Environmental Crime Enforcement Is Increasing: What Businesses Need to Know About Their Waste Disposal Responsibilities

The latest figures published by Defra show councils in England dealt with more than 1.26 million fly-tipping incidents during 2024/25, an increase on the previous year. The same statistics show a rise in enforcement activity, including fixed penalty notices and other enforcement measures.

Whilst fly-tipping is often viewed as a problem for local authorities alone, the reality is that businesses should be paying close attention to what these figures tell us about the current enforcement landscape.

For many organisations, waste management is seen as a relatively straightforward operational issue. Once a contractor has been appointed and waste is collected, it is easy to assume that responsibility largely passes elsewhere. However, recent enforcement activity across the country suggests that regulators and local authorities are taking an increasingly close interest in where waste comes from, how it is handled and whether appropriate checks have been undertaken throughout the process.

The legal obligations are well established

There has been no significant shift in the legal framework governing waste disposal. Businesses have long been subject to duties relating to the storage, transfer and disposal of waste, including obligations under section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

The duty of care requires organisations to take reasonable measures to ensure waste is handled properly and transferred only to authorised persons.

What appears to be changing is not necessarily the law itself, but the level of scrutiny being applied by regulators and local authorities.

Faced with rising clean-up costs, increasing public concern and pressure on public resources, many councils are understandably looking to demonstrate that environmental offences will not be tolerated. The recent action taken by Bedford Borough Council is one example of a wider trend. Across the country, authorities are making greater use of prosecutions, fixed penalty notices, surveillance powers and vehicle seizure powers where appropriate.

Why businesses can still find themselves exposed

One of the most common misconceptions is the belief that responsibility ends once waste has been collected by a contractor.  In practice, matters are rarely that straightforward.  If waste is subsequently discovered at an illegal site or linked to a fly-tipping incident, investigators are likely to consider where it originated and whether appropriate due diligence was undertaken before it was handed over.  The question is not simply whether a contractor was appointed. It is whether the business can demonstrate that reasonable steps were taken to satisfy itself that the contractor was authorised and that suitable processes were in place.

For many organisations, the greatest vulnerability is not deliberate wrongdoing but poor record-keeping, inadequate contractor checks or a failure to revisit arrangements that have been in place for years without review.  These issues often only come to light once an investigation has commenced.

Environmental enforcement is becoming more sophisticated

Historically, environmental offences such as fly-tipping were often viewed as relatively straightforward enforcement matters. That is no longer always the case.

Recent years have seen increasing focus from regulators, local authorities and enforcement agencies on environmental offending, particularly where there is evidence of financial gain, organised activity or repeated non-compliance.  My own recent work has included advising in matters involving alleged fly-tipping offences, wastewater discharge investigations and a substantial Packaging Recovery Export Notes (PERNs) fraud investigation. Whilst each case involved very different factual and legal issues, they collectively demonstrate the breadth of environmental and regulatory risks that organisations can face.

What those matters often have in common is the level of scrutiny applied to systems, records and decision-making processes. Investigators are increasingly interested not simply in what happened, but in whether organisations can demonstrate that appropriate controls, oversight and governance arrangements were in place at the relevant time.  For businesses, this highlights the importance of viewing environmental compliance as part of a wider risk management framework rather than a standalone operational issue.

Waste management is increasingly a governance issue

Environmental compliance is sometimes viewed as a matter delegated to facilities teams, site managers or external contractors.  Increasingly, however, it should be considered a governance issue.

Businesses are facing greater scrutiny of their environmental credentials from regulators, customers, investors and supply chain partners. Organisations that publicly promote sustainability commitments may find that weaknesses in waste management arrangements attract criticism that extends well beyond any regulatory investigation.

For larger organisations, environmental compliance now sits alongside broader discussions around risk management, corporate governance and ESG performance.  The consequences of getting it wrong can extend far beyond the cost of a fine.

Practical steps businesses should consider

The vast majority of organisations are not engaged in waste crime. However, businesses should not assume that this removes the need for robust procedures.

As a minimum, organisations should regularly review their waste management arrangements and consider whether they can readily demonstrate:

• that waste carriers and contractors are appropriately authorised;

• that waste transfer documentation is complete and accessible;

• that due diligence checks have been undertaken and recorded;

• that staff understand internal waste management procedures; and

• that arrangements are periodically reviewed rather than simply renewed year after year.

From a legal perspective, contemporaneous records are often as important as the checks themselves. A business may have carried out appropriate due diligence, but if it cannot evidence what was done and when, that can create unnecessary difficulties should questions later arise.

Looking ahead

The increase in reported fly-tipping incidents and enforcement activity suggests that environmental crime will remain firmly on the agenda for local authorities.  The legal obligations governing waste disposal are well established and, for most organisations, entirely manageable.  The greater challenge lies in recognising that environmental enforcement is becoming more visible, more resource-intensive and, in some cases, more complex than many businesses appreciate.

Whether the issue concerns waste disposal, alleged fly-tipping, wastewater discharges or wider environmental compliance, investigators will often focus on the same questions: who was responsible, what systems were in place and what evidence exists to demonstrate that reasonable steps were taken.  Businesses that can answer those questions confidently are generally well positioned to respond to regulatory scrutiny.  Those that cannot may find that environmental issues which initially appear routine quickly become far more significant from both a legal and reputational perspective.

For businesses, the lesson is a relatively simple one. Waste management should not be treated as a routine administrative function that disappears once a contractor has been appointed. It should form part of a wider compliance and risk management framework.  Organisations that understand where their waste goes, who is handling it and how those arrangements are documented are likely to be in a far stronger position should regulatory scrutiny arise.  Whilst enforcement activity may be increasing, businesses that take a proactive approach to compliance have little to fear. Those that rely on assumptions, however, may find that environmental responsibilities do not end at the gate.