Here is a ProPublic historical outline of DEQ legacy, including officials and their contributions as serving as secretary of the LDEQ https://www.propublica.org/article/how-an-environmental-regulator-became-known-for-protecting-industry
The agency is widely criticized as biased by environmental groups within the Parishes. Conflicts of interest have been cited due to the way in which the department generates funds and can expedite permit approvals. In ProPublica articles, the DEQ has been criticized for non-enforcement against polluting industries and doubting EPAs monitoring. https://www.propublica.org/article/in-cancer-alley-toxic-polluters-face-little-oversight-from-environmental-regulators#:~:text=Series%3A%20Polluter's%20Paradise-,In%20%E2%80%9CCancer%20Alley%2C%E2%80%9D%20Toxic%20Polluters%20Face%20Little%20Oversight%20From,the%20chemical%20industry%20it%20regulates..
Most recently, the EPA is pursuing litigation against LDEQ and Louisiana Department of Health alleging that the LDEQ discriminates on the basis of race, violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Complaints filed on behalf of the Sierra Club, Concerned Citizens of St. Johns, Rise St. James, Louisiana Bucket Brigade and others are in regards to the LDEQ air pollution control programs and permitting that subjects residents on the basis of race, and that the failures to protect the health, disproportionately impact the minority communities, subjecting them to adverse health and environmental impacts.
The LDEQ has been critized for favoring industry, economic and business interests over public welfare. The DEQ has been cited as weighing the creation of jobs and land development over the air and communities being polluted.
Conflicts of interests have been noted through the DEQ expidited permit reviewal process that approves the siting of petrochemical facitilies. If companies want to expidite the permitting process they must pay the DEQ employees overtime. Conflicts of interest have been noted in the structural process of permitting approvals in which the companies pay the regulators that approve them.
The LDEQ consists of five major offices: Office of the Secretary, Office of Management and Finance, Office of Environmental Services, Office of Environmental Compliance, and Office of Environmental Assessment. The Office of Environmental Services is in charge of Air, Waste and water permits. The Office of Environmental Compliance works on surveillance and enforcement. There are multiple regional offices, 8 (shown below in added image), that serve the Parishes. Currently, as of April 2022, Chuck Carr Brown Serves as Secretary.
The LDEQ in recent years is underfunded and understaffed compared to previous years. Budget cuts and employee cutbacks are shown through the Environmental Integrity Project Report: During a Time of Cutbacks at EPA, 30 States Also Slashed Funding for State Environmental Agencies. Images below show Louisiana DEQ cutbacks. Red signifies the most cut backs while blue siginifies increased spending or employment by state.
According to the LDEQ Website, “The mission of the Department of Environmental Quality is to provide service to the people of Louisiana through comprehensive environmental protection in order to promote and protect health, safety and welfare while considering sound policies that are consistent with statutory mandates.”
The text doesn’t really go there because it seems to be taking CSR at face value - so it’s saying the corporation isn’t really doing CSR. Author isn’t arguing that CSR forecloses anything but that the corporation’s actions foreclose any “real” social responsibility.
They rename the things that people accuse them of, even as they acknowledge the accusation. They keep using the term “biosolids” instead of “hazardous waste” or “toxins”. They produced reports that denied each allegation. From their Our Environmental Values 2003 report: “In our opinion, the balance of evidence including testing and analysis by independent laboratories and the Indian government shows that the allegations against Coca Cola have not been substantiated.” They also tried to show progress against the accusations with their CSR initiatives - including reduction of water use ratio, rainwater harvesting, HIV AIDS projects - cooperating with USAID and UN. They also build up an image of corporate philanthropy with sponsoring sports, especially the Olympics and FIFA, and just branding by having their vending machines on college campuses.
They tried to suppress a report that shows how toxic their waste is, and that it is useless as fertilizer (I did like the “extraordinary practice of distributing toxic wastes to the farmers as fertilizers” quote on 108).
There’s no exploration of what corporate actors are thinking. Or really the villagers either. The corporation here is portrayed as willfully and knowingly destroying the lives and livelihoods of the marginalized people of India. The CSR reports are mostly empty and incorrect responses to the accusations coca cola faced, so they don’t really claim any help.
The corporation really denies its responsibility here… simply refusing to put on their labels the chemical makeup of their product. They do perform an extent of responsibility about the water usage, though they twist the words of the report commissioned by High Court of Kerala to make it seem like it’s really just the low rainfall that’s making a water shortage, and that the court endorses their continued use of the groundwater. The author says “independent study” in quotes - but doesn’t get into to what extent and the study was compromised.
The article points out the differences in how Coca Cola behaves in the US and UK versus in India - the US products don’t contain pesticides and do comply to laws about levels of toxic materials in beverages. In the UK, complaints about the product led to recalls. In India they deny that the consumer has the right to know what poison chemicals are in the beverage even though Indian law does grant this right to consumers, even after the court has found there to be harmful and illegal levels of toxins in the beverages.
The corporation just doesn’t listen to the court demands that the state courts rule in India. The High Court of Rajasthan ruled that coca cola had to test the beverages and disclose on the labels the full composition, including chemicals that were found in the drink. Coca Cola just refused - they said it was not required by law, and didn’t even brand their action as CSR. Elsewhere they claimed that their levels complied with the law or were better. (Even though it was just not true in this case). “Not bound by law to make such a disclosure, and that if the water it uses does contain pesticides, the company could hardly be held responsible for it… ...Divulging information with regard to the presence or absence of DDT from its beverages was not relevant to the debate. It even went so far as to question the material relevance of such information imparted to the consumers, denying that the consumers had any right to an informed choice before selecting, buying, and consuming the products…. Refused to comply…” p114. They just complained this was part of trade war