It began in August 2019 with a pump failure. By itself, such a mechanical glitch might seem minor—an annoying but inevitable hiccup in an industrial setting. Yet according to the complaint filed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM), that single malfunction at the Cleveland-Cliffs Burns Harbor steel mill unleashed a toxic tide of ammonia and cyanide-laden wastewater into the East Branch of the Little Calumet River. Not only did the river run with contamination that killed hundreds of fish, but beaches at the revered Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore were abruptly shuttered for seven days. As allegations piled up, government lawyers charged that the steel mill had not only violated its discharge permits by exceeding ammonia and cyanide limits but also failed to provide proper and timely emergency notifications under federal environmental laws.

By the time the dust settled, the allegations asserted that the company’s discharge, along with delayed local warnings, had threatened both the environment and nearby communities. And although Cleveland-Cliffs agreed to a settlement—including a $3 million penalty split with the State of Indiana and specific mandates to improve its wastewater treatment—many are left asking how such large-scale alleged misconduct occurs in the first place.

These charges do not exist in a vacuum. They highlight ongoing systemic problems within a profit-driven, neoliberal capitalism framework, where corporate social responsibility often takes a back seat to quarterly earnings. When regulatory capture and deregulation weaken enforcement, corporations can slip through loopholes. Thus, while the Cleveland-Cliffs settlement may conclude one chapter of environmental harm, it illuminates a much bigger story: the economic fallout of unbridled growth, corporate greed, and the global struggle to preserve corporate accountability in the face of a system designed to reward profits over people.

In this investigative piece, we dive into the legal allegations themselves—focusing on the most damning evidence and how it was addressed in the official complaint. We then map these allegations onto the broader stage of American industry, analyzing how profit-maximization strategies and regulatory loopholes make such patterns of misconduct both frighteningly common and deeply entrenched. While Cleveland-Cliffs has committed to improvements at the Burns Harbor facility, critics question whether these changes represent genuine reforms or merely another example of the “cost of doing business.”

Over the next eleven sections, we’ll walk through these events in detail, linking them to the real human toll on workers and local communities, and we’ll zoom out to explore systemic weaknesses that allow or even encourage similar actions across multiple industries. Finally, we’ll examine potential solutions—ways we can push for corporate ethics, robust environmental regulation, and authentic reform that goes beyond one settlement in Indiana.

---

Corporate Intent Exposed

At the heart of the complaint is a chilling series of allegations describing repeated lapses in environmental management. The Cleveland-Cliffs Burns Harbor facility, which is capable of producing five million tons of raw steel annually, faced charges that its unpermitted discharges were not just a minor oversight or a single spill. Instead, regulators accused the steel mill of several days’ worth of unpermitted releases of cyanide and ammonia nitrogen into the local waterway in August 2019.

According to the official complaint, the problem began when a pump failure occurred in the Blast Furnace recycle system. This mechanical breakdown resulted in untreated wastewater being directed straight to the East Branch of the Little Calumet River. The discharge contained levels of cyanide and ammonia that far exceeded the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit limits. As investigators from the EPA and IDEM began piecing together the timeline, they discovered that hundreds of fish died shortly after the contamination event.

The alleged misconduct didn’t stop there. Federal law requires companies to promptly notify local emergency responders and the community whenever significant releases of hazardous substances occur. The complaint notes that Cleveland-Cliffs Burns Harbor failed to provide timely notification and emergency reports after the discharge, an act that violated both the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). In short, it wasn’t just that the plant had a major release; it was that the company delayed telling the people living nearby about the potential dangers.

Specific Allegations

• Exceeded Permit Effluent Limitations: The complaint states that the discharge exceeded allowable levels for ammonia and cyanide, crucial parameters in water quality management.
• Killed Hundreds of Fish: By the facility’s own acknowledgment, the contamination was so severe that it led to fish kills, a dramatic sign of acute toxicity in the waterway.
• Closed Beaches: Nearby beaches at Indiana Dunes National Park were forced to close for seven days, reflecting the scope of the problem and the level of risk to public health.
• Emergency Reporting Failures: EPCRA and CERCLA specify that communities have the right to know about hazardous releases in real time. Yet the complaint underscores that the facility did not quickly alert local authorities.

For a company that touts its role as a major steel producer, these are no small infractions. They serve as prime examples of how, in an environment where profits are paramount, critical safety and environmental safeguards can become afterthoughts. A single malfunction—a pump failing—spiraled into a major environmental hazard, leaving the community in the dark until the visible consequences were undeniable.

Even more unsettling is how easily such a discharge could recur if oversight remains lax. The Cleveland-Cliffs settlement may resolve these particular violations, but the allegations hint at deeper structural issues: If one pump failure can wreak such havoc, how many other industrial facilities skate by on the edge of compliance? And how often do “technical malfunctions” remain undisclosed because they’re cheaper to hide than to fix proactively?

---

The Corporations Get Away With It

One of the most perplexing dimensions of this story is the pattern of near-impunity for large, powerful industrial entities. The U.S. EPA and IDEM stepped in forcefully this time, filing a complaint and reaching a settlement that addresses the specific ammonia and cyanide discharge. Yet environmental advocates argue that what we see here is just the tip of the iceberg: a moment where the system momentarily worked, albeit slowly and reactively, rather than proactively preventing harm.

For years, common sense havers have pointed to the ways in which corporations can use legal loopholes, slow-moving administrative processes, and an underfunded regulatory system to avoid significant repercussions. In the Cleveland-Cliffs case, it took the combined efforts of federal and state environmental agencies, plus local environmental groups like the Environment and Law Policy Center (ELPC) and the Hoosier Environmental Council (HEC), to push for real accountability. Without their scrutiny, it’s possible the fish kill and subsequent beach closures might have been quietly chalked up to an unfortunate anomaly.

Loopholes and Delays

• Compliance Extensions: Corporations often lobby for extensions, citing technical or economic challenges in upgrading facilities. The settlement timeline here requires a permanent ammonia removal system by May 2025, which effectively means the facility continues to operate for several more years before the new system is fully in place.
• Opaque Notification Requirements: While laws like EPCRA and CERCLA mandate immediate reporting, the complaint suggests that local authorities were not notified in a timely manner. Some corporations rely on ambiguous terms like “as soon as practicable” to justify delays.
• Regulatory Capture: Over time, industries forge close relationships with the agencies meant to regulate them. Former corporate executives may rotate into regulatory roles and vice versa, muddying the waters and sometimes weakening enforcement.

Furthermore, the settlement calls for a $3 million civil penalty. To the public, this might look like a heavy fine. But considering that the Burns Harbor facility produces up to five million tons of steel per year, I would like to argue this penalty is dwarfed by the mill’s potential annual revenues—essentially, a cost of doing business.

Because large corporations frequently have vast legal and financial resources at their disposal, they can afford to prolong litigation, negotiate favorable terms, and pay fines that may seem significant to ordinary citizens but barely dent the bottom line. This dynamic fosters a sense of corporate impunity—a belief, often borne out by experience, that big industry can pay a penalty and move on with business as usual.

---

The Cost of Doing Business

As alleged in the complaint and underscored by environmental advocates, large polluters frequently weigh the potential fines against the costs of preventing pollution. When that calculation tilts in favor of paying a penalty—if and when one is imposed—the moral hazard is obvious. It’s akin to an industrial gambler hedging bets: if the chance of being caught and penalized is low, or the fine is manageable, it makes strict compliance less attractive than taking shortcuts.

Economic Fallout

This approach underscores the pitfalls of profit-maximization under neoliberal capitalism, where externalities (like polluted rivers and public health risks) are often shifted onto local communities and ecosystems. The Burns Harbor discharge forced closures at the beaches in Indiana Dunes National Park, a popular recreational destination. Local businesses that rely on tourism likely lost revenue. Meanwhile, the intangible damage to the area’s public image is difficult to quantify, but it reverberates in the minds of potential visitors who might opt to stay away from a region linked to toxic spills.

Additionally, fish kills can have profound effects on local wildlife populations, altering the ecosystem’s balance. This, in turn, impacts fishing, both commercial and recreational. If fish populations are diminished, area fishermen and bait shops feel the sting. Environmental harm’s ripple effects typically extend far beyond the immediate event, scarring local communities for months, if not years.

Undermining Regulatory Purpose

One might ask: What’s the purpose of a fine if it’s too small to dissuade future violations? Theoretically, fines and civil penalties exist to deter corporate wrongdoing. They are meant to impose a financial burden that outweighs any profits gained from noncompliance. However, in an environment where shareholders demand ever-increasing returns, and where short-term gains can overshadow long-term sustainability, fines become yet another budget line item.

The complaint shows that Cleveland-Cliffs must also reimburse the EPA and IDEM for certain past response costs, which total about $47,675.37. Again, from a small business or household perspective, that might be a devastating sum. But from the vantage point of a major steel producer, it’s smaller than the monthly interest on many corporate debts. As a result, these numbers raise uncomfortable questions about whether the penalty truly reflects the scale of environmental harm.

The Broader Pattern

Cleveland-Cliffs is not unique. Across industries, from oil and gas to agrochemicals, corporations engage in cost-benefit analyses that weigh human health and the environment against quarterly earnings. The reason is not that all corporate leaders are inherently malicious, but that the system rewards short-term profit margins more than robust environmental stewardship. When pollution controls are expensive, or plant upgrades threaten operational output, there is a systemic push to delay, minimize, or fight these regulations.

This dynamic underpins the tension between corporate accountability and corporate greed. If maximizing returns is the primary mission—driven by boards of directors and shareholders—then investing in ecological safeguards or robust safety protocols may be seen internally as a drag on profitability. Until that fundamental incentive structure shifts, communities will continue to see repeated versions of these environmental missteps, raising the specter of what the complaint calls “unpermitted releases” that kill fish, shutter beaches, and sow distrust.

---

Systemic Failures

Why do these events keep happening, not just in the steel industry but across a broad swath of corporate America? The phenomenon arises from a neoliberal capitalist system that prioritizes deregulation, emphasizes private profits, and weakens the government’s capacity to enforce existing rules.

Deregulation and Corporate Influence

Neoliberalism, in simple terms, favors free-market solutions, reduced government intervention, and the privatization of public goods. In this climate, corporations are often allowed to self-regulate or to pay nominal fines when they do step out of line. Over time, these repeated messages of lax enforcement can embolden corporate leaders to skirt environmental obligations.

Regulatory capture remains a key concern. Industry lobbyists and corporate executives may influence policymakers, leading to watered-down regulations or loopholes that hamper effective enforcement. When rulemaking is shaped by the entities it’s supposed to regulate, the risk of serious corporate wrongdoing grows exponentially.

Resource-Strapped Agencies

The EPA and state agencies like IDEM face budget constraints and political pressures. Without adequate staffing or sufficient funding to monitor facilities regularly, these agencies can only investigate major incidents or act on citizen complaints. That means many smaller instances of pollution or repeated minor violations slip through the cracks.

In the Cleveland-Cliffs Burns Harbor case, government enforcement did arrive. But it came after fish kills and beach closures, indicating a reactive approach. By then, the damage was done.

Legal Complexity and Delayed Justice

Environmental laws in the United States, particularly the Clean Water Act (CWA), are robust on paper, but they rely heavily on self-reported compliance data from the companies. If a corporation falsifies reports or delays disclosure, it can be months—or years—before an agency intervenes. Meanwhile, residents and ecosystems bear the brunt of contamination.

When a violation does surface, legal battles can last for years. Corporations may exploit complex legal strategies to minimize liabilities. In the end, if they lose, the final settlement might feel like a symbolic penalty rather than the full cost of environmental restitution.

The pattern reveals a system with glaring vulnerabilities—a perfect storm where corporate polluters can afford to push the envelope, secure in the knowledge that the oversight net is filled with holes. While the Burns Harbor settlement offers some relief to local communities—particularly the requirement to donate 127 acres of land abutting the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore—this is merely a patchwork fix. The underlying arrangement of awarding polluters with limited penalties stands largely unchallenged.

---

This Pattern of Predation Is a Feature, Not a Bug

Critics of America’s current economic framework often argue that corporate greed and environmental harm are not anomalies but natural outcomes of late-stage capitalism. In this context, “predation” refers to how companies systematically exploit resources—be they natural, labor, or community health—to maximize shareholder returns.

Wealth Disparity and Community Costs

We see the results on the ground: wealth flows to corporate boards and investors, while local neighborhoods deal with contaminated water, decimated fish stocks, and uncertain long-term health ramifications. Workers within these facilities may see wages that don’t keep pace with executive compensation, all while handling dangerous materials and facing job insecurity if they blow the whistle on pollution.

The Burns Harbor allegations depict this imbalance: a behemoth steel operation with billions in revenues overshadowing the voices of everyday residents who rely on the river and beaches for recreation and livelihood. The complaint stands as testimony to a pattern: corporate operations too often run in ways that take communities for granted—offering them risk without the promised “trickle-down” benefits.

Chronic Undervaluation of Environmental Safeguards

One hallmark of corporate strategy under neoliberalism is the relentless drive to reduce production costs. When faced with the prospect of expensive filtration systems, comprehensive environmental management upgrades, or thorough hazard monitoring, the immediate bottom-line logic can lead decision-makers to weigh the price of upgrades against the likelihood and size of potential fines.

Environmental advocates warn that the structural incentives under such an arrangement ensure “predictable” environmental crises. If the worst-case scenario (like paying $3 million in penalties) is cheaper than fully preventing pollution, major corporate players might see noncompliance as an “acceptable risk.”

The Role of Citizen Watchdogs

In the Cleveland-Cliffs settlement, two citizens’ groups—the Environment and Law Policy Center and the Hoosier Environmental Council—served as co-plaintiffs alongside the State. This underscores a growing trend: communities must organize, sue, or otherwise force corporations to meet their responsibilities. Unfortunately, such lawsuits require time, money, and legal expertise that many affected populations lack. Consequently, the burden of proof and the cost of activism fall heavily on residents most vulnerable to pollution’s harms.

In a profit-driven system, the story often ends the same way: corporations push the boundaries of legality, playing a numbers game with minimal immediate risk, while local people do the legwork of gathering evidence, raising alarms, and demanding redress. And if that redress comes, it might be a settlement that, while beneficial, barely dents corporate interests.

---

The PR Playbook of Damage Control

When accusations of corporate misconduct become public, it’s not uncommon for the company in question to unroll a well-rehearsed strategy of public relations maneuvers. Although specific PR tactics employed by Cleveland-Cliffs in this case are not detailed in the complaint, we can glean from similar industries a common “playbook” used to mitigate reputational harm.

Step 1: Denial or Minimization

In many cases, the initial response is to downplay the severity or scale of the incident—framing it as an isolated occurrence or an unforeseeable technical glitch. Companies often cite “early investigations” as a reason to withhold conclusive statements, even if internal documents point to systemic lapses.

Step 2: Emphasize Remediation Efforts

Once evidence becomes undeniable—like video footage of fish kills and closed beaches—corporations pivot to highlighting swift action, focusing on any immediate attempts to reduce the environmental impact. They may spotlight philanthropic gestures or short-term solutions (like the “lined leachate storage pond” that Cleveland-Cliffs must now maintain) to demonstrate good faith.

Step 3: Quietly Negotiate Settlements

Simultaneously, corporate legal teams engage in closed-door negotiations with regulators to reach a settlement that manages financial liability and public image. Through these settlements, the corporation often avoids an admission of wrongdoing, even if it pays a substantial penalty.

Step 4: Public Relations Offensive

Following the settlement, companies typically issue statements affirming their commitment to corporate social responsibility and environmental compliance—pointing to newly installed or upgraded systems as proof of progress. However, I question whether these steps signify a fundamental overhaul of corporate culture or merely cosmetic changes.

Step 5: Return to Business as Usual

In the long run, the public memory fades, and the company continues operations, often announcing expansions or new ventures. If the settlement includes beneficial projects—like donating land to the state—corporations can further highlight their positive contributions. Yet such acts can also serve as a calculated move to improve public perception rather than address the underlying profit-driven incentives that led to the violations in the first place.

The Cleveland-Cliffs settlement, requiring the company to implement new waste-treatment systems and donate a significant plot of land adjacent to Indiana Dunes, will likely be showcased as a sign of corporate responsibility. But only a continued pattern of safe operations—and a willingness to invest in robust environmental measures before a crisis hits—will tell us whether this is genuine transformation or merely brand management.

---

Profits Over People

The allegations leveled against Cleveland-Cliffs Burns Harbor underscore an uncomfortable truth: that the steel mill’s seemingly innocuous mechanical failure wound up causing considerable harm, not just to fish and wildlife, but to the people who depend on a healthy environment for recreation, tourism, and local commerce.

Despite a robust environmental regulatory framework on the books, the complaint argues that Cleveland-Cliffs did not move quickly to notify local authorities. In doing so, it placed the health of nearby communities in jeopardy. Harmful substances like cyanide and ammonia can have immediate and lasting effects on both ecosystems and human well-being. While the settlement mandates corrective measures, the broader point is chillingly simple: under the current system, these sorts of oversights can and do happen because the profit engine has little incentive to idle or reduce speed in the name of caution.

Corporate Social Responsibility vs. Shareholder Demands

This tension is as old as industrial capitalism. Corporate leaders must balance the demands of shareholders—who want to see dividends and rising stock prices—with the moral and legal obligation to protect public health. In an era dominated by wealth disparity, I argue that the “balance” is more of a façade, with corporate boards bowing to economic imperatives at the expense of local communities.

The Burns Harbor settlement is thus illustrative of a pattern where genuine corporate ethics are overshadowed by the race to stay competitive and profitable. Indeed, investing in robust pollution controls, advanced wastewater treatment, and rigorous safety redundancies can be costly. When weighed against the prospect of a one-time penalty—especially if that penalty is viewed internally as manageable—corporations might choose short-term savings over long-term environmental stewardship.

A Pattern Repeated in Other Sectors

This dynamic is not unique to steel manufacturing. In the petroleum industry, for example, failing pipelines or refineries might leak harmful substances into water systems. In the pharmaceutical realm, companies may pay out massive settlements rather than fundamentally changing business practices that generate enormous profits. It all boils down to a calculus: is it cheaper to comply rigorously, or to settle litigation later?

Until those calculations shift—until fines meaningfully reflect the gravity of environmental harm and threaten the corporation’s bottom line—violations like the one at Burns Harbor will remain a cost of doing business. That cost, however, is often absorbed by local ecosystems and the people who live there, not by the executives determining corporate strategy.

---

The Human Toll on Workers and Communities

Any major industrial accident ripples through the wider community. At Burns Harbor, local residents who frequent the beaches for recreation found them unexpectedly closed for a full week. Fishermen—both recreational and commercial—witnessed hundreds of fish carcasses floating to the surface, a harbinger of ecosystem distress that often spells economic woes in the long run.

Health Concerns

Ammonia and cyanide are no mild irritants. Ammonia at high concentrations can harm aquatic life, leading to algae blooms and decreased oxygen levels. For humans, contact or ingestion can be dangerous, particularly for sensitive populations. Cyanide is acutely toxic; fish kills are the immediate and visible consequence, but the long-term implications for the food chain, including species that feed on fish, raise alarm.

Residents might wonder about the quality of their drinking water, especially if local wells draw from nearby groundwater sources. While public water systems are often tested, any infiltration of toxic substances can degrade trust. Once that confidence is lost, it can take years—or decades—to rebuild.

Economic Repercussions for the Community

Local businesses near the Indiana Dunes rely on tourism—visitors who come to enjoy the beaches, nature trails, and scenic vistas. When the beaches shut down, tourists stay away, hurting the small vendors, hotel owners, and restaurant workers who depend on a thriving tourist trade.

Over time, repeated environmental incidents can tarnish the region’s reputation, deterring not only vacationers but also new businesses wary of settling in a region plagued by pollution. This can deepen wealth disparity, as the big steel producer remains operational (and profitable), whereas small, locally owned enterprises suffer the downturn.

Workers on the Front Lines

Inside the facility itself, workers face their own set of risks. They handle dangerous chemicals, heavy machinery, and high-pressure systems. If a corporate culture prioritizes output over safety, employees can be the first to encounter hazardous substances, whether through direct contact or by discovering leaks that haven’t been promptly addressed.

Moreover, workers who witness such violations may fear retaliation if they speak out. Under neoliberal capitalism, job security can feel precarious, and whistleblower protections—though they exist on paper—can be difficult to navigate or enforce. This dynamic dissuades internal accountability, effectively muffling those who might raise alarms before a pollution event escalates.

---

Global Trends in Corporate Accountability

While the Cleveland-Cliffs settlement is an American story set in Indiana, the dynamics underpinning it echo around the world. In an era of global supply chains, corporations often shift operations to regions with more lenient regulations. This race to the bottom can undermine gains in places where laws have grown more stringent, because if compliance becomes too burdensome, companies may simply relocate.

The Rise of International Scrutiny

Increasingly, consumers and governments worldwide are demanding more transparency regarding corporate operations and their environmental footprints. Large multinational firms publicize sustainability reports, highlight their corporate social responsibility initiatives, and tout philanthropic partnerships. However, environmental advocates question whether these public-facing campaigns truly alter fundamental incentives.

State of Deregulation

In many countries, deregulation has left environmental protection precariously dependent on voluntary corporate efforts. International bodies like the United Nations Environment Programme attempt to set standards, but compliance remains largely up to national or local authorities. Even in a case such as Burns Harbor, it took a collaborative effort between federal and state agencies—plus public interest groups—to impose serious scrutiny.

Similar Lawsuits, Same Outcomes?

From the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico to microplastic pollution from major manufacturing industries, settlements often follow the same pattern: large fines, pledges of corporate reform, and an eventual return to business as usual. It begs the question: do these legal actions truly transform corporate behavior, or are they merely a cyclical part of doing business?

The Cleveland-Cliffs settlement stands out because of the land donation and the co-plaintiff status of local environmental groups. Yet even these gestures are not without precedent. Corporations worldwide have offered land conservation or reforestation projects in exchange for a reduced penalty or favorable public relations. The pattern suggests that unless global political structures change the fundamental cost-benefit analysis, the story will continue to repeat.

---

Pathways for Reform and Consumer Advocacy

If there is a silver lining to the Cleveland-Cliffs Burns Harbor case, it’s the attention such incidents bring to corporate accountability. They offer a rallying cry for communities, workers, and advocacy groups to demand more stringent safeguards.

Regulatory Strengthening

Revisiting and updating the Clean Water Act regulations, ensuring adequate funding for the EPA and state agencies, and tightening emergency reporting requirements could prevent future crises. For instance, implementing real-time water quality monitoring that is publicly accessible could bridge the gap between an unplanned discharge and public knowledge.

Penalties that Reflect the Scale of Harm

A $3 million penalty for a facility producing five million tons of steel may not serve as a serious deterrent. Policymakers might consider scaling fines to corporate revenues or tying them directly to the cost of environmental restoration. If the penalty is consistently higher than the cost of compliance, the impetus shifts toward prevention.

Mandated Transparency

Corporations could be required to disclose the full details of environmental incidents and near-misses on a publicly accessible online platform. This level of transparency would not only educate local communities but also incentivize companies to minimize harmful events that could damage their public image.

Consumer Pressure

From boycotts to public protests, consumers wield significant influence. If enough end-users of steel, for instance, favor suppliers that can certify a clean environmental record, it may spur more robust pollution controls. While such consumer-driven initiatives are often limited by cost concerns (as eco-friendly products sometimes come at higher prices), growing public consciousness could gradually reshape demand.

Grassroots Organizing

Community groups like the Environment and Law Policy Center and Hoosier Environmental Council prove that grassroots activism can compel powerful corporations to the negotiating table. Building alliances, sharing knowledge, and pursuing legal avenues remain powerful strategies for local communities facing the destructive impacts of corporate pollution.

Whistleblower Protections

Bolstering legal protections and creating clear reporting pathways for employees who observe environmental violations can be a game-changer. By protecting and rewarding employees who flag potential hazards, regulators gain a line of sight into corporate practices before they escalate into catastrophic spills or discharges.

Towards a Cultural Shift

Ultimately, preventing these environmental crises may require a deeper cultural change in corporate governance—one that values long-term ecological well-being over short-term profit. This shift includes embracing corporate ethics, aligning with corporate social responsibility values, and acknowledging that unbridled corporate greed is not merely a moral failing but a tangible risk to public health and community stability.

If the Cleveland-Cliffs settlement can stand as a case study in how big industry can be held to account, it offers hope. But hope needs constant fueling from legislation, activism, and public awareness. As the dust settles and the beaches reopen, the question remains: will the corporate world learn from this cautionary tale, or will the predictable cycle of profit-driven transgressions continue to jeopardize our waterways, our communities, and our future?

---

The EPA has a webpage with an overview of this violation: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/cleveland-cliffs-steel-llc-and-cleveland-cliffs-burns-harbor-llc-settlement

sources used:
[1] attached PDF
[2] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/corp-social-responsibility.asp
[3] https://corporateaccountability.org
[4] https://www.ibm.com/topics/corporate-social-responsibility
[5] https://berniesanders.com/issues/corporate-accountability-and-democracy/
[6] https://zapier.com/blog/corporate-social-responsibility-examples/

💡 Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category

Corporations harm people every day — from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.

• 💀 Product Safety Violations — When companies risk lives for profit.
• 🌿 Environmental Violations — Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.
• 💼 Labor Exploitation — Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.
• 🛡️ Data Breaches & Privacy Abuses — Misuse and mishandling of personal information.
• 💵 Financial Fraud & Corruption — Lies, scams, and executive impunity.