPA, a subsidiary, Bay Zinc Company (operated by TETRA Technologies, Inc.), was cited for the “Land Application of Hazardous Waste Derived Micronutrient Fertilizers,” raising concerns about the distribution of contaminated byproducts. More recently, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) has included TETRA Technologies in environmental enforcement records, indicating ongoing regulatory scrutiny of its offshore operations. While TETRA promotes sustainability initiatives around water re-use, its fundamental business model is built on servicing the fossil fuel lifecycle, a sector with a pervasive record of environmental destruction. The company’s operations, from chemical manufacturing to brine and wastewater handling, present continual risks of spills, releases, and toxic contamination. |
| MTX | Minerals Technologies Inc | Minerals Technologies Inc. is a mining and minerals processing company whose core business of extracting and refining industrial minerals carries inherent and documented risks of severe environmental damage. The company’s operations involve the management of large-scale reserves of materials like bentonite and limestone, processes which are globally recognized for causing habitat destruction, water contamination through heavy metals and toxic discharge, and soil degradation. While the company publicly commits to responsible resource management, the sector in which it operates is defined by these systemic environmental harms. Academic and industry analyses, such as a 2025 review of critical minerals mining, consistently identify mining operations as leading to severe water contamination and habitat destruction. The company’s financial disclosures acknowledge material climate-related risks from natural disasters, but its core environmental impact stems from the direct physical alteration and contamination of ecosystems through extraction activities. Specific, company-attributed incidents of major spills or toxic contamination were not identified in the gathered evidence. However, the company retains indemnification rights for certain environmental liabilities from past agreements, indicating acknowledged legacy risks. The absence of documented major incidents does not negate the fundamental environmental damage caused by the scale of its mining and minerals processing business model. |
| EC | Ecopetrol S.A. | Ecopetrol S.A. is Colombia's national oil company, with its core business focused on the exploration, production, and transportation of crude oil and natural gas. Its operations are concentrated in ecologically sensitive regions, including the Magdalena Medio valley and the Amazon foothills, where oil extraction and pipeline infrastructure have been linked to significant environmental damage. The company has a documented history of major oil spills and contamination incidents. In 2018, a pipeline operated by Ecopetrol spilled an estimated 550 barrels of crude oil into the Lizama River, a tributary of the Magdalena River, causing extensive contamination of water sources and killing wildlife. This incident was investigated by Colombia's National Authority for Environmental Licenses. Further, Ecopetrol has been linked to land degradation and deforestation in areas of operation, with environmental groups reporting habitat destruction and soil contamination that impact local ecosystems and agricultural communities. These operations have also raised health concerns in adjacent communities due to potential exposure to pollutants. While Ecopetrol reports on some environmental metrics, its business model remains fundamentally tied to fossil fuel extraction in regions with high biodiversity. The pattern of spills and documented ecological harm places it within a category of companies causing direct physical environmental damage, distinct from the climate impact of its product emissions. |
| MUR | MURPHY OIL CORP | Murphy Oil Corporation has a documented history of environmental contamination from its operations, most notably a major oil spill from its refinery in Meraux, Louisiana. In 2005, during Hurricane Katrina, storm surge breached a storage tank at the refinery, releasing over one million gallons of crude oil into the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The U.S. Coast Guard oversaw the cleanup, which involved removing oil from canals, containment areas, and storm drains. This incident resulted in twenty-seven consolidated class-action lawsuits. The litigation concluded in 2009 with a settlement requiring Murphy Oil to pay $330 million to approximately 6,200 claimants for property damage and other losses. The company has also faced repeated enforcement actions for air pollution. In a 2025 ruling, a U.S. District Court found that Murphy Oil violated the Clean Air Act at least 21 times at its Meraux refinery. The court affirmed that the Louisiana nonprofit group, the Louisiana Environmental Action Network, demonstrated these violations, which included excess emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. This followed a prior 2025 multimedia civil judicial settlement with the EPA for Clean Air Act violations at the same facility, which required dramatic cuts to sulfur dioxide emissions. Further, OSHA inspectors cited the company for 35 violations in 2008, at least 10 of which were related to the use of the toxic chemical n-propyl bromide. |
| 9509 | Hokkaido Electric Power Co Inc | Hokkaido Electric Power Company operates the Tomari Nuclear Power Plant, which houses three pressurized water reactors. The company has faced significant environmental and safety concerns related to its nuclear operations. In 2012, the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) identified numerous safety deficiencies at the Tomari plant, including inadequate earthquake and tsunami preparedness measures, leading to a prolonged shutdown for safety upgrades. The plant has been offline since 2012, accumulating spent nuclear fuel on-site without a long-term disposal solution, creating a persistent environmental liability. The company's operations have contributed to Japan's broader radioactive waste management challenge. According to Japan's 2011 National Report to the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, utilities like Hokkaido Electric are responsible for managing the spent fuel and radioactive waste generated by their reactors. The environmental risk stems from the ongoing on-site storage of high-level radioactive waste and the potential for contamination from any future incident, given the plant's location in a seismically active region. While no single catastrophic event like Fukushima is attributed to Hokkaido Electric, the documented pattern of safety regulatory failures and the indefinite storage of hazardous nuclear materials constitute a documented environmental risk. |
| NRG | NRG Energy Inc | NRG Energy has a documented history of environmental damage linked to its legacy fossil fuel generation fleet, particularly concerning coal ash contamination. In June 2019, the Illinois Pollution Control Board found NRG liable for coal ash pollution at its power plants in the state, a ruling that followed public hearings on the risks posed by the toxic waste. This liability stems from the company's operation of coal-fired power plants, which generate coal ash containing hazardous substances like arsenic, lead, and mercury. The company's environmental record includes multiple enforcement actions. In 2012, its subsidiary Louisiana Generating agreed to a settlement requiring approximately $250 million in spending to reduce air pollution. Earlier, in a 1999 lawsuit filed by the New York Attorney General, NRG's predecessor was cited for over 50 Clean Air Act violations between 1982 and 1999 related to its power plants. A 2013 settlement concerning a Portland power plant required NRG to invest $1 million in environmental projects in New Jersey and Connecticut. Further, a 2017 water pollution violation resulted in a $50,000 penalty from Maryland environmental regulators. While NRG has announced a strategic shift toward renewable energy, these legal findings and settlements document a pattern of operational negligence causing tangible ecological harm, specifically through the management of toxic byproducts from its power generation assets. |
| BHEL | Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd | Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) is a major Indian government-owned manufacturer of power generation equipment, including boilers, turbines, and generators primarily for coal-fired power plants. The company's core business is directly tied to the construction and expansion of coal-based energy infrastructure, a sector with documented severe environmental impacts including land degradation, air pollution, and deforestation. The Council on Ethics for Norway's Government Pension Fund Global recommended BHEL's exclusion in December 2016 due to an unacceptable risk of severe environmental damage. The assessment cited the company's central role in building coal power plants, which are a primary global source of greenhouse gas emissions and criteria air pollutants. While specific incident reports from the provided evidence are fragmented, the exclusion by a major sovereign wealth fund was based on the determination that BHEL's industrial activities contribute concretely to ecological harm. BHEL's own vendor and contractor documents, which place liability for property damage on third parties, indicate the company operates in an industrial context where environmental risks from construction and operations are a material concern. The company's product portfolio remains heavily focused on fossil fuel-based power systems, with no significant evidence of a strategic transition away from this environmentally damaging business line. |
| SSL | Sasol Limited | Sasol Limited operates a large-scale coal-to-liquids (CTL) and gas-to-liquids (GTL) complex in Secunda, South Africa, which is the world’s single largest point-source of greenhouse gas emissions. Beyond its massive air pollution, the company’s operations have caused extensive documented environmental damage. The Secunda complex and its associated coal mining activities have degraded the Mpumalanga Highveld, contaminating soil and water resources with sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and other pollutants. A 2017 report titled “The Destruction of the Highveld Part 2: Burning Coal” detailed the ecological harm from Sasol’s operations, linking them to acid mine drainage and habitat destruction. The company’s environmental record includes liability for significant pollution incidents. Sasol’s own regulatory filings acknowledge material risks from “environmental damage or pollution” and stipulate strict liability for certain violations under South African law. Its sustainability reporting framework, overseen by the Board’s Social and Ethics Committee, is designed to address the “potential to create significant degradation or pollution to the environment,” indicating the scale of inherent operational risk. While the company publishes sustainability and climate reports, its 2023 disclosure admitted it may not meet its 2030 emission reduction targets, and it remains the country's largest private greenhouse gas emitter. |
| 000538 | Yunnan Baiyao Group Co., Ltd. | Yunnan Baiyao Group Co., Ltd. uses and sells body parts from pangolins, a globally endangered species, as ingredients in its traditional Chinese medicine products. The company’s reliance on this threatened species creates an unacceptable risk of contributing to severe environmental damage—specifically, the depletion of endangered wildlife and the potential facilitation of illegal trade. The Council on Ethics for Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global concluded that the company contributes to this damage, citing a lack of transparency regarding the quantity of pangolin scales used, their origin, the status of stockpiles, and how those stockpiles are replenished. The company asserted it purchased pangolin scales legally from official stockpiles, but the Council on Ethics maintained that using body parts from endangered species constitutes an unacceptable risk even when sourced from purported legal channels—a position upheld in its recommendation of May 27, 2021, leading to the fund’s exclusion decision on December 21, 2021. Crucially, Yunnan Baiyao has not disclosed any specific plans to replace ingredients derived from threatened species with alternatives, nor has it provided verifiable data to demonstrate its operations do not exacerbate the extinction risk for pangolins. The absence of such commitments or a credible transition plan underscores the ongoing severe environmental risk inherent in its supply chain. |
| RPOWER | Reliance Power Ltd | Reliance Power Ltd operates a fleet of coal-fired power plants, including the 4,000 MW Sasan Ultra Mega Power Project in Madhya Pradesh, one of the largest integrated power generation and coal mining projects in India. The company's primary business is thermal power generation, an activity with documented significant adverse environmental impacts including land degradation, water contamination, and air pollution. The company's environmental record includes operational incidents linked to its projects. In December 2024, India's top renewable energy agency, the Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI), withdrew a ban that had prohibited Reliance Power from participating in renewable energy auctions. While the reason for the initial ban was not publicly detailed by SECI, such regulatory actions typically follow findings of non-compliance or contractual breaches, suggesting prior governance failures in its project execution or environmental commitments. Available public documentation, including Environmental and Social Impact Assessment reports for Reliance Power projects, repeatedly flags the risk of significant adverse environmental impacts from its operations. The company's own Business Responsibility and Sustainability Policy states it should assess environmental damage and bear the cost of pollution abatement, indicating an acknowledgment of the inherent destructive potential of its core business activities. |
| WY | Weyerhaeuser | Weyerhaeuser has accumulated significant environmental penalties and liabilities related to its industrial operations. In 1998, the company’s pulp and paper mill in Longview, Washington, settled an EPA complaint for over $700,000. More recently, in January 2025, the Washington Department of Ecology issued a $145,000 penalty to Weyerhaeuser’s Longview lumber mill for 36 stormwater discharge violations, including 15 instances of noncompliance with permit limits. In October 2023, an environmental group filed a lawsuit alleging the company’s lumber mill regularly discharged wastewater exceeding permitted volumes and containing pollutants like oil and grease into the Columbia River, violating the Clean Water Act. The company’s history includes multiple sites requiring environmental cleanup. Legal records from the 1990s indicate Weyerhaeuser was involved in efforts to address pollution damage at various locations, with situations requiring mandatory reporting of leaks, spills, or contamination to authorities. In 2025, the Washington Legislature allocated $20 million to clean up the former Weyerhaeuser Mill A site on Port Gardner Bay. ViolationTracker documents air pollution penalties against the company totaling in the tens of millions of dollars. This pattern of regulatory enforcement, alongside ongoing litigation and cleanup liabilities, demonstrates documented environmental harm from its operations. |
| GLNCY | Glencore PLC | Glencore PLC operates a global portfolio of mining and commodity trading assets with a documented pattern of environmental damage across multiple continents. The company has faced formal findings of failure to prevent and mitigate toxic spills, as well as ongoing litigation and complaints related to contamination. In January 2021, the UK government accepted a human rights complaint against Glencore regarding a toxic wastewater spill at its Badila oilfield in Chad. This was followed by a November 2024 finding from the British government that Glencore UK failed to take appropriate measures to prevent and mitigate that 2018 spill. In Canada, a class action lawsuit was filed in late 2023 against Glencore and the Quebec government over emissions from its Horne copper smelter in Rouyn-Noranda. In Peru, a 2023 report titled "A Toxic Legacy" provided recent evidence of environmental impacts from Glencore's mining activities, while communities near its Antapaccay copper mine have alleged exposure to toxic heavy metals. The company's environmental footprint is linked to its core extractive operations. MSCI has assessed controversies relating to water access at the Cerrejón coal mine in Colombia, a joint venture where Glencore holds a significant stake. This pattern of incidents across its owned and joint venture assets indicates systemic issues in environmental management within its global operations. |
| AU | Anglogold Ashanti Ltd | AngloGold Ashanti's Obuasi mine in Ghana has been the site of at least 11 officially reported cyanide spillages between 1989 and 2003, with the frequency increasing to approximately 13 spillages by 2006. Studies documented arsenic concentrations in process effluent averaging 10.0 mg/L — well above safe drinking water standards — along with cyanide at 21.6 mg/L and copper at 3.1 mg/L. More than 52% of the population in the mining area lacks potable water. The company's arsenic contamination at the Sansu tailings dam near Obuasi has been the subject of multiple peer-reviewed studies documenting elevated heavy metal concentrations in surrounding rivers and soils. Separately, in 2015 AngloGold Ashanti's Guinea subsidiary forcibly displaced communities near its Siguiri gold mine. When residents of "Area One" refused the company's resettlement terms, AngloGold requested the Guinean government make the land available; state security forces including the Berets Rouges carried out evictions with violence, intimidation, and arbitrary arrests. Displaced families were resettled without water, schooling, or healthcare. A six-year mediation through the World Bank's Compliance Advisor Ombudsman concluded in September 2024 with a financial settlement. Norway's Government Pension Fund Global Ethics Council recommended divestment from AngloGold Ashanti in 2013 citing serious environmental damage in Ghana. |
| FCX | Freeport-McMoRan Inc | Freeport-McMoRan operates one of the world's largest copper and gold mines at Grasberg in Papua, Indonesia, a site with a decades-long record of environmental damage. The company's practice of disposing of mine tailings directly into the Ajkwa River system has resulted in widespread deforestation and the contamination of downstream ecosystems across an estimated 230 square kilometers of lowland rainforest. This ongoing deposition of waste rock has fundamentally altered the river's course and buried local waterways. Legal and regulatory actions document the pattern. In 1997, a landmark lawsuit, *Beanal v. Freeport-McMoRan*, alleged the company committed environmental torts and cultural genocide through its mining operations. In 2012, Freeport-McMoRan agreed to pay $6.8 million to settle federal and state natural resource damage claims related to pollution from its Morenci copper mine in Arizona, indicating similar environmental management issues within its U.S. operations. An academic environmental history of the company links it to "serious adverse environmental impacts" due to operational negligence. While the company has implemented some environmental management programs in recent years, the foundational impact of its riverine tailings disposal at Grasberg—a method largely prohibited in many other mining jurisdictions—represents a persistent and material legacy of ecological damage. |
| COALINDIA | Coal India Ltd | Coal India Limited, a state-owned enterprise that accounts for over 80% of India's domestic coal production, operates extensive open-cast and underground mines that have caused documented, widespread environmental destruction. The company's operations are linked to deforestation, toxic contamination of soil and water, and permanent landscape degradation in mining regions. A 2019 report by India's Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) identified systemic failures in how Coal India manages environmental safety and mitigates the impact of its mining activities. The National Green Tribunal has found subsidiary South Eastern Coalfields guilty of causing environmental damage. Independent studies of soil near Coal India's mining regions confirm the accumulation of toxic elements like chromium, a primary route for heavy metal contamination. Further notices have been issued by state pollution regulators, such as in Odisha in 2018, to mines with a combined annual capacity of 20 million tonnes. The environmental harm is not incidental but intrinsic to the scale of operation. Scientific reviews describe the exposure of toxic substances from mined rock masses, leading to polluted soil-water systems and acid drainage. This pattern of ecological damage, validated by national audit and judicial bodies, demonstrates a failure to control the fundamental environmental consequences of its core business. |
+ 293 more companies excluded under this screen
Sign in to see the full list. We cap the public list to keep our research from being scraped wholesale.
The Naughty List
A digest of changes to our exclusion list — new additions, removals, and the evidence behind them. We review the list continuously as new evidence surfaces.
RSS feed
No spam · Unsubscribe anytime