 | This article includes a list ofgeneral references, butit lacks sufficient correspondinginline citations. Please help toimprove this article byintroducing more precise citations.(April 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Ecological modernization is a school of thought that argues that both the state and the market can work together to protect the environment.[1] It has gained increasing attention among scholars and policymakers in the last several decades internationally. It is an analytical approach as well as a policy strategy andenvironmentaldiscourse (Hajer, 1995).
Ecological modernization emerged in the early 1980s within a group of scholars at Free University and the Social Science Research Centre in Berlin, among themJoseph Huber,Martin Jänicke [de] andUdo E. Simonis [de]. Various authors pursued similar ideas at the time, e.g.Arthur H. Rosenfeld,Amory Lovins, Donald Huisingh, René Kemp, orErnst Ulrich von Weizsäcker. Further substantial contributions were made byArthur P.J. Mol,Gert Spaargaren andDavid A Sonnenfeld (Mol and Sonnenfeld, 2000; Mol, 2001).
One basic assumption of ecological modernization relates to environmental readaptation of economic growth and industrial development. On the basis ofenlightened self-interest, economy and ecology can be favourably combined: Environmentalproductivity, i.e. productive use of natural resources and environmental media (air, water, soil, ecosystems), can be a source of future growth and development in the same way aslabour productivity and capital productivity. This includes increases in energy andresource efficiency as well as product and process innovations such as environmental management and sustainablesupply chain management,clean technologies, benign substitution of hazardous substances, and product design for environment. Radical innovations in these fields can not only reduce quantities of resource turnover and emissions, but also change the quality or structure of theindustrial metabolism. In the co-evolution of humans and nature, and in order to upgrade the environment'scarrying capacity, ecological modernization gives humans an active role to play, which may entail conflicts with nature conservation.
There are different understandings of the scope of ecological modernization - whether it is just about techno-industrial progress and related aspects of policy and economy, and to what extent it also includes cultural aspects (ecological modernization of mind, value orientations, attitudes, behaviour and lifestyles). Similarly, there is some pluralism as to whether ecological modernization would need to rely mainly on government, or markets and entrepreneurship, or civil society, or some sort ofmulti-level governance combining the three. Some scholars explicitly refer to generalmodernization theory as well as non-Marxistworld-system theory, others don't.
Ultimately, however, there is a common understanding that ecological modernization will have to result in innovative structural change. So research is now still more focused on environmental innovations, or eco-innovations, and the interplay of various societal factors (scientific, economic, institutional, legal, political, cultural) which foster or hamper such innovations (Klemmer et al., 1999; Huber, 2004; Weber and Hemmelskamp, 2005; Olsthoorn and Wieczorek, 2006).
Ecological modernization shares a number of features with neighbouring, overlapping approaches. Among the most important are
A special topic of ecological modernization research during recent years wassustainable household, i.e. environment-oriented reshaping of lifestyles, consumption patterns, and demand-pull control of supply chains (Vergragt, 2000; OECD 2002). Some scholars of ecological modernization share an interest inindustrial symbiosis, i.e. inter-site recycling that helps to reduce the consumption of resources via increasing efficiency (i.e. pollution prevention, waste reduction), typically by taking externalities from one economic production process and using them as raw material inputs for another (Christoff, 1996). Ecological modernization also relies on product life-cycle assessment and the analysis of materials and energy flows. In this context, ecological modernization promotes 'cradle to cradle' manufacturing (Braungart andMcDonough, 2002), contrasted against the usual 'cradle to grave' forms of manufacturing - where waste is not re-integrated back into the production process. Another special interest in the ecological modernization literature has been the role ofsocial movements and the emergence of civil society as a key agent of change (Fisher and Freudenburg, 2001).
As astrategy of change, some forms of ecological modernization may be favored bybusiness interests because they seemingly meet the triple bottom line of economics, society, and environment, which, it is held, underpin sustainability, yet do not challengefree market principles. This contrasts with manyenvironmental movement perspectives, which regardfree trade and its notion of business self-regulation as part of the problem, or even an origin ofenvironmental degradation. Under ecological modernization, thestate is seen in a variety of roles and capacities: as the enabler formarkets that help produce the technological advances via competition; as the regulatory (seeregulation) medium through whichcorporations are forced to 'take back' their various wastes and re-integrate them in some manner into the production of new goods and services (e.g. the way thatcar corporations in Germany are required to accept back cars they manufactured once those vehicles have reached the end of their product lifespan); and in some cases as an institution that is incapable of addressing critical local, national, and global environmental problems. In the latter case, ecological modernization shares withUlrich Beck (1999, 37-40) and others notions of the necessity of emergence of new forms ofenvironmental governance, sometimes referred to as subpolitics or political modernization, where theenvironmental movement, community groups, businesses, and other stakeholders increasingly take on direct and leadership roles in stimulating environmental transformation. Political modernization of this sort requires certain supporting norms and institutions such as a free, independent, or at least critical press, basichuman rights of expression, organization, and assembly, etc.New media such as theInternet greatly facilitate this.
Critics argue that ecological modernization will fail to protectthe environment and does nothing to alter the impulses within the capitalist economic mode of production (seecapitalism) that inevitably lead to environmental degradation (Foster, 2002). As such, it is just a form of 'green-washing'. Critics question whethertechnological advances alone can achieve resource conservation and betterenvironmental protection, particularly if left to businessself-regulation practices (York and Rosa, 2003). For instance, many technological improvements are currently feasible but not widely utilized. The mostenvironmentally friendly product or manufacturing process (which is often also the most economically efficient) is not always the one automatically chosen by self-regulating corporations (e.g.hydrogen orbiofuel vs.peak oil). In addition, some critics have argued that ecological modernization does not redress grossinjustices that are produced within the capitalist system, such asenvironmental racism - wherepeople of color and low income earners bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harm such as pollution, and lack access to environmental benefits such asparks, andsocial justice issues such as eliminatingunemployment (Bullard, 1993; Gleeson and Low, 1999; Harvey, 1996) -environmental racism is also referred to as issues of the asymmetric distribution of environmental resources and services (Everett & Neu, 2000). Moreover, the theory seems to have limited global efficacy, applying primarily to its countries of origin -Germany and theNetherlands, and having little to say about thedeveloping world (Fisher and Freudenburg, 2001). Perhaps the harshest criticism though, is that ecological modernization is predicated upon the notion of 'sustainable growth', and in reality this is not possible because growth entails the consumption of natural andhuman capital at great costs toecosystems and societies.
Ecological modernization, its effectiveness and applicability, strengths and limitations, remains a dynamic and contentious area of environmental social science research and policy discourse in the early 21st century.
