THE EARTH IS THE BOARDROOM NOW
- Jojo Mehta
- 6 days ago
- 6 min read
Updated: 6 days ago
To say that the Earth is the boardroom now is to recognise that all economic activity takes place within a living system with limits we cannot override.
Boardrooms exist to grapple with risk, responsibility and limits. In that sense, the metaphor is useful. The Earth is not the business being managed. It is the boundary condition within which every serious decision must now be made.
Last December, the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court adopted a new policy addressing environmental damage as a central consideration in the investigation and prosecution of existing international crimes. For the first time, harm to ecosystems will be treated as legally relevant and significant in the context of international criminal law.
This shift reflects a broader global movement defining the most serious forms of environmental destruction as ecocide, making mass harm to nature a matter of personal criminal accountability rather than regulatory or voluntary compliance.
THE COORDINATION PROBLEM
There is an uncomfortable but widely observed truth about corporate sustainability. Even the most committed companies are trapped in a system where doing the right thing places them at a competitive disadvantage.
Investment in cleaner supply chains is undercut by competitors who externalise costs.
Environmental safeguards are met with regulatory arbitrage as operations shift to jurisdictions with weaker standards.
Transparency on impacts brings little reward, while those who disclose less face few consequences.
For intrapreneurs navigating complex institutions, this matters more than it might first appear.
Ecocide law has the power to reshape incentives and clarify what responsible decision-making looks like before irreversible harm occurs. And right now, that reshaping is happening faster than most organisations realise.
Ecocide is an apex crime. It sets that outer boundary beyond which conduct is no longer legally or morally permissible. By defining a threshold for harm that is both severe and either widespread or long-term, it removes the worst forms of environmental destruction from competition altogether.
Voluntary action, however genuine, cannot solve a coordination problem. Fragmentation across jurisdictions and vulnerability to lobbying and economic pressure end up leaving markets to reward the cheapest product by default, while damage to ecosystems, communities and future generations continues unpriced. Markets ultimately organise themselves around boundaries, not intentions. Without an outer limit, competition encourages convergence at the margin of what remains permissible, rewarding harm that remains lawful and profitable.
Ecocide is an apex crime. It sets that outer boundary beyond which conduct is no longer legally or morally permissible. By defining a threshold for harm that is both severe and either widespread or long-term, it removes the worst forms of environmental destruction from competition altogether. The competitive dynamic is reshaped. Refusing to cause irreversible harm no longer implies a discouraging cost.
This is why support for the recognition of ecocide is now emerging from within the business and finance community itself. The International Corporate Governance Network, whose members represent more than USD 75 trillion in assets under management, have explicitly called on governments to recognise ecocide as a crime. Companies with global reach, including Patagonia, Lush, Tony’s Chocolonely, Natura and Triodos Bank, have publicly aligned themselves with this call. They are joined by serious financial and engineering actors, including the Swedish pension provider SPP, the Nordic technical consultancy Rejlers, and investor networks such as Pensions for Purpose, all of which have argued openly for ecocide to be criminalised. The motivation is not altruism, though that may be present, but recognition that legal clarity is the only mechanism capable of protecting responsible actors from being systematically undercut by those willing to cause severe harm.
FROM CONCEPT TO CRIME
These developments, long treated as speculative, are now being written into law.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo has added its support to the pioneering voices of Pacific island nations (Vanuatu, Fiji, Samoa) reinforcing a cross-regional movement led by states that are home to ecosystems and resources of immense global value, integral to global supply chains, while bearing a disproportionate share of environmental destruction.
Europe’s revised Environmental Crime Directive already requires all EU member states to criminalise some conduct comparable to ecocide in domestic law by May next year. In parallel, the Council of Europe has opened for signature a Convention addressing offences “tantamount to ecocide”, already signed by Portugal, Latvia, the European Union and Moldova. At the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment, environment ministers agreed to make ecocide law a continental priority. At the IUCN World Conservation Congress, governments and civil society representing the vast majority of the Union’s more than 1,400 member organisations, including states, public agencies and NGOs from every region of the world, voted overwhelmingly to support recognising ecocide as a serious crime.
At the national level, proposals to criminalise ecocide are advancing across the globe, spanning jurisdictions as diverse as India, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Argentina, Peru, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Scotland and French Polynesia.
Civil society support is equally clear. Ipsos polling across multiple countries shows strong public backing for recognising ecocide as a crime, extending well beyond environmentally engaged audiences.
For those working inside organisations, this changes the conversation. When severe environmental destruction carries criminal liability, intrapreneurs are no longer arguing against economic logic. They are arguing for legal compliance and risk management.
WHERE INTRAPRENEURS COME IN
Ecocide law is moving through international bodies, regional conventions, and national legislatures at a pace that could catch unprepared organisations off guard. The question is no longer whether this will happen, but how quickly, and whether organisations position themselves ahead of the shift or scramble to adjust after the fact.
For those working inside organisations, this changes the conversation. When severe environmental destruction carries criminal liability, intrapreneurs are no longer arguing against economic logic. They are arguing for legal compliance and risk management.
Organisations that act early have the opportunity to engage constructively: to support the recognition of ecocide in policy, to examine supply chains for exposure to severe environmental harm, and to ensure governance structures are equipped to address emerging forms of criminal liability.
This is a matter of risk management in the fullest sense, encompassing legal, financial and reputational exposure, as ecocide thresholds take legal form.
Those working to drive change from within organisations often see the limits of voluntary ambition first. From inside boardrooms and supply chains, intrapreneurs witness where good intentions collide with competitive pressure, fiduciary duties and legal uncertainty. Progress stalls not because the case for action is unclear, but because the rules still reward those willing to cause greater harm. Ecocide law addresses this directly.
Beyond that, recognising ecocide as a serious crime has a profoundly important cultural effect - it shifts our understanding of our relationship with the living world. When severe environmental harm becomes not only a regulatory infraction but a moral taboo, we are (belatedly) recognising an incontrovertible reality. We depend wholly and entirely upon the healthy functioning of Earth’s vital ecosystems. Protecting them in law just as we protect our own lives is, in the end, the very same thing.
Those working to drive change from within organisations often see the limits of voluntary ambition first. From inside boardrooms and supply chains, intrapreneurs witness where good intentions collide with competitive pressure, fiduciary duties and legal uncertainty. Progress stalls not because the case for action is unclear, but because the rules still reward those willing to cause greater harm. Ecocide law addresses this directly.
Beyond that, recognising ecocide as a serious crime has a profoundly important cultural effect - it shifts our understanding of our relationship with the living world. When severe environmental harm becomes not only a regulatory infraction but a moral taboo, we are (belatedly) recognising an incontrovertible reality. We depend wholly and entirely upon the healthy functioning of Earth’s vital ecosystems. Protecting them in law just as we protect our own lives is, in the end, the very same thing.
Jojo Mehta, co-founder and executive director of Stop Ecocide, has shaped the international movement to recognize ecocide as a crime, driving legal, diplomatic, and public engagement, and sharing her expertise at conferences, summits, and in major media worldwide, including The Guardian, The New York Times, Time, and the BBC.
Comments