When we think of environmental damage, images of vast clouds above factories may come to mind, along with news reports about PFAS in chicken eggs, waste trafficking and soil contamination. Environmental damage takes many different forms and has a profound impact on our planet, society and health. But what does science tell us about environmental harm? How do professionals, local residents and health organisations view it, and what can be done about it? These and many other questions were central to the symposium From Damage to Recovery, held on 9 December 2025. This article takes you through knowledge from the past, present experiences and ambitions for the future approach to environmental damage.
Environmental damage manifests itself in many ways, ranging from chemical emissions and waste trafficking to biodiversity loss and soil pollution. It has both direct and indirect consequences for public health, ecosystems and social stability. This also puts systems of monitoring and enforcement under pressure: government institutions struggle to address environmental damage effectively, while affected communities often feel excluded from discussions about solutions. In recent years, environmental damage has received increasing attention in public debate, but the key question remains: can environmental damage actually be repaired, or prevented in the future?
How did environmental damage come about?
Lieselot Bisschop, Professor of Public and Private Interests, and Karin van Wingerde, Professor of Corporate Crime and Governance, have been researching the origins, effects and regulation of environmental damage for many years. They examined how the approach to industrial pollution has developed in the Netherlands since the 1960s. Using the cases of Hoogovens/Tata Steel and DuPont/Chemours, Bisschop and Van Wingerde outline these developments: “Despite local differences in regulation and variations in the development of the two companies and industries, our longitudinal analysis points to shared mechanisms in the interactions between government and industry regarding industrial pollution across four periods since the 1960s. In these interactions, we identify five interdependent patterns that have contributed to the emergence and persistence of harmful behaviour: the knowledge asymmetry between government and companies; the way regulation and permitting are developed in consultation with industry; economic dependence on industry, which causes health and environmental protection to be given lower priority; institutional fragmentation on the government side, leading to insufficient consideration of societal interests; and, finally, juridification, whereby cases become entangled in administrative, civil and criminal law. This demonstrates how interactions between regulation and industry can facilitate persistent environmental harm. The analysis also sheds light on the structural dynamics that normalise pollution and make accountability and reform increasingly difficult over time. In other words, deeply rooted patterns from the past continue to shape and constrain the present.”
Enforcement challenges in environmental crime
These bottlenecks are also widely recognised in practice. Professionals point, for example, to both the possibilities and the limitations of criminal law. Criminal law can only investigate or prosecute conduct that has previously been defined as a criminal offence. In the DuPont/Chemours case, in which criminal complaints were filed on behalf of more than 3,000 local residents, it became clear that companies had been aware of the risks associated with certain substances since the 1960s, yet decided to continue using them in the 1980s. While this can make it possible to legally establish intent, it simultaneously illustrates how difficult it is to prove unlawfulness when activities have taken place under valid permits.
Research by the Netherlands Court of Audit into environmental monitoring and enforcement also highlights significant shortcomings. Its most recent report, Door de mazen van toezicht en handhaving (2025)), draws on 50 reports produced over recent decades and takes measure of the situation. The report emphasises that information management within central government is inadequate, leading to clear knowledge asymmetries, unclear enforcement choices and, ultimately, a reduced likelihood of detection.
How can we make invisible environmental crime visible?
Today, environmental damage is more visible than ever, partly thanks to investigative journalism. A prominent example is the Forever Pollution Project, in which an international team of journalists and researchers used open-source investigation methods to map global PFAS contamination. This journalistic collective works closely with scientists through a model of expert-reviewed journalism. PFAS has been described by scientists, regulators and the wider public as the “poison of the century”, with severe consequences for people and the environment. The project identified tens of thousands of sites affected by PFAS contamination, which had long remained largely out of sight because PFAS use is widespread yet poorly documented.
How lobbying slows down the regulation of PFAS
“That this crisis remained invisible for so long is no coincidence,” states Stéphane Horel, investigative journalist at Le Monde and initiator of both the Forever Pollution Project (2023) and the Forever Lobbying Project (2025). She explains: “Regulation often only follows once harm has been proven, while industry lobbying sows doubt about scientific consensus and emphasises economic necessity.” In the follow-up Forever Lobbying Project, journalists investigated how existing knowledge about these risks can be diminished and escape political and societal attention. Their findings show that lobbying activities play a major role: a wide range of often unfounded claims are used to legitimise the continued use of PFAS and to delay regulation. On average, it can take nine years before a specific PFAS substance is regulated, usually only after harm has been demonstrated rather than on the basis of precautionary safety testing. The project also exposed the enormous costs involved in addressing this environmental crisis.
Societal pressure is urgently needed
In practice, local residents and professionals play a crucial role in bringing environmental damage to public attention. Residents have been pointing to health risks for years, but their concerns are often only taken seriously after prolonged pressure, public attention and concrete evidence of health impact. Public health services (GGD) also stress that industrial pollution presents complex challenges, particularly when it comes to identifying health effects and assessing risks. These risks are not determined solely by individual substances, but also by combined exposures and other health-related factors influencing public health.
This makes the assessment of health damage highly complex and raises fundamental questions. Why does the burden of proof lie with the victims of environmental crime? Why is health not systematically given greater weight than economic interests? And why are these trade-offs not communicated transparently?
All this knowledge, insight and experience lead scientists, professionals and the public to a central question: how can this persistent problem be addressed more effectively in the future, and what role can science play in this?
How can we tackle environmental damage more effectively and possibly prevent it in the future?
Although all the experts present ,Arnold Posthuma (ILT-IOD), Revelino Vieira (Police), Hannah Prins (Advocates for the Future), Lizette Vosman (Victim Support Fund) and Tim Piek (DCMR), reflected from their own perspectives on ways to address environmental damage in the future, their ambitions revealed striking consensus: a more effective approach requires structural change and collaboration. Recovery begins with the recognition that environmental crime is not a victimless offence. According to the experts involved, three key challenges lie ahead. First, the legal toolkit must be strengthened, both through better use of existing regulations and by creating new instruments to address environmental damage more decisively and preventively. Second, the nature, scale and impact of environmental damage must be made more visible, with explicit attention to health effects and the experiences of victims. This is essential for generating political priority and freeing up capacity. Finally, more intensive knowledge sharing and collaboration are needed between enforcement agencies, science and society, but also throughout the entire chain of supervision and enforcement.
The common thread is that environmental damage can no longer be regarded as an abstract or victimless problem; it directly affects our health. Awareness, improved knowledge-sharing and collective agenda-setting are seen as crucial conditions for achieving change, not by waiting, but by jointly addressing existing gaps and structurally elevating environmental damage on the political and societal agenda. Cooperation between science, government, professionals and citizens is therefore not a luxury, but a necessity. The question is no longer whether have the knowledge, but whether we are willing to act on it. What more do we need to know to truly feel the danger and urgency? Environmental crime harms us all.
- More information
This symposium was organised by Lieselot Bisschop and Karin van Wingerde (Erasmus School of Law), Vinzenz Baumer Escobar (Resilient Delta Initiative) and Mariëlle Beenackers (Erasmus Medical Centre), and funded by the Sector Plan for Law (Rebalancing Public Interests in Private Relationships) and the Erasmus Initiative Dynamics of Inclusive Prosperity.
With thanks to all speakers, panellists and members of the audience for their indispensable experiences, insights, critical questions and for highlighting opportunities for further research and collaboration, including Stéphane Horel (investigative journalist at Le Monde), Mirre Dijk (Ficq & Partners Lawyers), Johan van Wilsem (Netherlands Court of Audit), Anneke van Veen (Programme Lead on Healthy Living Environments and resident of Dordrecht), Judith Dijkers (GGD Health, Environment and Safety Brabant), Wouter Sieuwerts (artist at Tolly Wolly Studio and designer of The Golden Connection), Lizette Vosman (Victim Support Fund), Arnold Posthuma (Intelligence and Investigation Service at the Inspectorate for the Living Environment and Transport), Revelino Vieira (Rotterdam Harbour Police), Tim Piek (DCMR Environmental Protection Agency Rijnmond) and Hannah Prins (Advocates for the Future).
