Feb 16, 2007 - Nature within New Zealand, or more specifically the social construction of nature, is embedded in a unique environmental history, in particular ...
Being ‘Sustainable’ in Aotearoa/New Zealand Whither Nature?
Helen Tregidga Auckland University of Technology & University of Otago
Kate Kearins Auckland University of Technology
Markus Milne University of Canterbury
Christine Byrch University of Otago
Submission to Organisation, Identity, Locality III Organizing the Postcolonial in Aoteaora / New Zealand A One Day Symposium on Being a Critical Organisational Scholar in Aotearoa / New Zealand, hosted by Massey University Albany, 16 February 2007
1
Being ‘Sustainable’ in Aotearoa/New Zealand Whither Nature? Introduction Nature is a concept invested with meaning. What interests us in our ongoing programme of research is how it is given particular meanings in New Zealand, specifically in the context of how various groups understand sustainability and the role of nature (or not) therein. The phrase ‘clean and green’ (while its accuracy debated) is frequently heard when talking about New Zealand’s natural environment. Nature within New Zealand, or more specifically the social construction of nature, is embedded in a unique environmental history, in particular the colonisation and ‘development’ of nature (see Bell, 1996 and Pawson & Brooking, 2002 for further discussion). It is also a major feature in the identity of many ‘kiwis’. 1 In this paper we draw on research we have conducted that explores what being ‘sustainable’ means within the New Zealand context. We analyse organisational and individual constructions of the concepts of ‘sustainability’ and ‘sustainable development’ 2 with a view to considering how being a New Zealand organisation or a New Zealander might influence what is meant by ‘being sustainable’. We point to our interest in working further with data we have already collected to focus specifically on how nature is constituted. In doing so, we structure this short paper as follows. First, we provide a brief introduction to the New Zealand context. Second, we indicate our method of analysis. Third, we present a broad outline of our findings relating to sustainability in the New Zealand context. And last, we consider possible directions and implications for our ongoing research focusing more specifically on constructions of nature within sustainability discourse. The New Zealand Context With many New Zealanders drawing on nature for a sense of identity (Bell, 1996), the New Zealand context has not been short of voices articulating a strong preservationist or conservationist perspective (e.g. Forest & Bird, Manapouri Gaurdians of the Lake). This voice was further strengthened in 1987 with the formation of the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) an independent body established out of New Zealand’s environmental reform in the 1980s. Articulations made by the PCE represent a coherent expression of sustainability within the public and political arenas. Further, the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) constitutes an important part of New Zealand’s environmental history, bringing together and reformulating a raft of earlier legislation with an underpinning logic of sustainable management (Dewar, 1999; Grundy, 2000; Pawson et al., 1996; Wheen, 2002). The enactment of the RMA represented an attempt to embody the concept of sustainability (or, more specifically, sustainable management) into legislation and thus influence the broader New Zealand 1
The use of the term ‘kiwi’ to refer to a New Zealander is perhaps the most prominent and widelyknown way in which New Zealand people gain a sense of identity through drawing on nature. However, as Bell (1996) identifies it is only one example. Bell (1996) notes, that in particular, accessible symbols such as flora and fauna are elements of ‘nature’ from which the New Zealand people draw a sense of identity. 2 While recognising the argument that exists as to whether or not ‘sustainability’ and ‘sustainable development’ are the same (for example see, Bebbington & Gray, 2001), we use the terms interchangeably here, as indeed appeared to be the case with many participants in our study.
2
context. We consider this context in our analysis of organisational and individual constructions of sustainability. Approach and Method We take a discursive approach to the analysis of organisational and individual constructions of sustainability and sustainable development, and the possible effects of these constructions. Following Foucault (1969/2002, p. 54), we define discourse as “practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak”, and therefore recognise the productive nature of discourse and also the relationship between text and context. We analysed a set of organisational texts (in the form of annual reports) and a series of interviews with New Zealand ‘thought leaders and influencers’ exploring how sustainability is constituted within these discourses. These thought leaders and influencers were drawn from organisations promoting business, sustainable business and sustainability respectively. At this stage we have focused on the constructions of sustainability made explicit within the written reports and interviews. The latter also involved participants completing a 3-CM cognitive mapping exercise (Kaplan & Kearney, 1997). Brief illustrative examples from the reports and interviews follow. Being a New Zealand Organisational and Individual and Constructions of Sustainability From our analysis of organisational and individual discourse, we identify that sustainable development is largely constituted in both the reports and in the interviews and cognitive mapping exercise through reference to the first paragraph of the popular Brundtland definition of the concept; “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987, p. 8). The concepts of limits (to growth) and attending to the needs of the world’s poor (noted in the ensuing paragraphs of the Brundtland definition) were far more prevalent in the constructions of sustainability articulated by those advocating sustainability outside the business realm in New Zealand. However, several interesting observations can be made when considering the discourse of sustainability in relation to the New Zealand context. First, we identify the dominant influence of the RMA in organisational accounts and in the interviews with those thought leaders and influencers promoting either business or sustainable business. The language of the RMA, in particular the concept of sustainable management which it entails, is evident in many reports, including Watercare Services (1996/97, p. 8): The RMA forms the basic legal framework for managing Watercare’s interaction with the environment. The Company is committed to avoiding remedying or mitigating any adverse effects on the environment to meet this statutory obligation.
Moreover, compliance with regulation and, on occasion, the promotion of voluntary initiatives on the part of business (as an alternative) were seen as priorities by many of the promoters of business and sustainable business interviewed. Efficient resource use on the part of business was seen by some as obviating the need for regulation. Furthermore, we identify from the interviews a ‘discomfort’ among some when talking about ‘nature’ and note the general use of the term ‘environment’.
3
The second observation is defined by its absence rather than its presence. We note a silence within the organisational sustainability discourse of a reference to New Zealand identity, in particular Maori culture. This observation tended to apply also to the interviews with business thought leaders and influencers. The extract below from Landcare Research (2001) provides one of the few references in the annual reports. It [sustainable development] is a notion of mankind being in this world simply to look after what Paptuanuku (mother nature) has provided for us to care for in our life times. We do not own any of it, although we might individually or collectively assume rights of possession over parts of it (p. 5).
Cultural aspects were more routinely incorporated in the expressed understandings of some of the sustainable business promoters and those promoting sustainability – particularly in the latter group wherein Maori representation was specifically sought. Occasional mentions occurred of a fourth (cultural) pillar of sustainability, and more specifically of obligations and responsibilities as more important than rights. A Maori participant claimed Maori were not understood if they spoke about important issues in their own cultural terms: So, if I talk, if we talk about kaitiakitanga, manakitanga, arohatanga, rangatiratanga, how many New Zealanders are going to understand that? (S3).
An interesting espousal of the value of learning from the past – and from ancestors – came from this participant whereas many constructions of sustainability for others remained aspirational and forward-looking. Rather more distinctly, business participants often considered sustainability as being achieved now, as indicated by business survival, continuity and growth. In addition to the absence of a cultural influence in business accounts and interviews, we note a general absence of environmental activist group influence on business discourse. A notable exception from the reports is in Meridian Energy’s report where the Manapouri Gaurdians of the Lake appear as an important and influential group in the organisations operations. Indeed, in the interviews, business participants often evoked an environmental position as ‘extreme’, relegating it to the margins rather than of value or interest to the ‘business mainstream’. Participants promoting sustainability brought up a range of environmental issues they considered needed to be addressed, not least by business. Directions and Implications for Ongoing Research From our initial analysis of organisational and individual constructions of what it ‘means’ to be sustainable, we have noted relatively scant attention (outside of those promoters of sustainability) given to nature – hence our interest in reinterrogating the data we have from annual reports, interviews and cognitive mapping exercise in terms of the explicit constructions of nature contained therein and the attempts to enhance, capture or constrain it. We note a further possibility of analysing the pictorial content of the reports which contains various images of nature and also the potential to interview report producers as to their particular image selections, and audiences as to their interpretations.
4
We specifically wish at this stage to further relate text to context – that is to explore the accounts of nature within the discourse to the understanding of nature promulgated in the RMA. We want to trace any inherently anthropocentric intertextuality engaging with notions of managing the environment, seeing nature as a resource – or otherwise. We suspect there has been adoption of specific language and attitudes about nature in business discourse in particular, and we seek to identify if and where this might have occurred and speculate as to its effects. We also wish to pursue the lack of cultural or other (e.g. environmental) voices within business discourse and to juxtapose alternative understandings of nature particularly from a Maori perspective. We want to analyse the extent to which there is any discernible New Zealand identity present within the discourse – either in reported enactments or aspirations towards sustainability. We are open to hearing views from other participants at this conference as to other potentially fruitful directions in which we might take this work.
References Bebbington, J. & Gray, R. (2001).
An account of sustainability: Failure, success and a
reconceptualization. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 12: 557-587. Bell, C. (1996). Inventing New Zealand: Everyday myths of pakeha identity. Auckland: Penguin. Dewar, K. (1999). Sustainable management – enacting the RMA. In N. Monin., J Monin. & R. Walker. (Eds.). Narratives of business and society: Differing New Zealand voices, (pp. 265277). Auckland: Longman. Foucault, M. (1966/2002). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. London: Routledge. Grundy, K. (2000). Purpose and principles: Interpreting section 5 of the Resource Management Act. In P. A. Memon. & H. Perkins. (Eds.). Environmental planning and management in New Zealand, (pp. 64-73). Palmerston North, NZ: Dunmore Press. Kaplan, C., & Kearney, A. (1997). Toward a methodology for the measurement of knowledge structures of ordinary people: the conceptual content cognitive map (3CM). Environment and Behavior, 29(5), 579-617. Pawson, E. & Brooking, T. (2002). Environmental histories of New Zealand. Auckland, NZ: Oxford University Press. Pawson, E., Gleeson, B., Morgan, R., Weastell, L., Wearing, A., Holland, P., Swaffield, S., Patterson, M. & Booth, K. (1996). Environmental sustainability. In R. Le Heron. & E. Pawson. (Eds.). Changing places: New Zealand in the nineties, (pp. 247-280). Auckland, NZ: Longman Paul. Resource Management Act. (1991). Wellington, NZ. WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). (1987). Our common future (the Brundtland report). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wheen, N. (2002). A history of New Zealand environmental law. In E. Pawson. & T. Brooking. (Eds.). Environmental histories of New Zealand, (pp. 261-274). Auckland, NZ: Oxford University Press.
5
