If you were to stand at the gates of the Systech Environmental Corporation facility in Fredonia, Kansas, you might initially see nothing more than a series of industrial structures perched alongside dusty roads and farmland. Yet, according to a recent United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Consent Agreement and Final Order, behind that unassuming exterior lurked a litany of alleged environmental and public-health risks. A legal document from the EPA details violations of federal hazardous-waste-management protocols, including the improper storage of dangerous substances, the failure to control toxic emissions, and lapses in labeling and record-keeping.

Perhaps the most damning element is the suggestion that these alleged violations—specifically the mishandling of hazardous materials—were not isolated oversights but rather indicative of a broader corporate environment tolerant of risk. The EPA inspectors documented containers of hazardous waste left partially uncovered, vents on storage tanks emitting volatile organic compounds well above regulatory thresholds, and the absence of crucial data on how and when certain dangerous materials were being stored. Each of these infractions, standing alone, might be considered serious. Taken together, they paint a picture of systemic recklessness.

This article draws on the factual basis provided in the Consent Agreement and Final Order (hereafter “the EPA Agreement”) to craft a deeper investigative narrative. We will analyze how Systech’s environmental misconduct fits into a broader, disturbing pattern under neoliberal capitalism, wherein deregulation and profit-driven models can render many corporations indifferent—or even hostile—to robust environmental and worker protections. In a globalized world propelled by hyper-competition, profit-maximization, and relaxed enforcement regimes, cases like the one against Systech Environmental Corporation unfortunately appear all too common.

It is easy to think of environmental laws and regulatory agencies as bureaucracy, but the stakes here are far from abstract. At every juncture, from the initial siting of a hazardous-waste-processing facility to its daily operational practices, there lie countless opportunities to affect public health, worker safety, and the surrounding community’s economic and social well-being. This story is about more than one corporation’s alleged failings. It reveals the interplay among corporate greed, regulatory capture, and wealth disparity, underscoring the urgent need for corporate accountability and responsible governance.

In this introduction, we set the stage by distilling the starkest allegations from the EPA Agreement itself. In the sections that follow, we will walk through the events that triggered federal intervention, examine the larger political-economic system that facilitates these excesses, and ask the crucial question: Is such misconduct really an aberration, or is it a predictable product of a system designed to prioritize profits over people?

---

Corporate Intent Exposed

The EPA Agreement describes a routine inspection performed in late 2022, where federal inspectors identified multiple alleged violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and its associated regulations. The details themselves are unambiguous. Systech Environmental Corporation, which bills itself as a solution provider for recycling and managing industrial byproducts, was cited for failing to store hazardous waste in proper containers, letting highly toxic substances spill into the environment, and neglecting to label or document certain hazardous and universal wastes. In other words, the first layer of corporate intent allegedly revealed here is a fundamental disregard for compliance with baseline federal law.

Improper Hazardous Waste Storage

One of the most telling allegations is that Systech stored hazardous waste on top of open dispersion tanks, as well as in the receiving steel pan of a hydraulic knuckle boom crane—areas clearly not designated or permitted for storing such materials. The law is explicit: hazardous waste must be contained. Its potential for environmental harm is too high to justify anything less. Yet Systech seemingly chose convenience or cost-saving over risk management—at least, that’s the picture painted by the official findings.

Broken Covers and Emission Controls

The EPA inspectors observed multiple large containers with broken or missing closure straps, leaving tarpaulins half-open. This allowed toxic vapors to escape. For corporations, rigorous container management often comes with operational costs (maintenance, labor, safety checks). According to the EPA Agreement, Systech failed to minimize these emissions, underscoring an alleged willingness to cut corners.

Most alarming was the reading of volatile organic emissions from two roll-off containers, measured at hundreds of parts per million above background—a direct contravention of Subpart CC of the RCRA regulations. These substances have the potential to harm both plant workers and residents in the broader community, especially if repeated and sustained.

Uncontrolled Tank Emissions

By far, the most egregious violation described concerns large storage tanks (Tanks 3 and 10) that were venting shockingly high levels of volatile organic compounds. Federal law requires “no detectable organic emissions” from closed tanks, meaning less than 500 parts per million by volume (ppmv) above background. At the Systech site, the measured levels soared past 1,600 ppmv and even reached more than 2,000 ppmv in one instance.

On its face, this is more than a matter of technical noncompliance. High emissions directly endanger public and worker health. The scale of the readings suggests that these tanks were not being monitored or maintained in a way that prevents large amounts of hazardous chemicals from escaping.

Lax Labeling and Tracking

In the United States, labeling rules for hazardous and universal waste serve a critical function, ensuring that if a spill or emergency occurs, responders can immediately identify the risks. Additionally, consistent labeling and date-marking keep a tight chain of custody over dangerous substances, preventing them from piling up or being lost. Yet the EPA Agreement notes that two satellite-accumulation containers of laboratory debris and liquids had no markings. Universal waste batteries, potentially containing corrosive or toxic metals, were also left without an accumulation start date.

Taken in isolation, any single violation might suggest a mistake. When viewed comprehensively, however, they indicate a culture or system in which safety and compliance were not prioritized. Indeed, these findings—spread across multiple areas of the facility—imply a sustained corporate intent to circumvent the basic duties owed to workers, neighbors, and the environment. They are not minor paperwork errors; they are holes in a safety net designed to keep communities and ecosystems safe from toxic exposure.

Profit, Expedience, and Corporate Motives

Companies generally operate to create value for shareholders and owners. Under the contemporary neoliberal model, often associated with underfunded regulators and a corporate environment that treats fines as a cost of doing business, there may be little incentive to spend additional resources on robust environmental controls. If the potential penalty is small relative to the financial gain or cost-savings from noncompliance, profit-driven calculus dictates that compliance becomes optional.

In this sense, the alleged actions at Systech, while infuriating, are also logical when measured by a strictly profit-oriented yardstick. The scandal is that corporate actors, presumably aware of these hazards, might have chosen to run the risk anyway. The fact that Systech struck a settlement with the EPA for a civil penalty—rather than undertake a costly, drawn-out legal battle—underscores that the corporation may have chosen to simply absorb the financial hit and move on, an approach painfully familiar to those following corporate misconduct cases in other industries.

---

The Corporations Get Away With It

When the details of a settlement or agreement with regulators are laid out, a standard question emerges: Is that it? For many observers, the revelations in the EPA Agreement feel insufficiently addressed by a civil penalty and a few mandated corrective actions. Indeed, the cyclical pattern of violation-discovery, fine-payment, and “no admission of wrongdoing” settlement is a well-established phenomenon in modern corporate life.

In Systech’s case, the final settlement document includes an assessed civil penalty and outlines steps the company must take to achieve compliance. But from a broader perspective, one might wonder how meaningful the penalty is in proportion to the potential harm. The maximum federal penalty per day for RCRA violations can be high, but the actual fines levied sometimes pale in comparison to the profit margins of large multinational corporations or their subsidiaries.

Legal Loopholes and Tactics

The labyrinth of environmental law in the United States might seem daunting, but it can also be navigable—especially if the regulated entity invests in experienced legal counsel and compliance experts. From carefully negotiated settlements to an understanding of how to interpret “gray areas” in environmental regulations, corporations often have the upper hand.

Regulatory capture is another factor that may facilitate this environment. When agencies are underfunded or leadership appointments become political, there is a risk that the “cop on the beat” becomes less vigilant. Even well-intentioned regulators face the difficulties of verifying thousands of pages of documentation and chasing down every overlooked procedure or unlabeled drum in a facility that may handle countless shipments weekly.

Compounding this is the sometimes-lackluster legislative follow-up. If you read the headlines, large fines may look punishing, but for large companies or corporate parents, these are seldom crippling. For instance, if a corporation’s annual revenue dwarfs the penalty, it is entirely feasible to regard that penalty as a minor business cost.

A Structural Pattern of Light Enforcement

In the bigger picture, it appears that the system is designed less to prevent harmful misconduct than to penalize it after the fact—provided it is discovered. If a corporation believes it can avoid detection or can settle relatively cheaply when caught, corners will be cut. That is the moral hazard at the heart of corporate pollution under a neoliberal, profit-driven system.

There is a familiar refrain: “At least the company got punished.” But many see the scale of punishment as insufficient. Local communities, which shoulder the health and economic risks, often perceive that the corporation “gets away with it.” Sometimes these voices demand stricter criminal accountability, especially when hazardous waste or toxic emissions are knowingly released into the environment. Criminal charges, however, are exceedingly rare in environmental cases unless egregious personal negligence or falsification of data is established.

Settlements as a Corporate Strategy

Another factor that allows corporations to “get away with it” is the typical settlement approach. By paying a fine and entering into a Consent Agreement, a company like Systech can avoid drawn-out litigation, in-depth discovery that might expose even more damaging revelations, or criminal liability. Moreover, such settlements often come with disclaimers like “This settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing,” insulating the corporation from further reputational and legal consequences.

We see parallels in industries ranging from banking to pharmaceuticals and from fossil fuels to consumer goods. Even if the facts are damning, companies often prefer to cut a deal and promise compliance. Their cost-benefit analysis suggests that these settlements might be cheaper than implementing robust compliance from the start.

Over the last several decades, with globalization and the steady ascendance of corporate influence, we have seen industry-friendly legislative changes, cutbacks in agency budgets, and “voluntary” compliance programs that may lack teeth. All these factors help explain how corporations are frequently able to minimize accountability for choices that degrade the environment, harm local workers, and pose risks to public health.

---

The Cost of Doing Business

The Systech case is not happening in a vacuum. Historically, environmental regulation in the United States evolved in response to a series of high-profile disasters—from toxic releases in heavily industrialized valleys to the Love Canal crisis in the 1970s. Laws like RCRA were intended to ensure that companies handling hazardous materials do so responsibly. Yet a close look at enforcement data over the years reveals that many businesses continue to flout these regulations, presumably because noncompliance can be cost-effective, at least in the short run.

Financial Incentives for Risk

At the operational level, compliance can be expensive. Proper labeling, storing, and disposal of hazardous waste demands staff training, purchase of appropriate containers, well-maintained emission controls, and paperwork. Skimping on these can translate into thousands, if not millions, of dollars saved for a large-scale operation. Thus, the environment and public health become externalities in a straightforward profit equation.

Systech was penalized in this particular instance, but the penalty is dwarfed by the potential costs they might have incurred if they maintained top-tier environmental safety protocols at every step. Under neoliberal capitalism, which prizes quarterly returns and stock valuations, short-term financial gains can overshadow the risks of environmental harm or the moral imperative of public welfare.

Moreover, the consequences of industrial pollution are often hidden or deferred. Toxic leaks or emissions might not cause immediate, sensational harm. Instead, they can contribute to cumulative damage, like higher rates of respiratory conditions or long-term soil and groundwater contamination. Companies that fail to internalize these costs can continue to accrue profits while deferring the real economic burden—cleanup, health care, environmental restoration—to the public sphere.

Long-Term Damages

Even a single instance of improperly contained hazardous waste can have far-reaching consequences. If toxins seep into the groundwater, local communities may experience health issues for decades. Farmland around a facility may see diminished productivity or contamination that affects livestock. If you tally up medical bills, lowered property values, and the cost of environmental remediation, the total far outstrips the civil penalties typically levied. This is precisely what is meant by “the cost of doing business.”

Investor and Shareholder Pressures

Large corporations are often beholden to shareholders’ demands for profit growth. Even if individual executives or employees recognize the need for strict environmental adherence, they are constrained by budgeting decisions, cost-reduction initiatives, and investor expectations. In industries where margins are thin, every dollar counts; investments in robust environmental protections may be seen as nonessential overhead rather than mission-critical.

Understaffed Regulators

One under-discussed aspect of “the cost of doing business” is the resource gap for regulators. Agencies like the EPA cannot be everywhere, all at once. Even though the Fredonia, Kansas facility was inspected—and some alleged violations uncovered—there are countless other facilities across the country that might not be inspected for years, if ever. Under neoliberal policy regimes, calls to shrink government and reduce regulations translate into fewer inspectors and fewer spot checks. This significantly lowers the likelihood that noncompliance will even be detected.

In sum, the entire regulatory edifice, from the finances of corporate compliance to the capacity of oversight bodies, seems stacked in favor of risk-taking by corporations. Until that fundamental calculus changes—until the potential liabilities and fines outweigh the short-term profits gleaned from corner-cutting—incidents like these are likely to reoccur.

---

Systemic Failures

No corporation operates in a vacuum. It is guided, enabled, and shaped by a complex network of laws, market incentives, and cultural attitudes. When people speak of “systemic failures,” we refer to the myriad ways in which the system itself fosters or tolerates irresponsible corporate behavior. In the United States, environmental enforcement is tethered to a legal and political structure that can be inconsistent, underfunded, and heavily influenced by corporate lobbyists.

Deregulation and Regulatory Capture

Over the past few decades, a wave of deregulation in various industries has often been championed under the banner of enhancing efficiency and competitive markets. However, for environmental protection, deregulation can translate into fewer mandatory controls or weaker penalties for noncompliance. The impetus to cut “red tape” sometimes means legitimate oversight tools—like thorough facility inspections or strict waste-handling protocols—are undone or neglected.

Regulatory capture occurs when the regulated entity wields an outsize influence on the regulatory agency’s decisions, often through lobbying, political donations, or a revolving door of personnel between agencies and the corporate sector. In such an environment, the thorough enforcement of hazardous-waste regulations can become a low priority.

The RCRA Framework Under Strain

Congress enacted the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to address mounting concerns over the disposal of hazardous waste. Under RCRA, companies must follow strict guidelines on how they store, treat, and dispose of dangerous substances. It also empowers the EPA to pursue enforcement actions and penalize violators. While the law has led to real improvements over the years, the Systech case underscores how RCRA’s success depends on consistent and vigorous enforcement. If regulators lack the budget, manpower, or political will, the entire edifice falters.

Moreover, the intricacy of RCRA regulations can be exploited by organizations that have the legal resources to exploit technical loopholes. In many cases, the complexity of the rules makes them difficult for both regulators and the public to track. Whenever oversight weakens, unscrupulous actors find it easier to circumvent protective measures.

Political Will and Public Apathy

Another systemic failure is the sometimes-lackluster public response to environmental violations—especially if there is no dramatic event, like a major spill or explosion. Many hazards exposed in the EPA Agreement (e.g., unlabeled containers, open tarps) do not typically capture public imagination. This relative invisibility allows businesses to operate below the radar. Only in extraordinary cases, where large-scale environmental contamination triggers a crisis, does the public become galvanized.

That said, local communities do often care deeply. The problem is that they may lack the resources to challenge well-funded corporate legal teams. Unless community members can access legal aid or nonprofit partnerships, their voices can be drowned out or ignored. This cycle exacerbates environmental justice issues, where historically marginalized populations near industrial zones bear a disproportionate share of pollution’s impacts.

Gaps in Federal and State Coordination

The RCRA program can delegate enforcement authority to state agencies, such as the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in this case. While federal oversight remains, cooperation among multiple layers of government can sometimes stall swift enforcement responses. Budgets, political priorities, and staff capacity vary widely from state to state. When misalignments occur, critical oversight can slip through the cracks.

Slow Reforms and Industry Pushback

When a major lawsuit or settlement does bring attention to environmental hazards, a push to strengthen regulations may follow. But these legislative or administrative reforms can be excruciatingly slow, often met with fierce industry pushback. Corporations may argue that stricter rules dampen economic growth or erode their competitiveness. In the tension between environmental stewardship and economic imperatives, the latter too often wins.

---

This Pattern of Predation Is a Feature, Not a Bug

The corporate misconduct at Systech is not an outlier; it is business as usual. Within a neoliberal paradigm, corporations operate within a profit-maximizing context. If environmental stewardship aligns with profitability, so be it. If not, corners are cut, and regulations are skirted.

Corporate Greed and Wealth Disparity

Environmental violations, such as those alleged at Systech, often correlate with a larger societal conversation about corporate greed. The relentless drive to expand margins and appease shareholders feeds into wealth concentration among top executives and investors. Meanwhile, workers and nearby communities can suffer real-world harms. This is how corporate misconduct widens wealth disparity. The people bearing the brunt of unsafe working conditions, pollution, and diminished property values are typically not the ones enjoying the lion’s share of corporate profits.

Structural Incentives for Predation

In capitalism, “predatory” behavior can be structurally incentivized if oversight is lax. When the law is applied unevenly or fines are too low to affect company bottom lines, corporate leaders make decisions that place short-term gain over long-term stability. In an ideal system, laws like RCRA, enforced vigorously, would create real constraints. Instead, repeated evidence suggests that many companies see compliance as optional unless the enforcement threat is credible and penalties are high enough to truly deter misconduct.

Environmental Injustice

This pattern of predation can be seen across industries: from factory hog farms polluting rural waterways to chemical manufacturers releasing carcinogens near low-income neighborhoods. The Systech allegations highlight a scenario in which local residents, who may have minimal political sway, face uncertain health and environmental outcomes while corporate management seldom resides in the affected communities. Over time, these communities can degrade, compounding social harms like lowered property values, health complications, and reduced public services.

Defensive Maneuvers and Lobbying

Corporations are not passive actors. They regularly mount expensive lobbying campaigns to fend off stricter rules. Their legal teams aggressively defend their interests, seeking leniency or favorable settlements. The entire system can thus appear rigged to let polluters proceed with minimal disruption, reinforcing the notion that “this pattern of predation is a feature, not a bug.”

So when you read about Systech’s uncovered containers, faulty straps, and mislabeled drums, you are seeing the tangible outcome of a larger design flaw in how business is policed. Even if each violation can be remedied, the underlying framework endures. Without genuine systemic reform, we risk seeing more of the same.

---

The PR Playbook of Damage Control

When environmental allegations surface, large corporations often resort to a predictable script: reassure stakeholders, minimize admissions of wrongdoing, and emphasize that any misdeeds are exceptional rather than systemic. With the publication of the EPA Agreement, Systech could easily frame the findings as minor, now-resolved technicalities, while ignoring deeper questions about corporate culture and oversight.

Emphasizing “No Admission of Wrongdoing”

In many settlements, including the one under discussion, the company neither admits nor denies the specific allegations. This is standard legal language that helps the company manage liability exposure. The PR team may highlight that the company is “cooperating fully with regulators” and “demonstrating commitment to environmental stewardship.”

Such statements gloss over the fact that the settlement’s central premise is a penalty for alleged misconduct. In doing so, the company effectively sidesteps a deeper conversation about accountability.

Highlighting “Corrective Measures”

Press releases in these situations tend to spotlight steps taken to address the violations—for instance, repairing container straps, revisiting labeling procedures, or upgrading tank vents. While these are undoubtedly important and mandated by the settlement, the PR framing can make them sound like voluntary improvements rather than mandated corrections for violations that pose real risks.

Selective Transparency

Damage control often involves selective transparency: releasing partial data that appears to confirm the company’s commitment to compliance, while withholding any unflattering internal documents or communications. Large corporations, as part of their media strategy, may highlight philanthropic endeavors or sustainability programs, effectively overshadowing the negative press and relegating the allegations to footnotes in an annual report.

Inoculating Against Future Scrutiny

Another key PR tactic is to set up a “compliance task force” or hire a well-known environmental consultant, then tout these changes as evidence that the company is going beyond compliance. Over time, this can deter future scrutiny since they can claim to have a recognized expert or “robust new protocols.” Unless followed up by meaningful third-party verification, these claims remain suspect.

Familiar Tactics in Broader Context

Systech is hardly alone in deploying these defensive measures. From oil spills to pharmaceutical violations, corporate communication strategies follow a well-worn path: apologize without acknowledging legal guilt, promise improvements, emphasize future commitment. This cycle is so entrenched under neoliberal capitalism that it has become virtually a textbook approach to crisis management.

In the face of such tactics, communities often remain stuck with unanswered questions and ongoing worries about environmental health. Without persistent, well-resourced investigations, corporations retain control of the narrative.

---

Corporate Power vs. Public Interest

The Systech allegations point to an essential tension in our society: the exercise of corporate power often conflicts with the broader public interest. Corporations wield significant economic resources, political lobbying muscle, and PR influence. In comparison, local communities—where the brunt of pollution or risk is experienced—rarely command such power. Even state and federal regulators can find themselves hamstrung by budget constraints and political pressures.

The Undermining of Corporate Social Responsibility

Under the banner of corporate social responsibility (CSR), many companies tout their commitments to environmental stewardship and stakeholder engagement. Yet the alleged behavior at Systech suggests a gap between stated principles and operational realities. When the driver of corporate decision-making is profit maximization, ethical and socially responsible practices risk being relegated to marketing bullet points rather than lived realities.

One might see this tension repeated in corporate boardrooms worldwide. The impetus to show “green” credentials is strong—customers and shareholders often demand it—but if the financial penalty for real violations remains small, or the chance of detection is limited, the cynic might see no real impetus for sustained compliance.

Public Health at Stake

Beyond the abstractions of CSR, we must remember the real risks when companies fail to properly store and label hazardous materials. Emission readings of thousands of ppmv above background levels are not a trivial footnote. Repeated exposures can cause respiratory ailments or more severe conditions for workers, local families, and anyone living close enough to the site.

Companies that do not maintain robust environmental controls essentially pass those health costs along to the public. Hospitals and clinics must treat respiratory illnesses or chemical-related health issues without compensation from the polluter, unless an elaborate legal battle is pursued. This is a direct transfer of risk from private entities to the broader public.

Undermining Democratic Accountability

A bedrock principle of democracy is that people should have a say in decisions that affect their lives, especially when it comes to environmental hazards. But if the system consistently sides with corporate interests, with minimal transparency and relatively light penalties for wrongdoing, public trust erodes. Community voices become marginalized, fueling cynicism about whether the government truly represents their interests.

Possible Avenues of Resistance

Despite the systemic inequities, people and organizations have found creative ways to challenge corporate power. Grassroots activism, state-level ballot initiatives, nonprofit legal action, and investigative journalism can pressure companies to take corrective measures. In some cases, these efforts lead to stronger alliances between labor unions and environmental groups, forging a potent force for greater accountability.

Such resistance, however, is not guaranteed, nor is it easy. Corporations enjoy significant legal and financial resources to push back. Furthermore, corporate-sympathetic narratives in politics and media often downplay environmental violations as minor technicalities. In this climate, the pursuit of real justice and meaningful oversight can prove to be a steep uphill climb.

---

The Human Toll on Workers and Communities

Though the EPA Agreement with Systech focuses on procedural and technical violations of the law, it implies a profound human dimension. How do these alleged practices affect the day-to-day lives of people in and around Fredonia? What is the potential impact on a facility worker who clocks in every morning amid toxic vapors? Or on families living near the site who worry about the long-term effects of airborne contaminants?

Worker Safety

First and foremost, employees in hazardous waste facilities are on the front lines. Even with protective equipment, repeated exposure to volatile organic compounds or poorly labeled chemicals can cause health complications. Respiratory problems, skin irritations, and even neurological symptoms have been linked to industrial pollutants. While many companies tout robust safety training, allegations such as Systech’s unlabeled containers and open-air dispersion tanks raise questions about whether employees were truly informed of the risks.

Community Health Concerns

Residents in neighboring areas often become the unwitting recipients of hazardous emissions. Over time, repeated exposure, even in small doses, can accumulate in human bodies and local ecosystems. While direct causation is notoriously difficult to prove in environmental health cases, communities may experience higher rates of asthma, certain cancers, or other chronic conditions associated with pollutants.

Once contamination of soil or groundwater occurs, the problem can persist for generations, creating a legacy of health risks and property devaluation. Children playing in backyards, farmers tending to crops, or people simply breathing local air all become potential victims. The alleged facts in this case—particularly around the open containers of hazardous waste and venting from Tanks 3 and 10—underscore just how precarious these situations can be.

Economic Fallout for Locals

Environmental negligence can also reverberate economically. If a region gains a reputation for pollution or industrial hazards, property values can drop. Small businesses reliant on tourism or local branding may suffer. There is also the risk that a major spill or event—should the worst happen—would cause immediate economic disruption, with local areas left to pick up the tab.

In many cases, corporations do not fully internalize these risks. The cost of potential cleanup or health care is partly socialized, born by local and state governments. Meanwhile, any short-term gains from cutting corners or ignoring compliance remain privatized.

Impact on Future Generations

One of the most tragic aspects of hazardous waste mismanagement is that future generations bear the brunt of decisions they had no say in. Environmental toxins can linger in soil and water supplies. Children grow up with limited open spaces or become used to the idea that some local areas are off-limits. When a new generation inherits a local economy shaped by past environmental misdeeds, they can face fewer job opportunities, degraded farmland, or an entrenched stigma of pollution.

Intersection with Social Justice

Communities living near industrial sites are often lower-income or historically marginalized. They might lack the political clout or resources to push back effectively. Over time, the presence of such facilities can reinforce systemic inequalities, concentrating environmental risks where people have minimal power.

Whether or not Fredonia, Kansas fits that profile, the Systech allegations highlight how corporations can place disproportionate risks on local communities. This underscores the broader social-justice dimension of corporate misconduct, particularly where big business aligns with a regulatory environment that is slow to act and even slower to impose meaningful penalties.

---

Global Trends in Corporate Accountability

What is happening at a hazardous waste facility in Kansas echoes patterns we see in global supply chains, resource extraction sites, and industrial hotspots around the world. Neoliberal capitalism has accelerated the search for cheap labor and loose regulations. Corporations—especially multinational ones—tend to operate wherever costs are lowest and oversight is minimal.

Worldwide Parallels

From garment factories in Southeast Asia to rare-earth mining in Africa, we see recurring themes: companies exploiting weak regulatory frameworks, local workers exposed to unhealthy or dangerous conditions, and communities grappling with pollution. In many instances, nominal compliance is maintained, but frequent inspections and robust enforcement are lacking.

Within this global context, the Systech case reminds us that even in a highly industrialized nation with comparatively strong environmental laws, gaps in enforcement still appear. If this can happen in the United States—where the EPA’s authority is relatively clear—it is not surprising that in developing countries, corporate misconduct can reach far more egregious levels.

The Export of Hazardous Waste

Historically, powerful economies have exported hazardous waste to poorer regions. This phenomenon continues under various guises, with corporations occasionally circumventing strict domestic rules by outsourcing or rebranding waste disposal. While the Systech matter centers on domestic mismanagement, the broader pattern is that companies will seek out the path of least resistance.

International Calls for Higher Standards

International organizations, from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to environmental NGOs, have pushed for higher standards and cross-border accountability for hazardous substances. Treaties such as the Basel Convention attempt to limit the global movement of toxic waste. But enforcement remains patchy, and corporations adeptly exploit loopholes.

Harmonizing Regulations?

One approach advocated by reformers is the harmonization of environmental regulations across borders, making it harder for companies to shop around for the weakest rules. However, countries often resist constraints on their sovereignty, and multinational corporations lobby for flexible frameworks. The result is a patchwork of laws that hamper any unified approach to corporate accountability.

Implications for Corporate Social Responsibility

In theory, large corporations operating internationally should adopt robust internal standards that exceed local requirements, safeguarding both their workers and communities. In practice, though, the pursuit of cost efficiencies, combined with poor local oversight, often leads to subpar practices. This is where real CSR should matter—but all too often, it is overshadowed by short-term market pressures.

---

Pathways for Reform and Consumer Advocacy

While the environmental violations at Systech Environmental Corporation reveal an alarming fault line in hazardous-waste management, there is still a path forward. True reform will require more robust regulatory frameworks, stronger enforcement mechanisms, community empowerment, and a pivot toward genuine corporate accountability.

Strengthening Regulatory Enforcement

First, agencies like the EPA must be fully funded and staffed, allowing for increased inspections and quicker enforcement actions. Where repeated violations occur, the penalties should scale up exponentially to deter a corporation from treating fines as negligible costs.

• Legislative Support: Congress and state legislatures can pass laws that make it harder for companies to evade or minimize fines. They could also expand the use of criminal prosecutions for severe or willful violators.
• Streamlined Regulations: Far from the simplistic call for deregulation, we need to ensure that environmental rules are clear, consistent, and enforceable, preventing corporations from exploiting technical loopholes.

Corporate Governance Reforms

Leadership within corporations should be held directly responsible for environmental compliance. This might mean imposing personal penalties or requiring board-level committees dedicated to sustainability and compliance oversight. If executives face meaningful personal risk for regulatory failings, they are more likely to allocate adequate resources to compliance.

Community Monitoring and Legal Leverage

Local communities benefit when they have direct avenues to monitor industrial facilities, whether via citizen-based air-quality checks or mandated community advisory panels. Some municipalities have passed “Community Right-to-Know” laws that go beyond federal standards, forcing companies to publicly disclose all hazardous activities. Citizens can also push for expansions of the RCRA’s citizen-suit provisions, enabling them to sue violators directly when regulators fail to act.

Consumer Advocacy and Ethical Markets

Consumers who prioritize ethical and sustainable production can use their purchasing power to push companies toward better behavior. While hazardous waste handling is less visible to the average consumer than, say, fair-trade coffee or sweatshop labor, eco-conscious consumers can demand traceability and sustainability certifications for all stages of production, including waste disposal.

A Role for Nonprofit Collaboration

Environmental nonprofits and advocacy organizations can partner with communities to conduct independent audits, publicize violations, and lobby for stricter rules. In many landmark environmental cases, nonprofits provided crucial research and legal expertise. This can be particularly effective if allied with national or international networks, ensuring that local issues gain broader exposure.

---