|
|
|
The law has become increasingly effective in forcing companies to respect the environment, or at least operate with the
environment in mind. Companies have as a result of mounting court costs been forced to measure in terms of cost the choice to
operate without regard to the ecosystems they affect. In many cases, once a company is sued, it becomes not a choice of
whether or not to pay, but rather who to pay, the lawyers or the environmental activists. At the very least, companies are
faced with the reality that it is becoming cost inefficient to fight the environmental community in court. It is becoming in
many ways bad business to protect their right to follow pro-development policy.
In January of 2003, the Seaboard Corporation, a major pork producer primarily based in Oklahoma opted to settle a lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club's national organization. This lawsuit was part of a comprehensive policy aimed at using litigation to solicit concessions from environmentally offensive companies. While Seaboard's supplied reason for settling denied that the Sierra Club had in any way coerced it into action by suing in the first place, the pork producer did acknowledge that "protracted legal costs" were persuasive in deciding the action that the company took in regards to the litigation. The settlement included improved pollution controls at several hog farms in Oklahoma, and a $100,000 donation to environmental efforts to save wetlands in the state. It is clearly discernable that the Sierra Club's usage of litigation to win environmental benefits is effective in today's society.
|
