The polluter pays principle is any by-product made that damages or disobeys the property rights of others. According to Cordato (2001) it is said that the polluter is the person company that is the main producer of that product, requests that compensation equal to the damage caused be paid to the people who have been affected by this damage. The polluter pays principle is important in determining the cost of damages resulting from environmental violations caused by industries or individuals. The principle is applied to ensure that the costs of mitigating environmental change are internalized by the industry or individual held responsible, to address public health risks arising from environmental pollution. The principle has the potential to play an important role in shaping the performance of industries/commercial enterprises and forcing them to adopt environmentally responsible practices. “The polluter pays principle is a principle that can be used to allocate the costs of pollution, to promote wise use of limited natural or environmental resources, and to avoid distortions in international trade and investment.” Therefore, this essay will discuss what PPP is all about and will also discuss three case studies that will illustrate how PPP has been engaged with businesses internationally in relation to environmental management issues. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The main advantage of this principle is that it helps assign blame to the polluter, instead of blaming everyone for the crime they committed by not engaging. The individual or state who caused damage to the environment is blamed and must bear the cost associated with his action. However, the flaw is that sometimes there is no causal link between the polluter and the pollution and therefore the pollution cannot be traced back to the polluter, which means that the latter is not punished for his behavior illicit. Industries should ensure that their activities do not harm a source of pollution by implementing new pollution control technologies and must move to well-planned production processes. The first case study concerns a company that polluted the environment and therefore paid six-figure sums (millions). This company, being Northumbria Water, which polluted the River Tyne by pumping raw sewage into its tributary, was fined $375,000. Anglian Water Utility has made two payments for water pollution that killed fish. The Environment Agency's legal director said they take pollution and payment seriously too because it benefits people and their environment. Payment allows polluters to clean up the environment and take responsibility for preventing a recurrence. The director of the Wildlife Trusts, Stephen Trotter, believes that the principle that polluters should bear the cost of the damage they have caused is logical, because everyone depends on a healthy environment and this principle allows funding for some natural improvements that would not have occurred . Payments are made to charities and Wildlife Trusts is one of these charities, using the money to ensure the safety of rare chalk waterways and supporting projects such as moorland conservation and hedgerow restoration. The second case study concerns an approach to saving water that seems impossible since the occurrence of a discharge of silt-laden water into the Sussex River. There is a company contracted by South East Water known as Interserve Construction for the.