Hmm. Interesting read. Reading the article, it seems that the true road to sustainable development in the region is stricter environmental laws and tightening of (any present) corruption in the source countries of the natural resources. This would be to those countries' environmental benefit but might have some drawbacks as well, probably economically or diplomatically. The alternative, having other countries restrict their imports based on the environmental harm of the operations, is probably too much to hope for.

The chief argument for much of the article seems to be that Chinese corporations abroad are not subject to as much scrutiny "at home" compared to other countries. Keep in mind that the below quote relates to mining operations in some Pacific countries. The full article should be read for full(er) context.

But the Lowy Institute’s Shane McLeod, argues that a significant difference between Chinese and Australian trading partners is how accountable companies are held for environmental and social issues.

Large-scale mining operations in PNG have a horrific environmental track record, including disposal of mining waste at Anglo-Australian BHP’s Ok Tedi mine, at Anglo-Australian Rio Tinto’s Panguna and, more recently, at the Chinese-operated Ramu Nickel mine. Many foreign-owned companies have subsequently withdrawn from projects that have proven environmentally ruinous.

“But Chinese companies operating abroad aren’t subjected to scrutiny from their home markets in the same way as companies from western nations are,” McLeod said.

“Ok Tedi is a good example – the environmental disaster was a cause of major embarrassment for [BHP], with scrutiny from media eventually fed through to investors.”

“Companies with a Chinese listing/investors do face pressure and scrutiny, but I think the way that manifests itself is opaque and unseen. It’s not clear to what extent an environmental issue would limit the operations of a resource project, for example.

“I expect feedback for MCC [the Metallurgical Corporation of China, the operator of Ramu Nickel] comes through a political/governmental channel rather than, say, a journalist from China covering the environmental impact of a mine there.”

The above argument is somewhat dangerous, as it relies on the knowledge of citizens and investors in order to rein in corporations. It could be argued whether that is good or bad. It is true, however, that in China the main regulator of corporations is the government compared to public pressure.