Introduction

In the modern world, environmental pollution has acquired a global dimension, especially in the context of the activities of large industrial enterprises and businesses. As one of the leading economies of the world, the USA also faces enormous environmental challenges caused by large-scale industrial activities, resource extraction, and widespread use of technology. In response to these threats, a comprehensive legal framework has been developed to regulate civil liability (CL) for environmental damage.

An important role in ensuring environmental safety and fair compensation for damage caused to the environment is played by CL. Its mechanisms include financial compensation for damages and obligations to eliminate the consequences of environmental harm, which is especially relevant for large corporations and industrial enterprises whose activities have a substantial impact on nature and society. Nevertheless, all these mechanisms, when put into practice, present some difficulties: legal contradiction, difficulty in the control and proof of environmental damages, and strategies of corporations to avoid responsibility. The aim of this study is to explore the legal aspects of CL for environmental damage in the USA.

Main part. Legal framework of CL in the USA

Representing a complex and multifaceted system of legal acts, CL for environmental damage combines federal legislation with norms at the state level. This structure allows for multi-level regulation of environmental risks. Its primary goal is to compensate for damages, restore the disrupted ecological balance, and prevent repeated instances of harm.

At the federal level, CL is based on several foundational acts that establish the obligations of enterprises to take measures for the mitigation of the effects of pollution and compensation for damages. One of such acts is the Clean Air Act, which aims at preventing emissions of noxious substances into the atmosphere. It requires companies to monitor the level of their emissions and establishes civil penalties, including fines and requirements for pollution remediation, for violations. One of the salient features of this law is that companies must be able to adopt technologies that reduce air pollution and monitor the level of emission regularly.

Another important legal act is the Clean Water Act, which regulates the discharge of industrial waste and wastewater into water resources. According to the law, companies must obtain permits for discharges and comply with strict water quality standards [1]. Violations result in CL, including financial sanctions and mandatory ecosystem restoration measures. Judicial practice demonstrates that significant rulings against major industrial corporations polluting rivers, lakes, and other water bodies have been based on this law.

Among various parts of the liability system, one prominent piece of legislation stands Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), which manages large-scale pollution releases that also involve accidents or spills, for which liable businesses should pay all site clean-up costs or fund remedial measures that return natural environments to acceptable standards [2]. The importance of this law is in its retrospective power: companies can be held liable for pollution that happened long before the existence of this law if their activities are found to be the cause of the damage. Also, CERCLA introduces joint and several liability mechanisms that allow the costs to be distributed among multiple responsible parties.

Mechanisms of CL include not only monetary compensation but also obligations to restore the damaged environment and include in themselves environmental protection activity and the remediation of ecological damage. In this context, the principles of «polluter pays» and «precaution» are highly relevant in USA legal practice. The «polluter pays» means that whoever endangers or damages the environment must carry the costs associated with putting it right in addition to paying for environmentally related measures and compensation, while under the precautionary principle, environmental damage may be anticipated and preventive action taken when there is, as yet, no completely reliable evidence on cause and effect. It calls for risk assessments and the imposition of restrictions on activities that might cause serious environmental damage in order to reduce the likelihood of irreversible damage.

The CL system also allows the filing of suits against large enterprises by government agencies, private individuals, or groups of citizens. Class-action lawsuits have thus become a viable tool to protect the interests of affected communities and urge companies toward stricter environmental standards. Judicial practice indicates that substantial compensations awarded to plaintiffs not only redress the damage but also establish precedents that have a disciplinary impact on other companies.

In addition to federal acts, state-level legislation plays a crucial role. States can set stricter environmental standards and impose additional requirements on industrial enterprises. For example, California enforces stringent carbon emission and air pollution control regulations that often exceed federal standards. As a result, businesses operating in multiple states must adapt to varying requirements, necessitating additional financial and organizational resources.

Thus, the legal framework for CL represents a system designed to minimize environmental risks, restore damaged ecosystems, and hold responsible parties accountable. Its multi-level nature ensures a combination of government oversight and legal mechanisms that promote the principles of sustainable development and environmental conservation.

Forms of CL and methods of damage compensation

Effective regulation of environmental violations committed by large enterprises in the USA is based on CL mechanisms. These mechanisms are aimed at compensating for environmental damage, restoring disturbed ecosystems and preventing similar incidents in the future. These include financial sanctions, lawsuits, collective action, and environmental remediation measures. These measures are being taken at both the federal and state levels, providing multi-level control and encouraging enterprises to comply with environmental standards (table 1).

Table 1

Forms of CL [3, 4]

In the author’s opinion, this structure not only compensates for the damage caused but also creates a significant preventive effect for businesses, forcing companies to consider environmental risks at all stages of their operations. The application of various forms of liability ensures a balance between penalizing violators, restoring natural environments, and protecting the interests of affected communities.

Analysis of the landmark cases of CL shows that industrial giants can be made liable for environmental damage on a large scale. For example, in the case of Exxon Valdez, 1989, it was reported that millions of barrels of oil spilled into the sea off the coast of Alaska. Several hundred thousand tons of oil spread over large areas of the sea and beaches, thus destroying the ecology of seabirds and marine mammals. Those compensations ran into billions of dollars, part of which went to clean up and rehabilitate the ecosystems in that region [5].

In the case of 3M, one of the largest producers of industrial materials in the world, it was clear that prolonged industrial waste discharge would bring very serious outcomes regarding public health and the state of the environment. Under class-action lawsuits over toxic substance contamination of drinking water, this company agreed to pay compensation amounting to $10,3 billion. This case became a critical precedent, confirming the effectiveness of the USA legal system in holding transnational corporations accountable for environmental damage and protecting the interests of affected communities [6].

Despite the existence of a well-developed legal framework, the application of CL norms to large enterprises faces a number of challenges and difficulties. One of the most serious difficulties is proving fault. Proving the causal link between a company’s actions and particular environmental damage often requires very expensive and complicated expert analyses, especially in cases where pollution has occurred over a long period of time. Companies often use legal and technical arguments to contest their liability, which delays the legal process for several years.

There are also problems with determining the extent of damages. Environmental damage often occurs over a long period of time and cannot always be precisely valued in economic terms [7]. For instance, loss of biodiversity or deterioration of public health may have effects that appear many years later, which can be difficult to address within one case. In such instances, courts rely on expert evaluations and forecasts, which can sometimes lead to disputes between the parties involved. Another significant issue is the length of legal proceedings. This not only reduces the effectiveness of enforcement but also increases the costs of environmental restoration, particularly if the damage continues to worsen during the legal process.

Nevertheless, despite these challenges, successful precedents demonstrate that CL is an effective tool in combating environmental violations. Holding large companies liable ensures compensation for damages and incentivizes businesses to adopt more sustainable and safer methods of operation. Further development of the legal framework, elaboration of better methods for environmental damage assessment, and enhancement of industrial enterprise control are promising directions of perfecting CL norms for the future.

Measures to prevent environmental damage and reduce CL

Effective prevention of environmental damage and the reduction of CL are critical tasks for large businesses and industrial enterprises. In light of very strict environmental legislation and more frequent cases against companies, the adoption of environmentally sustainable practices has become not only a legal obligation but also a tool for long-term strategic development (fig. 1).

Figure 1. Measures to prevent environmental damage

The main approaches include environmentally friendly technologies. Advanced technologies, for instance, the emission treatment and wastewater treatment systems would reduce the amount of damages to the environment. On some occasions, advanced filtration and the closed-loop production cycle also reduce the levels of emissions of greenhouse gases and poisonous substances to maintain the extreme standards of environmental protection, while innovative recycling technologies with recycling materials decrease the level of industrial emissions and pollution in general.

Additionally, enterprises can develop and implement programs to reduce environmental pollution. These include monitoring of emission and waste levels, regular environmental audits, and the implementation of focused policies to improve environmental efficiency [8]. For example, large companies in energy and industrial sectors increasingly use energy-efficient production systems that greatly reduce their carbon footprint and further promote resource conservation.

The development of corporate environmental policies and sustainable development strategy is another measure to minimize the risks of CL. Companies can implement voluntary environmental risk management programs, including environmental, social, and managerial responsibility systems, which involve monitoring and reducing negative impacts on nature. Environmental standards and certifications help businesses comply with the international requirements and promote a sustainable production.

Another valuable tool is collaboration with regulatory authorities and public organizations. Companies also get the chance to adapt more effectively to changes in legislation through active engagement with government agencies such as the USA Environmental Protection Agency, thus reducing the risk of violations. Participating in joint environmental protection projects and initiatives attests to corporate social responsibility, reinforces company reputations, and reduces the possibility of court cases.

Finally, one of the most important ways to prevent environmental damage is training and raising employees’ environmental awareness. Companies can implement professional development programs focused on educating personnel about safe waste management, compliance with environmental standards, and minimizing production risks. Building an environmentally conscious corporate culture fosters a responsible approach to natural resources at all organizational levels.

In summary, preventing environmental harm and reducing CL require a systemic approach that includes technological innovation, strategic planning, collaboration with regulatory bodies, and fostering environmental awareness. Implementing these measures not only minimizes environmental risks but also improves companies’ reputations, creating conditions for sustainable and responsible business practices.

Conclusion

An important mechanism for ensuring damage compensation, restoration of ecosystems and prevention of repeated violations is CL. The well-developed legal framework at both federal and regional levels enables holding large enterprises and businesses accountable for environmental offenses. As practice shows, lawsuits and class actions help protect the interests of affected communities and establish significant precedents, encouraging companies to comply with environmental regulations.

Nonetheless, challenges remain in the application of CL norms, including proving causation, determining the extent of damages, and the protracted nature of legal proceedings. Despite these difficulties, successful cases demonstrate the USA legal system’s ability to effectively regulate environmental risks and hold even large corporations accountable. Adopting environmentally friendly technologies, strategic planning, and raising environmental awareness are essential measures for reducing environmental damage and ensuring sustainable business development.