Introduction

In recent years, the intersection between environmental harm and human rights has gained increasing attention within the Business and Human Rights field. Historically, corporations operated with significant latitude, often treating environmental compliance as a discretionary matter. Today, however, they must navigate a complex framework of national, regional, and international legal obligations and guidelines, such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct.

Yet the business world has not always followed what the law prescribes. While some corporations have adhered to these standards, many have failed to do so, without legal consequences.

The Miteni case in Italy exemplifies the implications of corporate practices that fall short of the responsibilities outlined in the UNGPs, which articulate the corporate responsibility to respect human rights. It demonstrates how environmental violations, notably the excessive use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in industrial production, can escalate into human rights infringements, affecting both the right to a healthy environment and the right to health for current and future generations.

PFAS, often referred to as “forever chemicals”, are synthetic compounds widely employed in industrial processes and consumer products due to their resistance to heat, fats, and water. Their extreme persistence in the environment, combined with well-documented health risks, including cancer, makes them a significant concern.

What is the Miteni Case About?

Miteni S.p.A. was a chemical company based in the Vicenza province, Italy, that produced fluorinated compounds, including PFAS, which were widely used in industries such as textiles, leather, and paper.

On 26 June 2025, the Court of Assizes of Vicenza convicted eleven out of fifteen defendants in the so-called Miteni case. All were former managers of the company Miteni S.p.A. and its parent companies: Mitsubishi Corporation Inc. – until 2009 – and International Chemical Investors S.E., which controlled Miteni through its Italian subsidiary until the company’s bankruptcy in 2018.

The trial, commenced in 2021 after complaints from environmental groups and private citizens filed from 2013 onwards and an ensuing investigation by the Vicenza Prosecutor, dealt with criminal charges under the Italian Criminal Code (c.p.), the Consolidated Environmental Act (Legislative Decree No. 152/2006 – TUA), and the Italian Bankruptcy Law (Royal Decree No. 267/1942). The charges were: the so-called unnamed disaster (Art. 434 c.p.); water poisoning (Art. 439 c.p.); environmental pollution (Art. 452-bis c.p.); fraudulent bankruptcy (Art. 216 of the Italian Bankruptcy Law); and unauthorized waste management activities (Art. 256 TUA).

The proceedings concerned large-scale pollution caused by PFAS, affecting a territory inhabited by more than 300,000 people across the provinces of Vicenza, Padua, and Verona, and resulting in the contamination of the second largest aquifer in Europe.

The Court established that the company, despite being aware of the environmental risks and adverse health effects of PFAS, had continued to release toxic substances into the environment without adequate safeguards, and therefore held the defendants criminally liable for multiple counts. In particular, the charge under Art. 256 TUA was declared time-barred, while the remaining offences were applied to the managers, in varying combinations. The Court imposed a total of 141 years of imprisonment and awarded €56.8 million in damages to the Italian Ministry of the Environment, as well as various amounts in compensation to the multiple civil parties claiming damages.

The Right to a Clean, Healthy, and Sustainable Environment and the Right to Health

From a human rights perspective, the Miteni case holds significant relevance. It represents the first time a national court has imposed criminal liability on corporate executives for PFAS-related environmental harm on this scale. This is particularly important because other countries, including the Netherlands, Belgium, France, and the United Kingdom, as well as many others worldwide, have reported elevated levels of PFAS in water sources and soil.

The conduct sanctioned in the case stands in clear contrast to the human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment, first affirmed by the United Nations Human Rights Council in  Resolution 48/13 of 2021 and subsequently recognized by the General Assembly in Resolution 76/300 of 2022. Looking at the evolution of legal frameworks on other continents, it is noteworthy that the right to a healthy environment has been recognized since the 1980s by human rights systems in Africa and the Americas, and more recent international treaties and declarations have also explicitly referred to it.

The case also highlights a tension with the right to health, as enshrined in Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as in numerous other international conventions and national constitutions, including Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

Duty Bearers in PFAS Pollution: The Roles of States and Private Actors

In the context of PFAS pollution, States and private actors bear important duties and responsibilities, though of a different nature.

The State has a duty to respect, protect, and fulfil human rights within its territory and jurisdiction, including the rights to health and to a healthy environment. They should take measures to prevent PFAS pollution, and to investigate, punish and redress any abuses through effective policies, legislation, regulations, and adjudication.

This duty to protect sets a standard of conduct: as confirmed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its advisory opinion on climate change of 23 July 2025, States firstly have a “customary duty to prevent significant harm to the environment” (para. 134, further clarified in para. 403). While States are not automatically responsible for human rights violations committed by private actors, they may breach international human rights obligations when such abuses can be attributed to them, or when they fail to take appropriate steps to prevent, investigate, punish, and redress the abuses of private actors (para. 428). Even if the ICJ’s analysis focused specifically on climate change, its reasoning has broader implications that extend to other forms of pollution, including PFAS. In fact, the ICJ further reiterated that the duty to prevent “arises as a result of the general risk of significant harm to which States contribute, in markedly different ways, through the activities undertaken within their jurisdiction or control” (para. 279).

Private actors, on the other hand, bear an independent responsibility to respect human rights, which exists regardless of States’ capacity or willingness to fulfil their own obligations. They should conduct human rights due diligence (HRDD) and comply with the current PFAS regulations.

A HRDD process could have played a crucial preventive role in the Miteni case. Properly conducted HRDD entails the identification, assessment, and mitigation of potential adverse impacts of PFAS discharge. Such a process would likely have enabled the company to recognize the significant risks to human health and the environment well before the contamination reached these proportions.

If the Italian court were to include in its forthcoming reasoning a specific reference to HRDD or to the UNGPs, this would represent an important step forward in Italian criminal proceedings, where first instance judgments usually limit themselves to the facts of the case and the specific violation of the relevant provisions of national law.

Coming back to the ICJ Advisory Opinion, in order to limit potential State liability, governments may subject companies to greater scrutiny. At the same time, private actors often have the financial and technological means not only to support efforts to mitigate climate change but also to prevent and reduce PFAS pollution. In this way, they can shift from being a source of internal pollution risk for the State to helping such States combat the spread of PFAS.

Why is the Miteni Case Relevant for Corporations?

The relevance of the Miteni case in the relationship between human rights and business lies in the nature and severity of the penalties imposed. It sets an important precedent illustrating how corporate misconduct in environmental matters, including PFAS pollution, cannot be regarded merely as a cost to be absorbed in corporate risk management.

For the first time in the context of PFAS contamination, a national court not only recognized corporate criminal liability but also issued substantial prison sentences for executives, up to 17 years, and multi-million euro damages to the State. In addition, various amounts were awarded as compensation to the other civil parties that joined the proceedings claiming damages and were able to demonstrate they had suffered harm from Miteni’s activities. These included cities, provinces, the Veneto Region, environmental associations, labour unions, companies, as well as individual citizens and workers directly affected.

It is noteworthy that, while companies pursue productivity and profit, legal restrictions must be observed. Criteria such as company size and production scale determine limits on polluting substance discharge, including PFAS. In Italy, these limits are primarily established through national legislation (i.e., Legislative Decrees No. 18/2023 and No. 102/2025) and through regional measures. A notable example is Veneto Region Resolution No. 1590/2017, and its amendments, adopted in the region where Miteni operated.

Beyond Italy, the case may also carry broader implications. While it does not create binding precedent outside the country, its visibility could influence corporate behaviour and lawmakers across Europe and worldwide by raising awareness of the potential for criminal accountability in PFAS-related activities.

Conclusion

Although recent developments, such as the ICJ advisory opinion, represent significant progress, it must be acknowledged that, for instance in the EU, the adoption of sanctions legislation is centralised, and this alone would not be sufficient to eliminate the risk of human rights violations arising from corporate activities that directly affect the environment.

The emphasis must therefore be placed on two key aspects: first, stricter implementation of existing laws, and second, more effective enforcement, to ensure that activities once tolerated or unpunished are now subject to increasingly rigorous and mandatory oversight, with tangible consequences, including custodial sentences. Deterrence alone does not appear to be strong enough to prevent ongoing PFAS discharges into water or soil.

In light of the lessons drawn from the Miteni case, one must ask whether it remains justifiable, both in Europe and globally, to continue the excessive use of PFAS in industrial production: a question whose answer, in itself, seems largely self-evident.