How did AdvanSix pollute Virginia’s waterways for years? A deep dive into the EPA’s case against corporate misconduct in neoliberal capitalism.

In February 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 3 issued an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) against AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC, charging that the company’s Hopewell Plant in Virginia repeatedly violated the Clean Water Act (CWA) and its corresponding permit conditions—resulting in unpermitted pollutant discharges into waters of the United States. Although AdvanSix neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing, the content of the legal order itself details significant alleged misconduct and outlines the historical context for how such conduct might occur undetected for years. The facility’s repeated benchmark exceedances—documented in over 500 instances between 2016 and 2022—and unpermitted dry-weather discharges stood as the most damning evidence gathered by the EPA.

According to this EPA’s legal complaint, AdvanSix’s Hopewell Plant, sited on roughly 483 acres in Hopewell, Virginia, discharges industrial stormwater through various outfalls leading to the James River, Gravelly Run, and Poythress Run, all of which constitute waters of the United States. Such repeated exceedances over a prolonged period were not minor oversights: they reflected systemic breakdowns in the company’s compliance protocols. The allegations also demonstrated how broad structural failings—such as deregulation and inadequate oversight—may encourage corporations to view compliance and fines as “the cost of doing business.”

Beneath the legal language in the Administrative Order on Consent lie deeper issues that echo across industries: under neoliberal capitalism, corporations often employ “take the risk now, pay later” strategies. This approach emphasizes shareholder profit above public health, community well-being, and environmental stewardship. The AdvanSix case is neither entirely unique nor confined to a single industry. Instead, it stands as a potent case study in how the push for continuous growth and profit maximization can lead to routine disregard for environmental protections—disregard that disproportionately endangers local communities, especially economically vulnerable populations.

The following investigative article, structured into eleven sections, will scrutinize the key facts within the AOC while positioning them in the broader narrative of corporate accountability and economic fallout. We will also examine how recurring patterns of corporate greed—manifested via systematic pollution, inadequate management of industrial waste streams, and a reliance on outdated equipment and processes—reflect a broader global trend. Ultimately, this piece aims to show that what happened at Hopewell is not merely an unfortunate anomaly but one chapter in a larger story of profit-driven negligence, fueled by a system that too often privileges corporate interests over public health.

---

Corporate Intent Exposed

The legal source reveals that AdvanSix operates multiple manufacturing units that produce Nylon 6—a polymer resin used in automotive, electronics, packaging, and more—along with other chemical intermediaries such as caprolactam and ammonium sulfate. By any measure, these products require a complex array of chemical processes and generate significant industrial byproducts. According to the EPA’s AOC, AdvanSix faced numerous violations specifically tied to how they managed these byproducts when stormwater or other flows left their property.

The Evidence of Systemic Noncompliance

Under the terms of its Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) permit, AdvanSix was legally obligated to prevent harmful pollutants from entering state waters through outfalls designated only for stormwater discharges. Yet the Administrative Order on Consent describes 530 benchmark exceedances, spread across at least seven stormwater outfalls (numbered 904, 905, 906, 907, 909, 911, and 912) between September 7, 2016, and March 9, 2022. Benchmark pollutants included total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and various metals, all of which can degrade water quality, harm aquatic life, and pose risks to local communities.

Additionally, EPA inspections revealed unpermitted dry-weather discharges from outfalls that were supposed to handle rainwater only. Investigators reported red staining at one outfall—attributed to iron accumulation—along with suspicious flows at other outfalls during periods without rainfall. Such evidence suggests the possibility of routine seepage or pipeline leaks going undetected (or unaddressed), allowing pollutants to run off-site even in fair-weather conditions.

Although the Hopewell Plant’s permits allowed certain non-stormwater discharges—like fire hydrant flushings or foundation drains—none accounted for the chemical-laden flows that inspectors discovered. As a result, the unpermitted and potentially hazardous discharges drew immediate attention, since they contravened not only the text of the permit but the fundamental premise that industrial byproducts should never be released untreated into public waterways.

The Gap Between Knowledge and Action

A question often emerges in such disputes: Did corporate leadership fully understand the implications of these ongoing exceedances and discharges? In a highly regulated environment, it is generally impossible for a large facility not to know that multiple exceedances trigger legal obligations—indeed, AdvanSix was on notice to revise their Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) whenever benchmark exceedances occurred. The facility made some attempts at improvements, such as updating its SWPPP over the years to document new measures. Yet, by the AOC’s account, these interventions were not enough to bring the plant into sustainable compliance.

This pattern—knowing that a problem exists but failing to solve it—speaks to a deeper corporate approach wherein environmental compliance may be treated as secondary to operational imperatives. In the AOC, the EPA specifically highlighted that the repeated benchmark exceedances showed a lack of ongoing, effective control measures. In essence, AdvanSix allegedly never fully minimized or eliminated the pollutant loads, even as they repeatedly documented the problem. That is the heart of the wrongdoing described: repeated knowledge of violations, partial or minimal action taken, and continued transgressions persisting year after year.

To be clear, we should note that the AOC does not confirm the precise motives of corporate officers. Yet the pattern strongly suggests that the facility was at best slow and incomplete in implementing changes that would curb excess pollution. For local communities situated downstream, the difference between “slow to act” and “willfully ignoring” can be a moot point if it results in chronic contamination of shared water resources.

---

The Corporations Get Away With It

One of the most jarring realities spotlighted by this AOC is that, for years, the facility apparently operated out of compliance with its pollution controls—and faced little immediate accountability beyond routine notices and negotiations with regulators. This phenomenon reflects how large corporations, armed with legal teams and lobbyists, often manage to postpone or lessen the impact of meaningful enforcement actions.

Looping Through Permits and Extensions

According to the AOC, AdvanSix’s main VPDES permit (VA0005291) was “administratively extended” past its expiration date of July 21, 2021. Administrative extensions are legal mechanisms intended to allow a facility to continue operating under old permit conditions when the issuing agency has not reissued a new permit in time. While arguably necessary to prevent a sudden and disruptive shutdown, the effect can also be a further postponement of more rigorous or updated requirements.

In the broader context of neoliberal capitalism, it becomes clear how powerful industrial entities can leverage bureaucratic complexities—like protracted permit renewal processes—to continue polluting while official oversight lags. This is not to say that AdvanSix intentionally courted an expired permit, but the net outcome remains: potential pollution continued, and new or stricter controls took longer to implement.

Inadequate Fines and Penalties

Another reason corporations so frequently appear to “get away with it” is the disparity between the profits gleaned from ignoring pollution controls and the cost of regulatory penalties. Under the Clean Water Act, the EPA can impose significant fines, but the process of negotiating these penalties can be lengthy. By the time a settlement or order emerges—like the AOC in this matter—the damage may already be done.

It is telling that in many environmental enforcement actions, monetary penalties may be dwarfed by a large facility’s operating budget. Companies factor such fines into their risk assessments as a near-inevitable cost of doing business, especially when the underlying behavior is profitable. This logic often persists in industries that yield high margins on chemical products, especially fertilizers, plastics, and industrial organic chemicals.

The Broader Pattern of Regulatory Capture

Regulatory capture occurs when the agencies meant to police an industry become overly influenced by the entities they regulate. While no direct evidence of regulatory capture is described in the AOC itself, the broader pattern of repeated permit noncompliance and slow-moving enforcement certainly invites questions about the efficacy of the oversight process. After all, if more stringent requirements had been enforced promptly—and with immediate penalties—perhaps AdvanSix would have faced a more urgent mandate to address its stormwater pollution problems.

However, real-time, vigorous oversight of industrial facilities often requires robust agency budgets, staffing, and political will. Under a neoliberal framework, government agencies are frequently compelled to do more with less, and their ability to conduct unannounced inspections, track each exceedance, and enforce immediate remedies is constrained. In the end, a company that invests significantly in legal representation and lobbying can forestall the worst consequences or shape regulatory frameworks in its favor, thereby ensuring that they do not face swift or insurmountable punitive measures.

---

The Cost of Doing Business

In purely economic terms, the financial ramifications of polluting can be dwarfed by the promise of continued production. An especially illuminating point in the AOC is how the repeated exceedances for total nitrogen, total phosphorus, iron, and other pollutants dragged on over multiple years, suggesting that interim steps—such as improved best management practices—were not comprehensively taken. Shifting Environmental Costs Onto the Public

One of the hallmarks of neoliberal capitalism is the privatization of profit and socialization of risk. In the AdvanSix case, failing to control stormwater discharges—while continuing to produce large volumes of industrial products—passes the environmental burden onto the surrounding community. The waterbodies near the plant, including the James River, are shared resources sustaining local ecology, fisheries, and potentially recreation. When pollutants like nitrogen, phosphorus, and heavy metals spike, the cost of degraded waterways is borne by the broader public.

And it’s not just the direct environmental damage. Communities living downstream may witness fish kills, suffer reduced water quality, and see declines in property values if the area develops a reputation for industrial contamination. Aquatic ecosystems can be thrown out of balance, with algae blooms and reduced biodiversity emerging as side effects of elevated nutrient levels. Even if the plant ultimately invests in corrective measures, the local public may spend years enduring the aftermath of mismanaged industrial wastewater.

Long-Term Liability vs. Short-Term Profits

AdvanSix produces various chemical intermediates, including caprolactam used in Nylon 6 production, which is a high-demand product for multiple industries. When short-term profit is the primary driver, corporate decision-makers may prefer to continue or expand production capacity, especially if each day of operation yields major revenue. The associated costs of pollution—like paying for consultants to fix complex stormwater challenges or upgrading aging infrastructure—may be viewed as overhead that can be delayed.

Moreover, where the cost of potential fines is overshadowed by daily production margins, the rational economic choice—at least from a purely profit-maximizing perspective—is to pay the penalty later if it occurs. Unfortunately, this economic calculus often proves detrimental to community health and environmental integrity.

A Brief Glimpse at the Company’s Scale

The AOC notes that the Hopewell Plant is among the largest producers of caprolactam, essential for manufacturing Nylon 6. Although the document does not provide precise sales figures, it is clear that the scale of operations is substantial. Large-scale chemical production typically brings in enough revenue to overshadow potential compliance costs—particularly if the facility’s margin on each ton of product sold is robust.

Had the same sorts of exceedances occurred in a smaller operation with fewer resources, a swift closure or an immediate upgrade to the facility might well have been mandated. Yet for bigger industrial players, the sheer economic gravity of their activities means government agencies may fear job losses or local economic disruption if they issue extremely harsh enforcement measures.

This dynamic sometimes grants major corporations an informal “too big to fail” buffer, wherein local and state governments weigh the economic significance of the employer against the hazards of environmental noncompliance. Again, the net effect is that the corporation can continue to pollute, postpone full compliance, or implement only incremental reforms until the problem becomes too pronounced to ignore.

---

Systemic Failures

This story is not merely about one facility violating a few permit conditions; it highlights the broader systemic failures that allow such events to happen. Under neoliberal capitalism, deregulation and regulatory capture often go hand in hand, enabling corporations to operate with minimal effective oversight. While agencies like the EPA do attempt to hold violators accountable, resource constraints, political pressures, and pro-business ideologies can hinder timely and robust enforcement.

Deregulation, Regulatory Capture, and Limited Resources

Decades of deregulation and budget cuts to environmental agencies have diminished the frequency and comprehensiveness of inspections. The slow pace of the permit reissuance process also shows how agencies can become bogged down. All of this fosters an environment in which routine or repeated violations, such as those at the Hopewell Plant, might only be addressed after years of ongoing harm.

Neoliberal capitalism posits that the “free market” efficiently allocates resources; corporations are trusted to self-regulate because it is supposedly in their economic interest to be responsible. However, as the allegations here show, the market by itself does not adequately prevent industrial actors from discharging pollutants when the financial gains of noncompliance often outweigh the potential costs.

Permitting Systems That Fall Short

Permits are central to the existing environmental regulatory framework, but a permit is only as robust as its enforcement. While the facility was indeed operating under a VPDES permit that required measures to minimize pollutant levels in stormwater, the AOC reveals that actual outcomes—ongoing exceedances—did not match the permit’s intent.

Benchmark levels for chemicals like nitrogen and phosphorus are not meant to be “optional guidelines.” Yet in practice, these benchmarks sometimes function more like suggestions unless the regulatory agency invests enough time and resources to track exceedances and enforce corrective actions promptly. The fact that 530 exceedances were tallied before decisive enforcement occurred underlines the gap between the regulatory ideals and ground-level realities.

Transparency and Public Right-to-Know

Another systemic issue is the difficulty that local communities, fishermen, and other stakeholders may face in learning about repeated exceedances. While certain data must be made publicly available, the labyrinth of websites, limited timeframes, and incomplete disclosure can hinder genuine public oversight. Consequently, residents often discover the gravity of pollution only after high-profile enforcement actions—if they discover it at all.

The case at Hopewell parallels the experiences in many industrial towns where local populations suspect contamination but cannot easily access or interpret the data. Community-based environmental watchdogs or nonprofits sometimes assist in bridging these knowledge gaps, but such organizations themselves often operate on shoestring budgets, leaving them poorly matched to the deep pockets of major corporations.

---

This Pattern of Predation Is a Feature, Not a Bug

It might be comforting to think that the AdvanSix saga is an outlier—a particularly unfortunate or incompetent management that fumbled its regulatory responsibilities. Yet, when viewed through the lens of corporate corruption, corporate greed, and wealth disparity, it becomes clear this is part of a recurring pattern. Under a neoliberal framework, large corporations routinely engage in cost-benefit analyses where cutting corners on environmental compliance can yield higher shareholder returns.

The Production of Fertilizers and Chemicals

AdvanSix’s facility is no minor operation. Producing caprolactam, ammonium sulfate fertilizers, and other chemical intermediates is a big business that ties into numerous sectors, including agriculture and manufacturing. When corporate leadership weighs internal budgets, the logic of “profit first” can cause sustainability measures to be deferred or starved of necessary capital.

While some industrial managers do champion “corporate social responsibility,” the real test is how a company responds when faced with expensive long-term upgrades that do not directly boost immediate profits. Time and again, environmental experts witness an entrenched pattern: compliance is improved only as far as cost and short-term profit allow, with more transformative solutions postponed unless regulators or legal challenges force a hand.

Wealth Disparities in Enforcement Outcomes

Although the AOC does not specify the magnitude of potential fines, environmental activists have often noted that large organizations’ capacity to pay or negotiate significantly reduces the deterrent effect of enforcement. The result is a dual track of compliance: smaller polluters may be forced to comply or close, while larger polluters can often absorb or prolong negotiations.

The resulting wealth disparity fosters a “race to the bottom” for communities with fewer political resources. In a scenario where corporate tax breaks or friendly regulations are put forward as “job creators,” the environment—and vulnerable workers—may be sacrificed in a system that rewards short-term economic benefits, at least for top management and shareholders.

Stacking the Deck Against Communities

Communities in close proximity to industrial sites often have fewer resources to challenge violations. Many local residents work for or know someone employed by these major corporations, which complicates public outcry when noncompliance surfaces. The threat, perceived or real, of job cuts if the corporate entity faces more stringent enforcement can stifle activism.

All of these conditions produce a climate in which alleged wrongdoing like what AdvanSix stands accused of is more likely. Rather than a bug, it is a built-in feature of a system that prioritizes corporate profitability above the public good, enabling higher-ups in major companies to justify deferring compliance.

---

The PR Playbook of Damage Control

One of the central pillars of contemporary corporate crisis management is controlling the public narrative. When major pollution or misconduct allegations surface—like the repeated benchmark exceedances and unpermitted discharges at the Hopewell Plant—an organization often deploys a strategic, carefully worded response to minimize reputational damage.

Deny, Minimize, Justify

Although the AOC states that AdvanSix “neither admits nor denies” the findings of fact, such neutrality often translates into a de facto public relations stance of: “We dispute the severity of the claims, but we’ll comply with the order.” This approach is a classic move: deny wrongdoing or intent, or at least neither confirm nor deny, and pivot swiftly to the narrative of “we are taking steps to address the issue.”

Companies may also emphasize partial compliance or incremental improvements to suggest that the problem is well in hand. For instance, AdvanSix representatives might highlight that they made regular modifications to their Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and that these modifications were gradually improving conditions. While such statements might be factually accurate, they can obscure or downplay the larger reality: the pollution persisted over years.

Redirecting Accountability to the Regulatory Maze

A common PR tactic is also to imply that the compliance environment is exceedingly complex, and that the extended period of noncompliance was more about the logistical difficulties of upgrading large-scale infrastructure. This line of argument frames the corporation as a victim of a byzantine system or extended regulatory processes. While that partial truth can hold—industrial facility upgrades indeed require significant funds and planning—it does not exonerate the underlying fact that any major industrial polluter must anticipate and manage environmental risks.

Community Engagement as a Strategy

Another piece of the playbook often involves controlled community outreach. Companies sponsor local events or donate to charitable causes, hoping to build goodwill that softens public scrutiny. Should questions about pollution arise, the conversation can shift to philanthropic gestures, job creation, or tax revenues.

Although the AOC does not outline AdvanSix’s specific PR maneuvers, the pattern is well-known: corporate statements of commitment to safety and the environment, references to “robust internal programs,” and efforts to prove that new procedures will fix everything swiftly. Without consistent third-party monitoring, however, such claims can remain as mere words rather than tangible improvements.

---

Corporate Power vs. Public Interest

The crux of this story—and many others like it—lies in the struggle between corporate power and public interest. On paper, the Clean Water Act and its implementing permits exist to protect water resources for everyone. In practice, industrial titans wield significant leverage.

Lobbying and Influence

Lobbying efforts by the chemical manufacturing sector can significantly shape how environmental regulations are drafted, implemented, and enforced. Corporations with deep pockets can fund think-tanks, political campaigns, and specialized law firms that advocate for looser regulations or more lenient deadlines. Over time, this can defang environmental laws, turning them into hollow shells.

Moreover, corporate legal teams often know how to exploit “gray areas” in permit language. If a permit’s language about “benchmark exceedances” is not strictly enforceable as a permit violation, the facility’s lawyers can argue for lesser consequences. In the AdvanSix matter, the AOC clarifies that exceedances are not, by themselves, direct violations but are signals that modifications may be needed to the pollution prevention plan. This distinction can be exploited to buy time and slow down meaningful corrective action.

Underfunded Public Health Agencies

While the EPA does intervene, the agency’s staff must often juggle thousands of facilities across multiple states. Despite being the lead environmental regulator in the nation, the EPA’s budget and workforce can be outmatched by well-resourced companies. Meanwhile, local agencies, like Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ), face similar resource constraints.

Thus, even if the public interest is a guiding principle, the enforcement side can be hampered by limited funding, staff turnover, and political interference. The public—particularly those living near chemical plants and dependent on local water resources—has the most to lose yet may have the least direct influence on enforcement outcomes.

Erosion of Trust in Institutions

Every time a case like AdvanSix’s emerges—where repeated exceedances persisted for years—some measure of trust in regulatory bodies erodes. Communities question whether agencies can truly protect them or if the agencies are largely toothless in the face of industrial power.

Regaining public confidence typically requires more than an administrative order or a single round of fines. It calls for structural reforms, improved transparency, and a shift in the corporate ethos from maximum short-term profit to genuine commitment to corporate accountability, corporate social responsibility, and the well-being of local stakeholders.

---

The Human Toll on Workers and Communities

Beneath the technical jargon—like “unpermitted dry-weather discharges” or “benchmark exceedances”—are real people whose lives and well-being may be adversely affected by industrial pollution. Within the broader region around Hopewell, local residents, fishers, and even plant employees themselves can suffer the ecological and health consequences of repeated chemical discharges.

Health Implications of Nutrient and Metal Pollution

Excess nitrogen and phosphorus can drive algal blooms that harm aquatic ecosystems, creating “dead zones” devoid of fish. Metals like iron or aluminum, while naturally occurring in some forms, can become hazardous when concentrated by industrial processes. Over time, contaminated sediments can leach into fish populations or degrade the overall health of the watershed. Children and individuals with preexisting health conditions can be the first to feel these effects, which might manifest as chronic respiratory issues or other ailments if air quality or water quality is compromised.

Although the AOC does not detail specific instances of harm to local residents, historical precedent from similar industrial communities suggests that prolonged pollution often correlates with higher rates of certain health problems. While a direct cause-and-effect chain can be difficult to establish, the risk alone is sufficient to spark community concern—especially if multiple facilities in the region discharge pollutants.

Economic Fallout for Local Fisheries and Recreation

Hopewell’s location along the James River historically supports fishing, boating, and other recreational activities. Heightened pollutant levels can degrade these resources, leading to decreased fish populations or warnings that fish may be unsafe to eat in large quantities. This, in turn, can weaken a local economy that might otherwise rely on tourism or commercial fishing.

Local businesses—hotels, restaurants, and shops—may suffer indirect harm as negative perceptions about the area’s environment mount. The intangible reputation of a region can shape property values, relocation decisions, and overall community vitality.

Workers Facing Uncertain Futures

AdvanSix employs many local residents at the Hopewell Plant. While stable employment is crucial, the same workforce could be exposed to polluted conditions on-site if safety protocols are inadequate. The tension between job security and environmental justice becomes apparent: employees might not speak out against possible pollution if it could threaten their livelihood.

Moreover, if regulatory pressure eventually forces the company to retrofit or partially shut down certain operations, it can impact workers’ hours or salaries. Without robust transitional programs or job retraining initiatives, workers end up bearing the brunt of the cost, further widening wealth disparities.

The human toll thus extends beyond direct pollution exposure—it includes the stress and anxiety local families experience when faced with an uncertain environment and uncertain job prospects.

---

Global Trends in Corporate Accountability

The allegations leveled against AdvanSix are hardly an isolated American phenomenon. Across the globe, from major petrochemical hubs in the Middle East to the sprawling industrial complexes of Southeast Asia, large corporations routinely face similar accusations of water pollution and public endangerment. The specifics vary—some may involve heavy metals in drinking water, others revolve around air pollution—but the unifying factor is often a regulatory framework that struggles to keep corporate power in check.

The Rise of International Standards

In response to such widespread industrial misconduct, there have been attempts to institute global standards for corporate ethics, environmental management, and labor practices. Examples include ISO standards for Environmental Management Systems and frameworks established by the United Nations Environment Programme. Yet these standards can only be as strong as the national laws that adopt or enforce them. Where governments face pressure to loosen regulations to attract investment, corporations may find ways to circumvent or ignore best practices.

Lessons from Other Jurisdictions

Countries with stricter enforcement—like some in the European Union—often see more rapid remediation efforts when exceedances occur, because corporations know they will face higher penalties or immediate shutdown orders if they fail to comply. Even so, high-profile pollution incidents still happen in those regions, too, indicating that no jurisdiction is entirely immune to the push-and-pull between profits and compliance.

The AdvanSix story is thus emblematic of a deeper, worldwide tension: in a global market that demands cheap goods, high returns, and rapid production cycles, corporations face constant pressure to cut costs. That pressure can be especially acute in sectors—like chemicals—where major capital expenditures are necessary to mitigate potential pollution.

---

Pathways for Reform and Consumer Advocacy

Despite the sobering picture drawn from these allegations, potential solutions exist. Whether or not they are ultimately embraced depends largely on public pressure, community engagement, and a willingness among policymakers to advocate systemic changes.

Strengthening Enforcement and Closing Loopholes

One obvious reform involves reinforcing the existing permit system to ensure that repeated benchmark exceedances trigger prompt, decisive action. If regulators have sufficient funding and manpower, they can conduct unannounced inspections, demand immediate corrective plans, and assess daily fines for each day of noncompliance.

Similarly, statutory reforms could close gaps in the Clean Water Act that treat benchmark exceedances as advisory rather than enforceable. Once a certain threshold is crossed multiple times, the facility should be compelled to undertake structural upgrades rather than rely on partial fixes or indefinite administrative extensions.

The Role of Corporate Governance and Ethics

Corporate boards and executive teams must be held accountable for environmental performance, not just financial metrics. Mandating environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reporting is a start, but robust audits and stakeholder engagement can elevate corporate social responsibility from a PR buzzword to a guiding principle.

Shareholder activism also holds promise. If major institutional investors penalize or divest from companies that systematically violate permits, corporate leadership will be forced to weigh environmental considerations more seriously. Even socially responsible investment funds can drive changes by favoring better environmental performers in their portfolios, pushing firms like AdvanSix to commit to more sustainable practices.

Grassroots Mobilization and Public Awareness

Local communities benefit from external support—environmental nonprofits, media outlets, and activist groups—that can pressure both the company and regulators. Sometimes, class-action lawsuits or citizen enforcement provisions under environmental laws drive swifter corporate compliance. Education campaigns about local water quality concerns and consistent public disclosure of exceedances can rally community members to demand improvement.

Moreover, building alliances with academic institutions and researchers can deepen the evidence base for the health and economic impacts of industrial pollution. Armed with robust data, community advocates can counter corporate PR narratives and mobilize political will.

Potential for Broader Systemic Shifts

Finally, the AdvanSix story underscores the need for a systemic rethinking of neoliberal capitalism’s inherent incentives. If the market logic remains purely fixated on maximizing shareholder value, corporations will continue to take calculated risks with public health and the environment. Reforms might include tying executive compensation to validated environmental performance measures or establishing new legal frameworks for corporate charters that prioritize social and ecological well-being as integral to a company’s mission.

Such sweeping changes do not materialize overnight. Yet, without them, the cycle of large industrial facilities polluting with little immediate consequence will repeat in community after community. Only when the underlying economic incentives are recalibrated and robust regulatory frameworks align with the public interest can we begin to see a lasting solution.

---

The EPA’s source for this massive act of corporate pollution: https://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/rhc/epaadmin.nsf/Filings/57DC2034232C45F38525895F00421831/$File/AdvanSix%20Resins%20&%20Chemicals%20LLC_CAA%20Administrative%20Compliance%20Order%20on%20Consent_Feb%2022%202023.pdf