 DuPont, operating since 1802, faced allegations of environmental

pollution related to C8 emissions near its West Virginia plant.

 The Tennant Litigation revealed that DuPont knew about C8's health
and environmental effects but kept it from public knowledge.
 DuPont monitored its pregnant female workers exposed to C8,
finding detectable levels in umbilical cord blood.
 Despite setting a threshold for C8 in drinking water, DuPont detected
levels above it, acknowledging its handling was "not a good one."
 Societal benefits of using C8 were estimated to be significant
(between 760 million and 1500 million), focusing on better cooking
experiences.
 Societal costs, particularly in human health (e.g., testicular and kidney
cancer), were outlined, with testimonies suggesting incineration as a
solution.
 A cost-benefit analysis suggested that, considering certain
assumptions, producing C8 was optimal from an aggregate welfare
perspective.
 DuPont faced legal liability, with fines and damages paid, but the
company continued C8 production due to cost-benefit
considerations.
 Shareholders' decision-making in 1984 regarding C8 usage depended
on the perceived benefits and legal liability, with a focus on
maximizing shareholder value.
 The paper discusses factors such as time lag, path dependency, bad
enforcement, and corporate reputational concerns contributing to
DuPont's ability to continue C8 emissions.
 The conclusion emphasizes the need to rethink interactions between
corporate governance, environmental regulation, litigation, and the
information environment to prevent inefficient pollution.
 Recommendations include promoting whistleblowing, penalizing gag
settlements, penalizing delays in legal proceedings, and allocating
responsibility to specific managers.
 The DuPont case highlights the failure of deterrence mechanisms,
where legal fines alone were insufficient to prevent pollution, and
suggests addressing information gaps for effective prevention.