Campus Dokumentvorlage

Ecological Modernisation Theory: where do we stand? 1

Arthur P.J. Mol, G. Spaargaren and D.A. Sonnenfeld In: M. Bemmann, B. Metzger, R. von Detten (Eds) Ökologische Modernisierung. Zur Geschichte und Gegenwart eines Konzepts in Umweltpolitik und Sozialwissenschaften, Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 35-66

1. Introduction When the social sciences in the 1960s and 1970s turned their attention to the environment, scholars initially were preoccupied with explaining environmental devastation. Their central concern was how human behaviour, capitalist institutions, a culture of mass consumption, failing governments and states, and industrial and technological developments, among others, contributed to the ongoing deterioration of the physical environment. In the 1970s and 1980s, with environmental problems manifesting themselves on a worldwide scale, there were many reasons to further look for explanations of the widening and deepening environmental crises. The result was an expansive literature – both theoretical and empirical in nature – on the main causes of continued environmental deterioration; or, as David Pepper2 put is so clearly, on the roots of the environmental crisis. Various disciplines (sociology, political science, anthropology, psychology, human geography, to name but a few) and schools-of-thought emphasised different structural, institutional and behavioural traits as the fundamental origins and causes of the environmental crisis. Beginning in the 1980s and maturing in the 1990s, attention in environmental sociology and environmental politics started to widen somewhat, by including also environmental improvements as the variable to be explained. This led to the emergence of what sociologist Fred Buttel3 labelled the sociology or social sciences of environmental reform. Strongly driven by empirical and ideological changes and developments in the European environmental movement and some political parties, by the prac-

—————— 1 This chapter is partly based on Mol/Sonnenfeld/Spaargaren, Ecological Modernisation Reader. 2 Pepper, Roots. 3 Buttel, Environmental Sociology.

2

ARTHUR P.J. MOL/G. SPAARGAREN/D.A. SONNENFELD

tices and institutional developments in some ›environmental frontrunner states‹, and developments in private companies, some European social scientists began reorienting their focus from only explaining ongoing environmental devastation, towards also understanding processes and outcomes of environmental reform. Later, and sometimes less strongly, this new environmental social science agenda in Europe was followed by U.S. and other non-European scholars and policy analysts. By the turn of the millennium, the understanding and explanation of environmental reform had become mainstream in the environmental social sciences, not so much instead of, but rather as a complement to, ongoing studies and analyses of environmental deterioration. Within the ›social sciences of environmental reform‹, ecological modernisation stands out as one of the strongest, most coherent, well-known, most used and widely cited, and constantly debated concepts.4 The notion of ecological modernisation may be defined as the social scientific interpretation of environmental reform processes at multiple scales in the contemporary world. As still a relatively young but steadily growing body of scholarship, ecological modernisation studies reflect on how various institutions and actors (attempt to) integrate environmental concerns into their everyday behaviour, practices, developments, and relations with others and the natural world. From the launching of the term in Germany by Martin Jänicke and Joseph Huber around 1980 and its explicit foundation into social theory by Arthur Mol and Gert Spaargaren around 1990, ecological modernisation has been applied around the world in empirical studies, has been at the forefront in theoretical debates, and even has been used by politicians to frame environmental reform programs in, among others, Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, and China. There is now wide interest and research in ecological modernisation throughout the world, including Asia (Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, and especially China), North America, Australia and New Zealand, Latin America (Argentina, Peru, Chile, and especially Brazil,), as well as elsewhere on the wider European continent (including Russia). After three decades of scholarship, quite a number of

—————— 4 Even the most fierce critics of ecological modernisation ideas admit this wide support and acknowledgement of ecological modernisation ideas in the academic literature, e.g. Foster, Planetary Rift.

ECOLOGICAL MODERNISA TION THEORY

3

volumes have been published on ecological modernisation5 and a robust, still growing body of scholarly articles. This chapter aims to take stock of the vital and still-developing body of literature on ecological modernisation and to suggest directions for the continued advancement of this school-of-thought. What have been the key accomplishments of ecological modernisation studies to-date? What have been the critical debates involving ecological modernisation theory until now? What should the research agenda be for ecological modernisation studies in this millennium? First, the balance of three decades of ecological modernisation theorising and empirical studies is assessed, focusing on achievements in terms of its key academic contributions and societal impacts. Secondly, the various debates and criticisms that ecological modernisation has been engaged in are examined. Third and finally, these assessments are drawn upon to suggest elements of a research agenda for future ecological modernisation scholarship.

2. The contribution of ecological modernisation studies: and assessment When ecological modernisation research started to gain firm ground in the environmental social sciences from the mid-1980s onwards, scholars in environmental sociology, political sciences, human geography, and related fields still were solidly dominated by frames and traditions for investigating and explaining environmental crises. And, of course, good reasons existed for such a preoccupation. After a period of rapid capacity building in environmental laws, policies and governmental institutions in OECD countries in the first half of the 1970s, environmental policy-making and especially implementation at the national level stagnated. This trend of failure of governments to adequately address contemporary environmental problems was widely perceived, and coined state failure by the German political scientist Martin Jänicke.6 By the same token, most private firms were reluctant to take any environmental responsibilities on board, and only continuous and strong (societal and state) pressure resulted in often minimal envi-

—————— 5 Cf. Mol/Sonnenfeld, Ecological Modernisation [2000]; Young, Emergence; Barrett, Ecological Modernization; Mol/Sonnenfeld/Spaargaren, Ecological Modernisation Reader. 6 Jänicke, Staatsversagen.

4


ronmental improvements within national and international firms. Finally, the environmental movement in many countries was inner directed and divided about its main strategy. After the heydays of the early 1970s and their radicalisation at the end of that decade, environmental movements struggled between grassroots radicalism and professional lobbyism,7 and were confronted with less favourable (and sometimes even hostile; e.g. UK and U.S.) administrations.8 Combined with an ongoing deterioration of the natural environment, it should not come as a surprise that the social, political, economic, and environmental conditions of the time resulted in environmental social scientists being preoccupied with analysing poor environmental records of modern societies and institutions, and sometimes quite apocalyptic future scenarios. These various developments in the 1980s proved a fertile ground to deviate from existing (ideological) positions and schemes and develop new ideas and models how to deal with the mounting environmental crisis. Although being rooted in the environmental condition of the time, the overall critical and pessimistic outlook of environmental social scientists in the late 1970s and early 1980s was shaped as well by factors internal to the environmental social science disciplines. While ecological economists had already established relationships with policy makers at an early stage of the development of their discipline, in the 1970s and 1980s environmental sociologists, political scientists, and human geographers were internally divided, inwardly directed, and very much involved with (neo-)Marxist debates on the roots of environmental degradation. The structuralist argument that genuine environmental improvements are impossible as long as the main institutions of industrial-capitalism remain in place, had (and continues to have) a strong resonance in the environmental social sciences.9 Against this background, ecological modernisation scholars made important contributions to social theory over the last three decades through the development of a systematic theory of institutional environmental reform; the introduction of a variety of theoretical innovations on the

—————— 7 See Gottlieb, Forcing the Spring. 8 The early 1980s were marked by the rise of global neoliberalism, led by US President Ronald Reagan and UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and strong corporate and governmental backlashes to the new environmental regulations of the 1970s and the social movements that had supported them. Mol, 2000. 9 E.g. Schnaiberg, Environment; Pepper, Roots; Pepper, Ecological Modernisation; Dickens, Society; Dobson, Green Political Thought.


5

relation between society and the natural environment; the elaboration of new research approaches in environmental policy and practice; and contributions to the ›globalisation‹ of general social theory. While starting in the 1980s many of these ideas and related practices matured much later.

A new emphasis: analysing and co-constructing environmental reform The first and arguably most important contribution of ecological modernisation research has been to open up, diversify, and innovate social science scholarship on how contemporary societies interact and deal with their biophysical environments. Interpreting, explaining, and theorising the social processes and dynamics of environmental reform are key scientific innovations, resulting in the initiation of a new field of study, complete with its own research agenda, themes, approaches and concepts. Previously, there had been fragmented (especially policy, business, and economic) studies of successful environmental policymaking, of the development of environmental technologies, and of pro-active firm behaviour – to name a few key ecological modernisation subjects. With its emergence, the ecological modernisation frame provided a basis for bringing these rather disparate studies together into a more or less coherent body of knowledge. It also enhanced empirical studies and theoretical reflections, resulting in an enduring impact of this perspective on environment-oriented studies across the social sciences. The endeavour of advancing a scientific (and related policy) framework for environmental reforms10 resulted at times in strong academic reactions and criticisms. Most scholars would accept the fact that individual, ad hoc cases of successful environmental reform can exist even in an overall destructive late-modern, capitalist-industrialist society. However, arguing that

—————— 10 Environmental reform refers here to social processes, practices and institutions that innovate with a focused on less environmental disturbances. There has been considerable debate on how to ›measure‹ environmental reform and whether environmental reform equal environmental improvements (e.g. absolute environmental improvements versus relative environmental improvements; natural science definitions of environmental reform [in terms of pollution levels] versus social science definitions of environmental reform [in terms of changing institutions, practices or routines]. Whereas ecological modernisation scholars tend to take an inclusive definition of environmental reform giving their interest in explaining how these reform take place, critics often refer to a narrow natural science definition of environmental improvements.

6


these exceptions might exemplify or foreshadow something of a general (green) rule with respect to the fragmented but ongoing institutionalisation of environmental concerns in different arenas is a different story. When the dominant view in the discipline refers to the impossibility of major environmental improvements to happen under conditions of current modernity, an eco-modernist perspective that used the mounting case-studies of environmental reform to argue that late-modern capitalist-industrialist societies could in the end become environmentally reformed, is bound to yield major criticisms. Hence, ecological modernisation – whether framed as an academic social theory or as a political program for politicians and environmental NGOs – remains under strong debate and accusations of various kinds (see the next section). With hindsight it can be concluded that ecological modernisation scholars were very timely in formulating such a new perspective, which has by now become mainstream in policymaking circles and well accepted in the social sciences. What started to develop was a new branch of scholarship: the social sciences of environmental reform. Theories and methods of environmental change and transition were developed in close interaction with and reflecting upon major developments in the environmental discourse during the late 1980s and early- to mid-1990s. Among the major events and dynamics were the publication of the Brundtland report;11 the wave of international environmental treaties being negotiated and signed; the UNCED conference in Rio in 1992; the formation of environmental ministries, laws and policies in most developing countries from the late 1980s onwards;12 the worldwide spreading of the awareness of environmental risks among major parts of the population; and a resurgence in environmental activism be it often with different strategies and ideologies than those prevailing in the 1970s.13 From the mid-1980s, ecological modernisation scholarship helped to promote new societal roles and orientations for the environmental social sciences while contributing significantly to a broad reworking of the theoretical landscape in sociology, political science, human geography, business studies, and other fields. This reorientation has resulted, among others, in a re-evaluation of modernisation theories, especially in their ›reflexive forms‹

—————— 11 WCED, Our Common Future. 12 Cf. Sonnenfeld/Mol, Environmental Reform. 13 Cf. Sonnenfeld, Social Movements.


7

as suggested by Anthony Giddens and Ulrich Beck,14 and a diminishing (or less exclusive) influence of neo-Marxism in the environmental social sciences.15 Building upon the reflexive modernisation theories of Giddens and Beck, ecological modernisation scholarship was instrumental for social scientists and policymakers when trying to move beyond the 1980s debate over whether capitalism (Marxism) or industrialism/ technology (industrial society theory) should be regarded as the most important driver of environmental degradation.16

Conceptual and theoretical innovations A second major contribution of ecological modernisation scholarship is to be found in the introduction of a variety of innovative concepts, theoretical notions, and major research themes into social theory. They include amongst others the notion of emerging processes of ecological rationalisation (akin to, but different than, Weber's idea of institutional rationalisation); the notion of political modernisation catalysed by civic and institutional environmental response and interaction; and the analysis of market dynamics, market actors and market-based instruments in environmental policymaking and practice. We shortly elaborate on the three innovations. At the heart of the theory is the understanding of ecological modernisation as a process of differentiation – and ›emancipation‹ – of an ecological sphere and the concomitant articulation of an independent ecological rationality.17 This conceptual move brings a number of different developments under one common denominator and makes room for the environment in more general social theories.18

—————— 14 Giddens, Consequences; Beck/Giddens/Lash, Reflexive Modernisation. 15 Mol, Environmental sociologies. 16 Mol, Refinement. 17 Cf. Spaargaren/Mol, Ecologie, Spaargaren/Mol, Sociology; Mol/Spaargaren, Environment; Mol, Refinement; Dryzek, Rational Ecology. 18 The absence of environmental themes in most of the major social theories had been a worry among environmental sociologists from the very early days onwards, and resulted in the formulation of the so-called HEP-NEP dichotomy: the Human Exemptionalist Paradigm (HEP) of the mother discipline and the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) of environmental sociology (cf. Catton/Dunlap, Environmental sociology; Catton/Dunlap, Paradigms; Mol, Environmental Sociologies). Instead of building upon the HEP-NEP debate, ecological modernisation scholars used the European sociological tradition of

8


Another major conceptual innovation is to be found in the introduction of and the ensuing debate on the concept of ›political modernisation‹.19 Political modernisation refers to the renovation and reinvention of state environmental policies and politics in order to make environmental reform better adapted to the new conditions of late-modern societies. The debate on political modernisation within environmental politics can be seen as an early formulation of themes and basic ideas of environmental governance. Moreover, the concept of political modernisation connected ideas on innovative governance in a direct and explicit way with (the management of) environmental change. The early notion of political modernisation included already ideas of multiple actors (state and non-state) and multi-level governance and made room for various modes of steering and policymaking applied by different actors outside the framework of national environmental governments. A related conceptual innovation is the notion of ›environmental capacity‹ as it has been developed within the ecological modernisation school-of-thought by the group around Martin Jänicke20 in Germany. In developing their ideas on political modernisation and environmental governance, ecological modernisation scholars have been innovative in allowing economic categories and concepts to enter theories of environmental reform. Of course ecological modernisation scholars were not unique in this emphasis on the importance of economic/ market based concepts and schemes for environmental policy making – in particular for technology-policies and for the management of production-consumptionchains and networks. In this respect, a number of ideas were borrowed from environmental and ecological economics in particular. From the 1980s onwards, environmental/ecological economists contributed significantly to the development of (eco-)economic valuation models, criteria and theories which were used to ›internalise externalities‹. When applied by ecological modernisation scholars, this process was referred to as the ›economising of ecology‹ and the ›ecologising of the economy‹.21

—————— system theory (Luhmann, Habermas) and discourse analysis (Hajer) as their main starting points. 19 Cf. Jänicke, Über ökologische; Mez/Weidner, Umweltpolitik; Tatenhove/Arts/Leroy, Political Modernisation; Tatenhove/Leroy, Environment; Mol, Political Modernisation. 20 E.g. Jänicke, Political System's Capacity. 21 Huber, Die verlorene Unschuld.


9

Nowadays, environmental governance scholars from various perspectives analyse and often acknowledge the crucial role of economic actors and instruments in environmental policymaking. Ecological modernisation scholars made early and significant contributions to this literature in two respects. First, they brought many of the market and monetary dynamics in environmental reform – such as eco-taxes, environmental auditing, corporate environmental management, green consumerism, valuing environmental goods, annual environmental reports, environmental insurances, green niche markets, green branding and eco-labelling, etc. – together in a coherent broader framework and understanding. Second, ecological modernisation scholars interpreted these market and monetary developments in terms of a redefinition of the role of states and markets in environmental reform, moving away from the basic idea of a monopoly of state authority on the protection of public goods. As such it theorized on the place, position and role of market authorities in environmental reform. With the help of this broader framework of new relationships between private firms, states, and civil society actors and organisations, it became possible to move beyond the narrow neo-liberal frameworks for understanding the role of privatisation, marketisation and liberalisation in environmental politics, while at the same time being able to better understand the new roles assigned in environmental governance to environmental movements and to citizen-consumers.22 Next to these basic or primary theoretical contributions, ecological modernisation scholars have been recognised for a number of models, concepts and approaches that are not exclusive for ecological modernisation types of research and which have been developed in collaboration with colleagues working in other fields of research as well. This includes the application and elaboration within environmental political sciences of discourse analyses,23 major contributions to the field of technology studies and to environmental technologies in particular,24 the elaboration and extensive empirical use of the triad network model,25 the application of the core concepts of risks and trust especially in the context of the globalisa-

—————— 22 Cf. Sonnenfeld, Social Movements; Spaargaren/Mol, Greening; Mol, Environmental Authorities. 23 Weale, New Politics; Hajer, Politics. 24 Huber, Die verlorene Unschuld; Huber, Technikbilder; Huber, New Technologies; Sonnenfeld, Social Movements. 25 Mol, Refinement; Mol/Tran Thi My Dieu, Analysing; Chavalparit et al., Options; Wattanapinyo/Mol, Ecological modernization.

10


tion of (food) production and consumption,26 the elaboration of the social practices model especially in the field of sustainable consumption,27 the first outline and empirical use of an environmental sociology of networks and flows,28 and the analyses of the emerging role of what is now labelled informational governance.29

Contributions to environmental politics and management While the core of ecological modernisation studies remains academic in outlook, most scholars in this tradition engaged themselves with applied, policy relevant studies as well, moving beyond ›ivory tower‹ reflection on and criticism of contemporary developments. Through their applied research, they engaged themselves with environmental politics and practices; they joined discussions and planning sessions with environmental NGOs on their position, strategy, alliances and priorities;30 they got involved with business (associations) in designing pro-active strategies and in exploring niche market developments. So we would argue that the third category of major contributions of ecological modernisation can be found in the substantial contributions delivered to the field of environmental politics and management. These contributions are the direct result of the explicit and sustained focus on major innovations in environmental policy and practices. The fact that governmental administrations, political parties, as well as environmental movements have used the notion of ecological modernisation to refer to their main aims and strategies is indicative for the ›practical‹ proliferation of ecological modernisation. At the same time, it gives evidence of the fact that in reflexive modernity academic concepts and ideas are spiralling in and out of the practices of environmental governance and politics more frequently and in an ever faster pace. A range of empirical studies on concrete processes of ecological modernisation have found – to varying degrees – their way into environmental policies and manage-

—————— 26 Cohen, Risk society; Oosterveer, Global Governance. 27 Spaargaren, Sustainable Consumption; Spaargaren, Theories; Liu et al, Energy consumption. 28 Spaargaren/Mol/Buttel, Governing Environmental Flows; Mol, Boundless Biofuels. 29 Kleindorfer/Orts, Informational regulation; Heinonen/Jokinen/Kaivo-oja, The ecological transparency; Burg, Governance; Mol, Environmental governance; Mol, Environmental Reform. 30 Cf. Smith/Sonnenfeld/Pellow, Challenging the Chip.


11

ment. Hence, ecological modernisation studies very often give witness of the mutual influence between theoretical models and concepts on the one hand and empirical developments and practices in society on the other. This resulted in the frequent intermingling of – the often-quoted – two sides of ecological modernisation: the academic/analytical theory and the normative/prescriptive/policy-oriented model of environmental change.

Globalisation and environment A fourth key contribution of ecological modernisation scholars is their encouragement of and significant contributions to ›globalisation theory and research‹ in the environmental social sciences. While in the 21st century social science research almost automatically tends to move beyond the ›nation-state container‹,31 this was certainly not true in the 1980s and most of the 1990s. Several factors can explain the early internationalisation of ecological modernisation research and the explicit comparative perspective used to study processes of environmental change. For one, the object of study made that environmental social science research was in general leading in internationalisation. Cross-border problems and – especially in the 1990s – growing international efforts and coordination for solving environmental problems triggered this international and global outlook. More specifically for ecological modernisation, scholars' need to learn from (successful) environmental reform practices and developments in different countries spurred comparative research both within Europe and between different regions in the world economy. The fact that ecological modernisation emerged in Europe contributed to an early international outlook of ecological modernisation. Hence, comparative and international studies are well represented in the ecological modernisation research tradition,32 and ecological modernisation scholars have contributed significantly to international, comparative and global social science research on the environment. Ecological modernisation studies have also been productive in bringing the environment into globalisation studies, through a number of volumes

—————— 31 Beck, Power. 32 See for some early examples Jänicke, Erfolgsbedingungen; Weale, New Politics; Liefferink/Lowe/Mol, European Integration; Anderson, Governance.

12


and special issues.33 Through these studies they have (i) coined a more balanced interpretation of how globalisation dynamics affect the environment, and (ii) further contributed to the analysis and conceptual understanding of globalisation with respect to environmental change. Taken together, the four contributions to social theory make a positive balance for ecological modernisation as a recently established ›school of thought‹ within the environmental social sciences. Individually, many of these achievements are not unique or exclusive for ecological modernisation studies: related topics can be found within other social scientific traditions, as well. Taken as a whole, however, they represent the distinct approach, coherent perspective, and active research program of ecological modernisation theory. In the course of three decades, steadily accumulating scholarship in this school-of-thought managed to contribute to an increased commitment across the social sciences with understanding and facilitating social and institutional change related to the environment, natural resources, and climate change worldwide. Even to the extent that it has become subject to severe criticism from other schools-of-thought and research traditions in the environmental social sciences.

3. Critical debates on ecological modernisation From its inception, ecological modernisation theory has met considerable criticism and opposition. This criticism has become more frequent and fierce however with its growing recognition, popularity, and acceptance, and with its widening, geographical scope of application and its more profound policy impact. The most fierce criticism relates to the positive commitment to environmental reform under the conditions of modernity. As scientific researchers and policy analysts of institutional and cultural environmental reform worldwide, ecological modernisation scholars have been critiqued as being theoretically mistaken,34 Eurocentric,35 politically naïve,36

—————— 33 See Spaargaren/Mol/Buttel, Introduction; Mol, The environmental movement; Sonnenfeld/Mol, Environmental Reform; Spaargaren/Mol/Buttel, Governing Environmental Flows; Sonnenfeld, Symposium; Sonnenfeld/Mol, Symposium. 34 Blühdorn, Ecological Modernisation. 35 Mol, Refinement. 36 Hobson, Competing Discourses.


13

empirically wrong,37 missing issues related to consumption38 and social inequality,39 »colonised by the economic and cultural system«,40 and even »cursed with an unflappable sense of technological optimism«.41 Those active in social scientific disciplines and fields of study preoccupied for decades now with (explaining the sources and continuity of) environmental crises and deterioration, should perhaps not be surprised when meeting critiques and debates of this kind. Instead, well-formulated scientific criticisms can and must be used to develop a more deeply nuanced understanding of key assumptions and notions. Debates on and criticism of ecological modernisation theory over the last two decades have been summarised and reviewed in various publications.42 Here, we briefly address critiques which have been of strategic relevance to ecological modernisation scholarship. We start by discussing some of the more well known critiques which have become reflexively addressed and incorporated into newer, more recent formulations of ecological modernisation theory. Second, we review a number of critiques which are difficult or impossible to address within the basic framework and understandings of ecological modernisation theory as they represent clashes of fundamental paradigms.

Critiques which have been addressed over the course of time In response to perspectives and formulations common in early ecological modernisation studies (1980s and 1990s), critics raised a number of objections or limitations of this new approach. These included arguments about ecological modernisation theory's shortcomings with respect to technological determinism, its focus on production processes and consequent neglect of practices of consumption, its lack of analyses of social inequality and power, and its Eurocentric outlook. Since then, critiques on these topics have been acknowledged, the theoretical approach has been revised

—————— 37 Weinberg/Pellow/Schnaiberg, Urban Recycling; Foster, Planetary Rift. 38 Carolan, Ecological Modernsation. 39 Harvey, Justice. 40 Jamison, Environmentalism, S. 4. 41 Hannigan, Environmental Sociology, S. 26. 42 Cf. Mol, Refinement; Christoff, Ecological modernisation; Mol/Spaargaren, Ecological Modernisation [2000]; Mol/Spaargaren, Ecological Modernisation [2004]; York/Rosa, Key Challenges; Carolan, Ecological Modernisation; Mol/Sonnenfeld/Spaargaren, Ecological Modernisation Reader; Foster, Planetary Rift.

14


and strengthened, and new empirical studies have been undertaken. Comments on the Eurocentric outlook, for example, have resulted in new lines of studies on ecological modernisation outside of north-western Europe, for instance in the North American continent,43 Australia/New Zealand44 and Russia,45 but also in Asia,46 Latin America47 and incidentally Africa.48 Criticisms of ecological modernisation theory's technocratic outlook and the ring of technological determinism attached to earlier formulations have resulted in a refinement of the ecological modernisation perspectives with respect to the role of technology in bringing about social change and environmental reform. This is complicated, as well, by a growing diversity of perspectives within ecological modernisation theory, reflecting for example different evaluations by ecological modernisation theorists of (environmental) technologies as driving forces for environmental change.49 Such intellectual diversity notwithstanding, most ecological modernisation studies within environmental sociology, political science and human geography today have become sensitive and reflexive with respect to the role of technology in environmental change. Using the work of Beck50 on science and risk, Giddens51 on trust and abstract systems, and responding to ideas from Actor-Network Theory52 and science and technology studies,53 ecological modernisation theorists today have made strong contributions to a more reflexive stance on the use and role of environmental science and technologies in environmental policy. Spaargaren and Cohen54 provide a recent documentation of the changing role of technology in ecological modernisation studies.

—————— 43 E.g. Fisher/Freudenburg, Ecological Modernization; Szarka, Climate Challenges, 2012. 44 E.g. Jay/Morad, Crying; Memon/Kirk, Institutional Reforms. 45 E.g. Kotilainen et al., The potential; Mol, Environmental Deinstitutionalization; Tokunaga, Environmental governance. 46 E.g. Mol, From environmental sociologies; Wong, Develelopmental State. 47 E.g. Castro, Non-governmental organisations. 48 E.g. Oelofse/Oelofse/Houghton, Shifts; Death, Greening; for an overview of studies regarding the latter three continents, see: Sonnenfeld/Rock, Ecological Modernisation. 49 It may be suggested, for example, that Huber’s (Huber, New Technologies) study on environmental technologies retains the technocentric orientation of his earlier work. 50 Beck, Risikogesellschaft; Beck, From Industrial Society. 51 Giddens, Consequences; Giddens, Modernity. 52 Latour, We Have Never Been Modern; Urry, Sociology. 53 Schot, Constructive technology; Geels, Technological Transitions; Shove, Comfort. 54 Spaargaren/Cohen, Greening lifecycles.


15

The critique of early ecological modernisation theory's relative neglect of social inequality and issues of power has become a focus of more recent scholarship, as well. The inclusion of such themes as inequality and green trade,55 green consumption as ›western‹ phenomenon,56 power and inequality related to environmental and informational flows,57 the differential effects of stringent environmental policies and the unequal distribution of environmental risks,58 all bear witness to the active involvement of ecological modernisation scholars with the themes of power and inequality, especially at global, regional, and international levels of analysis. Against this background, we would argue that contemporary criticisms of ecological modernisation theory focusing on the issues discussed above are seriously out of date. Which does not prevent them from being circulated more recently.59

Lasting controversies Several critiques of the ecological modernisation perspective find their origin in radically different paradigms and approaches to the theme of late modernity, social change, and environmental sustainability. Because these approaches have fundamentally different starting positions, assumptions and ›world views‹, it is far from easy to incorporate them into the ecological modernisation framework, or vice versa. So some of the controversies and debates with respect to these frameworks and ecological modernisation theory will endure with little near-term prospect of reconciliation, agreement, or synthesis. Three rival social theories of the environment fall into this category: those rooted in neo-Marxism, radical or deep ecology, and structural human ecology/neo-Malthusianism. As noted above, neo-Marxist perspectives on contemporary societies and the natural environment were dominant in some parts of the world in the late 20th century. These embrace several strands, including the ›treadmill of production‹ perspective, by Allan Schnaiberg and colleagues;60 envi-

—————— 55 Oosterveer/Guivant/Spaargaren, Shopping. 56 Spaargaren/Koppen, Provider Stategies. 57 Mol, Environmental Reform. 58 Smith(Sonnenfeld/Pellow, Challenging the Chip. 59 E.g. Foster, Planetary Rift. 60 Schnaiberg/Weinberg/Pellow, Treadmill; Pellow/Weinberg/Schnaiberg, Weinberg/Pellow/Schnaiberg, Urban Recycling.

Putting;

16


ronmental sociologists and others working within the world-systems theory perspective, identified with the online Journal of World-Systems Theory; the eco-socialist perspective of James O'Connor, Michael Goldman, Patrick Bond, and others associated with the journal, Capitalism, Nature, Socialism; and the more structural Marxist perspective of John Bellamy Foster and others associated with Monthly Review. All emphasise and prioritize the fundamental continuity of the (global) capitalist order which disallows meaningful, structural, enduring environmental reform in contemporary, market-oriented societies. Whether in the form of the treadmill of production,61 the second contradiction of capital,62 the metabolic rift or any other conceptualisation, the fundamental criticism remains essentially the same: Environmental conditions continue to deteriorate everywhere to the point of global and local crises and enduring, effective structural environmental reform is impossible in (increasingly globalised) capitalist societies. The basic notion of ecological modernisation processes aimed at ›repairing one of the crucial design faults of modernity‹ is held to be theoretically impossible. Such debates are sometimes heated, but can also be productive. The enduring confrontation between neo-Marxism and ecological modernisation theory has been fruitful in clarifying the fundamental differences between the perspectives.63 The interrelation between environmental and social exploitation and degradation has been a key thread in such debates. Basic differences notwithstanding, periodic attempts have been made to find common ground and enjoin theoretical and empirical challenges;64 at the same time, some empirical studies have tried to use both perspectives in a complementary rather than exclusive way in empirical research.65 Other scholars inspired by a variety of radical or deep ecology values and informed by discursive, neo-institutional theories of political change are sceptical of what they see as the reformist agenda of ecological modernisation. They view ecological modernisation theory as an élite-centred approach to reform resulting in ›light-green‹, superficial forms of social and environmental change only. Against the ›pragmatic‹ outlook of ecological

—————— 61 Schnaiberg/Weinberg/Pellow, Treadmill. 62 O’Connor, Natural Causes. 63 Cf. the contributions in Mol/Buttel, The Environmental State; Harvey, Justice. 64 See Fisher, From the Treadmill; Mol/Spaargaren, 2005; Mol, China's Ascent; Horlings/Marsden, Towards. 65 Smith/Sonnenfeld/Pellow, Challenging the Chip; Wilson, The global; Lang, Deforestation; Obach, Theoretical Interpretations.


17

modernisation theorists, such radical ecologists argue instead for radical, deep, or ›dark-green‹ forms of institutional and especially bottom-up political change that would bring contemporary societies beyond the political structures of late modernity, into more ecologically sustainable social relations and institutional configurations. Whether eco-feminist, socialist, postmodernist, or anarchist, the alternatives put forward by such scholars keep (considerable) distance between the ideal, arguably utopian green futures on the one hand, and what in principle can or has already been realised in terms of environmental reform so far, on the other. Among others, Andrew Dobson, John Barry, Robyn Eckersley, and John Dryzek in political science;66 and Tom Princen, Mikko Jalas and Kerstin Hobson in the field of consumption studies67 represent mild or strong versions of ›deep green‹/discursive thinking as suggested here. Radical ecologists’ positions continue to evolve, however, and there seems room for (Habermasian) debate about mutual adjustments between private and public institutions, citizens and other ›stakeholders‹, or at least exchange of views. Christoff’s68 contribution aimed to open up the controversy by distinguishing different (green) shades of ecological modernisation. He argues that the Beck- and Giddens-inspired variants of (reflexive) ecological modernisation could be further developed into ›strong versions‹ of ecological modernisation theory. Mol and Spaargaren69 aimed to contribute to this debate, as well, distinguishing between ›green radicalism‹ positions on the one hand and ›socio-economic radicalism‹ on the other, thereby creating conceptual space for a debate on discrete forms of radicalism within eco-modernisation perspectives. Despite these efforts, radical or deep-ecology inspired schools-of-thought do not seem to easily match and mix with ecological modernisation ideas. In addition to disagreement on the desired pace and scope of environmental change, the perceived ›anthropocentric outlook‹70 of many ecological modernisation studies also seems to contribute to a continued divide. Structural human ecologists, inspired in part by neo-Malthusian notions of overpopulation and absolute natural limits, have aimed to quantify

—————— 66 Dobson, Green Political Thought; Barry, Rethinking; Eckersley, Environmentalism; Eckersley, The Green State; Dryzek, Rational Ecology. 67 Princen/Maniates/Conza, Confronting consumption; Jalas, Sustainable consumption; Hobson, Competing Discourses. 68 Christoff, Ecological modernisation. 69 Mol/Spaargaren, Ecological Modernisation [2000]. 70 Eckersley, Environmentalism.

18


cross-national environmental impacts and mathematically relate them to a variety of anthropogenic drivers. Rosa, Dietz, and York are the most visible representatives of this stream of thinking.71 Inspired as well by Wackernagel and Rees'72 ›ecological footprint‹ analyses, and natural science based historical interpretations of human-society metabolism,73 structural human ecologists have concluded that, due to increased affluence and growing population, environmental impacts are only increasing, as ecotechnological development cannot keep pace with the former two causes. From this, they challenge ecological modernisation theory, since «historical patterns of modernisation and economic development have clearly led to increased pressure on the global environment« rather than to effective environmental reforms.74 Structural human ecology/neo-Malthusian perspectives diverge significantly from ecological modernisation theory in that the former are highly abstract rather than richly particular; are structurally deterministic rather than reflexive and change-oriented; and are profoundly pessimistic rather than opening up windows to institutional and cultural environmental change. All three ›competing‹ schools of social theory criticize ecological modernisation studies as: i) being one-sided in focusing only on environmental reform; ii) utilising fieldwork based grounded case studies rather than cross-national, statistical analyses based on large data-sets; iii) not addressing the basic, structural drivers behind environmental degradation; and for that reason, iv) being overly optimisticnaïve about the potential for environmental change and sustainable development. When related back to the basic starting points and premises characteristic of these schools of thought, the points raised in debate with ecological modernisation are usually internally logical and coherent. Since disagreements tend to go back to fundamental assumptions – on science, its role in society, the relationship between theoretical and empirical work, and the present state of the world – we expect such controversies to be long-lasting. While ecological modernisation scholars acknowledge that environmental deterioration continues forcefully and widely, at the same time they find much evidence of significant, time-place specific, environmental reform around the world. Among the paradigmatic assumptions of ecological

—————— 71 York/Rosa, Key Challenges; York/Rosa/Dietz, Rift. 72 Wackernagel/Rees, Ecological Footprint. 73 Fisher-Kowalski, Society's metabolism. 74 York/Rosa/Dietz, Rift, S. 44-45.


19

modernisation is the contention that scientific efforts to identify, analyse, understand, and design new, more environmentally friendly and sustainable socio-technical systems, institutions, policy arrangements, and social relations are not only of key academic importance in themselves, but are central also to the identification and understanding of structural, anthropogenic drivers of environmental decay.

4. Future directions for ecological modernisation studies Ecological modernisation has moved from a peripheral position in both the environmental social sciences and the general social sciences75 to an acknowledged school-of-thought in this new millennium. Much work remains to be done, yet formulating a future research agenda at times may seem overwhelming. We still know so little how, to what extent and how successful environmental interests are included in all kinds of economic, cultural and political practices and institutional developments, at different levels, geographies and time frames. The need for a wide variety of theoryinformed empirical studies – quantitative, qualitative, comparative, longitudinal, to name but a few76 – remains high and will be an important part of the future research profile of ecological modernisation. The last section of this chapter focuses on three areas within the broad scope of ecological modernisation theory that we believe are ripe for further study: extending the geography of ecological modernisation studies; studying the environmental reform of global flows; and focusing on cultural dimensions of ecological modernisation.

—————— 75 E.g. Giddens/Sutton, Sociology, S. 191ff. 76 Ecological modernisation analyses do seem to have moved further into quantitative studies, e.g. Sonnenfeld/Mol, Environmental Reform; Er/Mol/Koppen, Ecological Modernization; Buitenzorgy/Mol, Democracy; Tukahirwa/Mol/Oosterveer, Access; Liu et al., Energy consumption.

20


The extended geographical scope of ecological modernisation studies Above, we mentioned already the progress with respect to moving away from the Eurocentrism contained in the first generation ecological modernisation studies. However, the non-OECD countries under ecological modernisation study to-date predominantly represent the rapidly emerging economies in central and eastern Europe,77 East and South-east Asia,78 and to a lesser degree in Latin America. Only more recently has the relevance of ecological modernisation for countries and regions with low or negative growth rates and with thin and fragmented connections with the world network society been taken up as a pressing79 and theoretically challenging theme. Research on critically important environmental infrastructures in rapidly urbanising sub-Saharan Africa, for example, has been organised around the key concept of modernised mixtures.80 In the African context, modernised mixtures refer to an ecological modernisation strategy which is sensitive to and adapted for the specific circumstances of societies with fragmented urban infrastructures and ill-functioning institutions and (health and sanitary) practices. These new studies are expected to deepen ecological modernisation theory's appreciation of the effects of NorthSouth relations and inequalities on the opportunities, limitations, and particular forms of ecological modernisation in less-developed countries. A special case for geographical extension seems to be the United States. While fruitful studies have been carried out on the North American continent using an ecological modernization perspective,81 the most severe criticism to ecological modernisation seem to originate from the United States of America, suggesting that the specific developments in that country ill-fit the premises of ecological modernisation.82 Various hypotheses have been formulated to explain this ill-fit of US and ecological moderni-

—————— 77 E.g. O’Brien, Growing Green democracy. 78 E.g. Zhang/Mol/Sonnenfeld, Interpretation. 79 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems. 80 Mixed modernities or ›modernised mixtures‹ refer to socio-technical configurations of infrastructures in which features of different (modern) systems have been deliberately and reflexively reconstructed to deal with dynamic social, economic and environmental contexts and challenges. Cf. Spaargaren et al., Mixed Modernities; Hegger, Greening sanitary systems; Scheinberg/Mol, Multiple modernities; Katusiimeh/Mol/Burger, The operations; Vliet/Buuren/Mgana, Urban Waste. 81 E.g. Keil/Desfor, Ecological Modernisation; Schlosberg/Rinfret, Ecological modernisation. 82 E.g. Foster, Planetary Rift; York/Rosa/Dietz, Rift.


21

sation, ranging from the dominance of neo-liberalism that is claimed to be ill-fit to ecological modernisation, the politicized bi-partisan political landscape in the US where there is little middle ground to develop ecological modernisation ideas, to specific developments in the US social sciences compared to those in Europe.83

Environmental reform of global flows Hyperglobalisation and the emergence of a global network society are arguably key processes that fundamentally change the face of the world – and of the earth. Hence, one of the key challenges for the development and relevance of ecological modernisation theory lies in understanding such processes of hyperglobalisation and the network society in relation to environmental reform. In working on the new dynamics of change in global modernity, Mol84 has addressed the ecological modernisation of the global economy; and Sonnenfeld, Huber, Angel and and others have addressed industrial and technological environmental transformation on a global scale.85 More recently and fundamentally, Spaargaren et al.86 have related ecological modernisation theory to the sociology of networks and flows,87 and as such have opened up a new field for research on environmental reform. Instead of the conventional notion of place-based environmental reform, the emphasis shifts to environmental reform in the ›space of flows‹, related to globalised, deterritorialised, and de-nationalised mobilities and flows. This has started to inspire a range of empirical studies on the environmental reform of all kinds of global environmental issues and transnational flows. For instance, Presas88 uses this conceptual framework for investigating the sustainable construction of transnational buildings in global cities, Oosterveer and colleagues89 applied the framework to

—————— 83 E.g. Lidskog/Mol/Oosterveer, Towards. 84 Mol, The environmental movement. 85 Sonnenfeld, Social Movements; Huber, New Technologies; Angel/Rock, Industrial Transformation. 86 Spaargaren/Mol/Buttel, Governing Environmental Flows; Mol/Spaargaren, Umweltsoziologie. 87 Urry, Sociology. 88 Presas, Transnational buildings. 89 Oosterveer, Global Governance; Bush/Oosterveer, Missing Link; Oosterveer/Guivant/Spaargareb, Shopping; Glin et al., Governing.

22


global food production and consumption, Mol90 investigated environmental reform of global biofuel networks, of mega events such as the Olympics91 and of carbon credit systems,92 and van Koppen93 used the conceptual framework for exploring biodiversity flows. The so-called environmental sociology of networks and flows raises a number of questions, challenges and insights for environmental reform studies in the 21st century,94 and much work lies ahead of both theoretical and empirical signature. It can be expected that such an elaboration of ecological modernisation – with the help of key concepts of networks, scapes, hybrids and flows – will result in new insights into the dynamics of environmental change under conditions of hyperglobalisation, and to the development of a new generation of governance approaches to affect those dynamics in more positive (and environmental) directions at the global and local scales.

The cultural dimensions of ecological modernisation While examining environmental flows in the context of the global network society, ecological modernisation scholars today are confronting the intermingling of social and ecological sub-systems which until recently have remained largely separate analytically in (ecological) modernisation theory. From its roots in systems theory, ecological modernisation theory conceptualised states, markets, and civil society as independent ›spheres‹, each interacting in a specific way with each other and with the emerging ecological sphere. This brings us back to where it all started in ecological modernisation: the differentiation of an independent ecological sphere or sub-system in late modern societies in the last decades of the second millennium. But, with the ecological sphere now conceptually emancipated, there has to follow a re-embedding of the that sphere in society, reconnecting the ecological sphere to the spheres of market, state and civil society. And while the relationship between economic and political rationalities has been discussed and explored in some depth, the theoretical and practical anchoring of ecological rationalities in the socio-cultural sphere of civil

—————— 90 Mol, Boundless Biofuels; Mol, Sustainability. 91 Mol, Sustainability; Mol/Zhang, Sustainability. 92 Mol, Carbon flows; Spaargaren/Mol, Carbon Flows. 93 Koppen, Governing Nature. 94 As reported by Spaargaren/Mol/Buttel, Governing Environmental Flows; Rau, (Im)mobility.


23

society remains an important intellectual task yet to be performed. What images of the good, sustainable life do we have to offer to lay people, to concerned citizen-consumers, the deprived, householders, youth, the new middle classes in transitional economies, inhabitants of slums etc.? The cultural dimension of ecological modernisation thus needs to be developed in much greater detail. Such (re)connecting of ecological rationalities to everyday life already has been taken up as a challenging task in the field of consumption studies.95 Once again, most such studies tend to be confined to OECD countries, and it is unknown as yet what relevance they will have for analyzing the lifeworlds and lifestyles of the citizen-consumers in the fast emerging middle-classes of the upcoming economies of China, India, Brazil, Russia, and elsewhere.

5. Epilogue This chapter has given a broad overview of the accomplishments of three decades of ecological modernisation studies, key debates involving ecological modernisation theory during this period, and elements of a research agenda for future studies in this area. In the second decade of the third millennium, the environmental challenges faced by humankind are now both better understood, and socially and politically as daunting, as ever. 96 Ecological modernisation scholarship’s challenge is to provide conceptual and change-oriented frameworks, and empirical examples and evidence from around the world, to enable scholars, policymakers, and citizens to understand, design and implement transformative institutional and social arrangements that effectively address those environmental challenges in ways suitable to local contexts. As that all happens in a rapidly changing world and with accumulating insights and knowledge, ecological modernisation precepts and perspectives will continue to evolve and develop, deepening their scientific basis while increasing their salience for policymaking.

—————— 95 Spaargaren, Theories. 96 See Sonnenfeld/Mol, Symposium.

24


Literatur

Andersen, M.S., Governance by Green Taxes. Making Pollution Prevention Pay, Manchester 1994. Angel, D.P./M.T. Rock, Industrial Transformation in the Developing World, Oxford 2005. Barrett, B. (Hg.), Ecological Modernization in Japan, London 2005. Barry J., Rethinking Green Politics, London 1999. Beck, U., Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne, Frankfurt/Main 1986. Beck, U., »From Industrial Society to the Risk Society: Questions of Survival, Social Structure and Ecological Enlightenment«, Theory, Culture & Society, Jg. 9 (1992), S. 97–123. Beck, U., Power in the Global Age. A new global political economy, Cambridge 2005. Beck, U./A. Giddens/S. Lash, Reflexive Modernisation, Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the modern Social Order, Cambridge 1994. Blühdorn, I., »Ecological Modernisation and Post-Ecologist Politics«, in: G. Spaargaren/A.P.J. Mol/F. Buttel (Hg.), Environment and Global Modernity, London 2000, S. 209–228. Burg, S.W.K. van den, Governance through Information: Environmental Monitoring from a Citizen-Consumer Perspective, Wageningen 2006. Bush, S.R./P. Oosterveer, »The Missing Link: Intersecting Governance and trade in the Space of Place and the Space of Flows«, Sociologia Ruralis, Jg. 47, H. 4 (2007), S. 384–399. Buttel F.H., »Environmental Sociology and the Explanation of Environmental Reform«, Organization and Environment, Jg. 16, H. 3 (2003), S. 306–344. Buitenzorgy, M./A.P.J. Mol, »Does Democracy Lead to A Better Environment? Deforestation and the Democratic Transition Peak«, Environmental & Resource Economics, Jg. 48, H. 1 (2011), S. 59–70. Carolan, M., »Ecological Modernisation: What about Consumption?«, Society & Natural Resources, Jg. 17, H. 3 (2004), S. 247–260. Castells, M., The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, three volumes Malden, Mass.Oxford 1996/1997. Castro, W., Non-governmental organisations and the sustainability of small and medium-sized enterprises in Peru. An analysis of networks and discourses, Wageningen 2013.


25

Catton, W.R./Riley E. Dunlap, »Environmental sociology: A new paradigm«, The American Sociologist, Jg. 13 (1978), S. 41–49. Catton, W.R./Riley E. Dunlap, »Paradigms, theories, and the primacy of the HEPNEP distinction«, The American Sociologist, Jg. 13 (1978), S. 256–259. Chavalparit, O./W.H. Rulkens/A.P.J. Mol/S. Khaodhair, »Options for environmental sustainability of the crude palm oil industry in Thailand through enhancement of industrial ecosystems«, Environment, Development and Sustainability, Jg. 8, H. 2 (2006), S. 271–287. Christoff, P., »Ecological modernisation, ecological modernities«, Environmental Politics, Jg. 5, H. 3 (1997), S. 476–500. Cohen, M., »Risk society and ecological modernisation: alternative visions for postindustrial nations«, Futures, Jg. 29, H. 2 (1997), S. 105–119. Death, C., »Greening the 2010 FIFA World Cup: Environmental Sustainability and the Mega-Event in South Africa«, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, Jg. 13, H. 2 (2011), S. 99–117. Dickens, P., Society and Nature. Towards a Green Social Theory, New York 1991. Dobson, A., Green Political Thought, London 1990. Dryzek, J.S., Rational Ecology. Environment and Political Economy, Oxford/New York 1987. Eckersley, R., Environmentalism and Political Theory; toward an ecocentric approach, London 1992. Eckersley, R., The Green State: Rethinking Democracy and Sovereignty, Cambridge 2004. Er, A.C./A.P.J. Mol/C.S.A. van Koppen, »Ecological Modernization in Selected Malaysian Industrial Sectors: Political Modernization and Sector Variations«, Journal of Cleaner Production, Jg. 24, H. 1 (2012), S. 66–75. Fisher, D., »From the Treadmill of production to Ecological Modernization? Applying a Habermasian Framework to Society-Environment relationships«, in: A.P.J. Mol/F.H. Buttel (Hg.), The Environmental State under Pressure, Amsterdam 2002, S. 53–64. Fisher, D./W. Freudenburg, »Ecological Modernization and its critics«, Society & Natural Resources, Jg. 14 (2001), S. 701–709. Fisher-Kowalski, M., »Society’s metabolism: on the childhood and adolescence of a rising conceptual star«, in: M. Redclift/G. Woodgate (Hg.), The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology, Cheltenham 1997, S. 119–137. Foster, J.B., »The Planetary Rift and the New Human Exemptionalism: A PoliticalEconomic Critique of Ecological Modernization Theory«, Organization & Environment, Jg. 25 (2012), S. 211–237. Geels, F.W., Technological Transitions and System Innovation; A Co-Evolutionary and SocioTechnical Analysis, Cheltenham 2005. Giddens, A., The Consequences of Modernity, Cambridge 1990. Giddens, A., Modernity and Self-Identity. Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, Cambridge 1991. Giddens, A./P.W. Sutton, Sociology, Cambridge 72013.

26


Glin, L.C./A.P.J. Mol/P. Oosterveer/S.D. Vodouhê, »Governing the Transnational Organic Cotton Network from Benin«, Global Networks, Jg. 12, H. 3 (2012), S. 333–354. Gottlieb, R., Forcing the Spring: The Transformation of the American Environmental Movement, Washington 1993. Hajer, M.A., The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernisation and the Regulation of Acid Rain, Oxford 1995. Hannigan, J., Environmental Sociology: A Social Constructionist Perspective, London/New York 2006. Harvey, D., Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference, Malden 1996. Hegger, D., Greening sanitary systems, an end-user perspective, Dissertation, Wageningen 2007. Heinonen, S./P. Jokinen/J. Kaivo-oja, »The ecological transparency of the information society«, Futures, Jg. 33 (2001), S. 319–337. Hobson K., »Competing Discourses of Sustainable Consumption: Does the ›Rationalisation of Lifestyles’ Make Sense?«, Environmental Politics, Jg. 11, H. 2 (2002), S. 95–120. Horlings, I./T. Masrden, »Towards the real green revolution? Exploring the conceptual dimensions of a new ecological modernisation of agriculture that could ›feed the world‹«, Global Environmental Change, Jg. 21, H. 2 (2011), S. 441–452. Huber, J., Die verlorene Unschuld der Ökologie. Neue Technologien und superindustrielle Entwicklung, Frankfurt/Main 1982. Huber, J., Technikbilder. Weltanschaulich Weichenstellungen der Technik- und Umweltpolitik, Opladen 1989. Huber, J., New Technologies and Environmental innovation, Cheltenham 2004. Jalas M., »Sustainable consumption innovations – instrumentalization and integration of emergent patterns of everyday life«, in: M. Munch Andersen/A. Tukker (Hg.), Perspectives on Radical Changes to Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP), Proceedings of the workshop of the SCORE-network. Copenhagen, Denmark, 20-21 April 2006. Jamison A., »Environmentalism in an Entrepreneurial Age: Reflections on the Greening of Industry Network«, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning Jg. 3 (2001), S. 1–13. Jänicke, M., Staatsversagen. Die Ohnmacht der Politik in der Industriegesellschaft, München 1986. Jänicke, M., »Erfolgsbedingungen von Umweltpolitik im internationalen Vergleich«, Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik und Umweltrecht, Jg. 3 (1990), S. 213–232. Jänicke, M., »Über ökologische und politische Modernisierungen«, Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik und Umweltrecht, Jg. 2 (1993), S. 159–175. Jänicke, M., The Political System’s Capacity for Environmental Policy, Berlin 1995. Jay, M./M. Morad, »Crying over Spilt Milk: A Critical Assessment of the Ecological Modernisation of New Zealand’s Dairy Industry«, Society & Natural Resources, Jg. 20, H. 5 (2006), S. 469–478.


27

Katusiimeh, M.W./A.P.J. Mol /K. Burger, »The operations and effectiveness of public and private provision of solid waste collection services in Kampala«, Habitat International, Jg. 36, H. 2 (2012), S. 247–252. Keil, R./G. Desfor, »Ecological Modernisation in Los Angeles and Toronto«, Local Environment, Jg. 8, H. 1 (2003), S. 27–44. Kleindorfer, P.R./E.W. Orts, »Informational regulation of Environmental Risks«, Risk Analysis, Jg. 18 (1999), S. 155–170. Koppen, C.S.A. van, »Governing Nature? On the Global complexity of Biodiversity Conservation«, in: G. Spaargaren/A.P.J. Mol/F.H. Buttel (Hg.), Governing Environmental Flows. Global Challenges for Social Theory, Cambridge 2006, S. 187– 220. Kotilainen, J./M. Tysiachniouk/A. Kuliasova/I. Kuliasov/S. Pchelkina, »The potential for ecological modernisation in Russia: scenarios from the forest industry«, Environmental Politics, Jg. 17, H. 1 (2008), S. 58–77. Lang , G., »Deforestation, floods and state reactions in China and Thailand«, in: A.P.J. Mol/F.H. Buttel (Hg.), The Environmental State under Pressure, Amsterdam/New York 2002, S. 195–220. Latour, B., We Have Never Been Modern, Cambridge 1993. Lidskog, R./A.P.J. Mol/P. Oosterveer, »Towards a global environmental sociology? Legacies, trends, and future directions«, Current Sociology [im Erscheinen]. Liefferink, J.D./P.D. Lowe/A.P.J. Mol (Hg.), European Integration & Environmental Policy, London/New York 1993. Liu, W./G. Spaargaren/N. Heerink/A.P.J. Mol/C. Wang, »Energy consumption patterns and CO2 emissions of households in a well-off rural area in North China«, Energy Policy, Jg. 55 (2013), S. 128–138. Memon, P.A./N.A. Kirk, »Institutional Reforms in New Zealand Fisheries as an Ecological Modernization Project«, Society and Natural resources, Jg. 24, H. 10 (2011), S. 995–1010. Mez, L./H. Weidner (Hg.), Umweltpolitik und Staatsversagen. Perspektiven und Grenzen der Umweltpolitikanalyse, Berlin 1997. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-being. Synthesis report, Washington DC 2005. Mol, A.P.J., The Refinement of Production. Ecological Modernisation Theory and the Chemical Industry, Utrecht 1995. Mol, A.P.J., »The environmental movement in an age of ecological modernisation«, Geoforum, Jg. 31, H. 1 (2000), S. 45–56. Mol, A.P.J., Globalization and environmental reform. The ecological modernization of the global economy, Cambridge/London 2001. Mol, A.P.J., »Political Modernisation and Environmental Governance: between Delinking and Linking«, Europæa. Journal of the Europeanists, Jg. 8, H. 1-2 (2002), S. 169–186.

28


Mol, A.P.J., »From environmental sociologies to environmental sociology? A comparison of U.S. and European environmental sociology«, Organisation & Environment, Jg. 19, H. 1 (2006), S. 5–27. Mol, A.P.J., »Environmental governance in the information age: the emergence of informational governance«, Environment and Planning C, Jg. 24, H. 4 (2006), S. 497–514. Mol, A.P.J., »Environment and modernity in transitional China. Frontiers of Ecological modernization«, Development and Change, Jg. 37, H. 1 (2006), S. 29–56. Mol, A.P.J., »Boundless Biofuels? Between Environmental Sustainability and Vulnerability«, Sociologia Ruralis, Jg. 47, H. 4 (2007), S. 297–315. Mol, A.P.J., Environmental Reform in the Information Age. The Contours of Informational Governance, Cambridge/New York 2008. Mol, A.P.J., »Environmental Deinstitutionalization in Russia«, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, Jg. 11, H. 3 (2009), S. 223–241. Mol, A.P.J., »Sustainability as global attractor. The greening of the 2008 Beijing Olympics«, in: Global Networks, Jg. 10, H. 4 (2010), S. 510–528. Mol, A.P.J., »Environmental authorities and biofuel controversies«, Environmental Politics, Jg. 19, H. 1 (2010), S. 61–79. Mol, A.P.J., »China’s Ascent and Africa’s Environment«, Global Environmental Change, Jg. 21, H. 3 (2011), S. 785–794. Mol, A.P.J., »Carbon flows, financial markets and the challenge of global environmental governance«, Environmental Development, Jg. 1 (2012), S. 10–24. Mol, A.P.J./F.H. Buttel (Hg.), The Environmental State under Pressure, Amsterdam/New York 2002. Mol, A.P.J./D.A. Sonnenfeld (Hg.), Ecological Modernisation Around the World. Perspectives and Critical Debates, London/Portland 2000. Mol, A.P.J./D.A. Sonnenfeld/G. Spaargaren (Hg.), The Ecological Modernisation Reader. Environmental Reform in Theory and Practice, London 2009. Mol, A.P.J./G. Spaargaren, »Environment, Modernity and the Risk Society. The Apocalyptic Horizon of Environmental Reform«, International Sociology, Jg. 8, H. 4 (1993), S. 431–459. Mol, A.P.J./G. Spaargaren, »Ecological Modernisation Theory in debate: a review«, Environmental Politics, Jg. 9, H. 1 (2000), S. 17–49. Mol, A.P.J./G. Spaargaren, »Ecological Modernisation and Consumption: A Reply«, Society & Natural Resources Jg. 17 (2004), S. 261–265. Mol, A.P.J./G. Spaargaren, »From Additions and Withdrawals to Environmental Flows. Reframing Debates in the Environmental Social Sciences«, Organisation & Environment, Jg. 18, H. 1 (2005), S. 91–107. Mol, A.P.J./G. Spaargaren, »Zur Umweltsoziologie der Netzwerke und Flows«, in: M. Groß (Hg.) Handbuch Umweltsoziologie, Wiesbaden 2011, S. 140–153. Mol, A.P.J./Tran Thi My Dieu, »Analysing and governing environmental flows. The case of Tra Co tapioca village, Vietnam«, NJAS Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, Jg. 53, H. 3/4 (2006), S. 301–317.


29

Mol, A.P.J./L. Zhang, »Sustainability as global norm. The greening of mega-events in China«, in: Graeme Hayes/John Karamichas (Hg.), Olympic Games, Megaevents and Civil Societies: Globalisation, Environment and Resistance, London 2011, S. 126–150. O’Brien, T., »Growing Green democracy? Barriers to Ecological modernization in Democratizing States«, Environmental Policy and Governance, Jg. 23 (2013), S. 247– 258. O'Connor, J., Natural Causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism, New York 1997. Obach, B.K., »Theoretical Interpretations of the Growth in Organic Agriculture: Agricultural Modernization or an Organic Treadmill?«, Society & Natural Resources, Jg. 20, H. 3 (2007), S. 229–244. Oelofse, C. D. Scott/G. Oelofse/J. Houghton, »Shifts within ecological modernisation in South Africa: deliberation, innovation and institutional opportunities«, Local Environment, Jg. 11, H. 10 (2006), S. 61–78. Oosterveer, P., Global Governance of Food Production and Consumption, Cheltenham 2007. Oosterveer, P./J.S. Guivant/G. Spaargaren, »Shopping for Green Food in Globalizing Supermarkets: Sustainability at the consumption junction«, in: J. Pretty/A. Ball/T. Benton/J. Guivant (Hg.), Sage Handbook on Environment and Society, London 2007, S. 411–428. Pellow, D.N./A.S. Weinberg/A. Schnaiberg, »Putting Ecological Modernisation to the Test: Accounting for Recycling’s Promises and Performance«, Environmental Politics, Jg. 9, H. 1 (2000), S. 109–137. Pepper, D., The Roots of Modern Environmentalism, London 1984. Pepper, D., »Ecological Modernisation or the ›Ideal Model‹ of Sustainable Development? Questions Prompted at Europe's Periphery«, Environmental Politics, Jg. 8, H. 4 (1999), S. 1–34. Presas, L.M., Transnational buildings in local environments, Aldershot 2005. Princen, T./M. Maniates/K. Conca (Hg.), Confronting Consumption, Cambridge 2002. Rau, H., »(Im)mobility and Environment-Society Relations: Arguments for and Against the ›Mobilisation‹ of Environmental Sociology«, in: M. Gross/H. Heinrichs (Hg.), Environmental Sociology. European Perspectives and Interdisciplinary Challenges, Dordrecht 2010, S. 237–254. Rosa, E.A./R. York/T. Dietz, »Tracking the Anthropogenic Drivers of Ecological Impacts«, AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, Jg. 33, H. 8 (2004), S. 509–512. Scheinberg, A./A.P.J. Mol, »Multiple modernities; transitional Bulgaria and the ecological modernisation of solid waste management«, Environment and Planning C, Jg. 28, H. 1 (2010), S. 18–36. Schlosberg, D./S. Rinfret, »Ecological modernisation, American style«, Environmental Politics, Jg. 17, H. 2 (2008), S. 254–275. Schnaiberg, A., The Environment; From Surplus to Scarcity, Oxford 1980.

30


Schnaiberg, A./A.S. Weinberg/D.N. Pellow, »The Treadmill of Production and the Environmental State«, in: A.P.J. Mol/F.H. Buttel (Hg.), The Environmental state under pressure, London 2002, S. 15–32. Schot, J., »Constructive technology assessment and technology dynamics: The case of clean technologies«, Science, Technology and Human Values, Jg. 17, H. 1 (1992), S. 36–56. Shove E., Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience: The Social Organisation of Normality, New York 2003. Smith, T./D.A. Sonnenfeld/D.N. Pellow (Hg.), Challenging the Chip: Labor Rights and Environmental Justice in the Global Electronics Industry, Philadelphia 2006. Sonnenfeld, D.A., »Social Movements and Ecological Modernization: the Transformation of Pulp and Paper Manufacturing«, Development and Change, Jg. 33, H. 1 (2002), S. 1–27. Sonnenfeld, D.A. (Hg.), »Symposium on Globalisation and Environmental Governance: Is Another World Possible?«, Global Environmental Change, Jg. 18, H. 3 (2008). Sonnenfeld, D.A./A.P.J. Mol, »Environmental Reform in Asia: Comparisons, Challenges, Next Steps«, Journal of Environment and Development, Jg. 15, H. 2 (2006), S. 112–137. Sonnenfeld, D.A./A.P.J. Mol (Hg.), »Symposium on ›Social Theory and the Environment in the New World (Dis)Order‹«, Global Environmental Change, Jg. 21, H. 3 (2011). Sonnenfeld, D.A./M.T. Rock, »Ecological Modernisation in Asian and other emerging economies«, in: A.P.J. Mol/D.A. Sonnenfeld/G. Spaargaren (Hg.) (2009), The Ecological Modernisation Reader: Environmental Reform in Theory and Practice, London 2009, S. 359–371. Spaargaren, G., »Sustainable Consumption: A Theoretical and Environmental Policy Perspective«, Society & Natural Resources, Jg. 16 (2003), S. 1–15. Spaargaren, G., The Ecological Modernisation of Social Practices at the Consumption Junction, Discussion-paper for the ISA-RC-24 conference Sustainable Consumption and Society Madison, Wisconsin. June 2-3, 2006. Spaargaren, G., »Theories of Practices: Agency, Technology, and Culture. Exploring the Relevance of Practice Theories for the Governance of Sustainable Consumption Practices in the New World-Order«, Global Environmental Change, Jg. 21, H. 3 (2011), S. 813–822. Spaargaren, G./M. Cohen, »Greening lifecycles and lifestyles: sociotechnical innovations in consumption and production as core concerns of ecological modernisation theory«, in: A.P.J. Mol/D.A. Sonnenfeld/G. Spaargaren (Hg.), The Ecological Modernisation Reader. Environmental Reform in Theory and Practice, London 2009, S. 257–274. Spaargaren, G./A.P.J. Mol, »Ecologie, technologie en sociale verandering. Naar een ecologisch meer rationele vorm van produktie en consumptie«, in: A.P.J.


31

Mol/G. Spaargaren/B. Klapwijk (Hg.), Technologie en Milieubeheer. Tussen sanering en ecologische modernisering, Den Haag 1991, S. 185–207. Spaargaren, G./A.P.J. Mol, »Sociology, Environment and Modernity: Ecological Modernisation as a Theory of Social Change«, Society & Natural Resources, Jg. 5, H. 4 (1992), S. 323–344. Spaargaren, G./A.P.J. Mol, »Greening Global Consumption: Redefining Politics and Authority«, Global Environmental Change, Jg. 18, H. 3 (2008), S. 350–359. Spaargaren, G./A.P.J. Mol, Carbon Flows, Carbon Markets and Low-Carbon Lifestyles, Environmental Politics, Jg. 22, H. 1 (2013), S. 174–193. Spaargaren, G./C.S.A. (Kris) van Koppen, »Provider Strategies and the Greening of Consumption Practices; Exploring the role of companies in sustainable consumption«, in: H. Lange/L. Meier (Hg.), The New Middle Classes. Globalizing Lifestyles, Consumerism, and Environmental Concern: The Case of the New Middle Class, Dordrecht et al. 2010, S. 81–100. Spaargaren, G./A.P.J. Mol/F.H. Buttel, »Introduction: Globalisation, Modernity and the Environment«, in: Gert Spaargaren/Arthur P.J. Mol/Frederick H. Buttel (Hg.), The Environment and Global Modernity, New York 2000, S. 1–15. Spaargaren, G./A.P.J. Mol/F.H. Buttel (Hg.), Governing Environmental Flows. Global Challenges to Social theory, Cambridge/London 2006. Spaargaren, G./P. Oosterveer/J. van Buuren/A.P.J. Mol, Mixed Modernities: toward viable urban environmental infrastructure development in East Africa. Position Paper, Wageningen 2005. Szarka, J., »Climate Challenges, Ecological Modernization, and Technological Forcing: Policy Lessons from a Comparative US-EU Analysis«, Global Environmental Politics, Jg. 12, H. 2 (2012), S. 87–109. Tatenhove, J. van/B. Arts/P. Leroy (Hg.), Political Modernisation and the Environment. The Renewal of Policy Arrangements, Dordrecht 2000. Tatenhove, Jan P.M. van/Pieter Leroy, »Environment and Participation in a Context of Political Modernisation«, Environmental Values, Jg. 12, H. 2 (2003), S. 155–174. Tokunaga M., »Environmental governance in Russia: the ›closed‹ pathway to ecological modernization«, Environment and Planning A, Jg. 42, H. 7 (2010), S. 1686– 1704. Tukahirwa, J.T./A.P.J. Mol/P. Oosterveer, »Access of Urban Poor to NGO/CBO-supplied Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Uganda: the role of social and spatial proximity«, Habitat International, Jg. 35, H. 4 (2011), S. 582– 591. Urry, J., Sociology beyond Society, London 2000. Vliet, B.J.M. van/J.C.L. van Buuren/S. Mgana (Hg.), Urban Waste and Sanitation Services in East Africa. Harnessing Social and Technical Diversity for Sustainable Development, London 2014. Wackernagel, M./W. Rees, Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on Earth, Gabriola Island 1998.

32


Wattanapinyo, A./A.P.J. Mol, »Ecological modernization and environmental policy reform in Thailand: the case of food processing SMEs«, Sustainable Development, Jg. 22 (2014) [im Erscheinen]. WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development), Our Common Future, Oxford 1987. Weale, A., The New Politics of the Environment, Manchester 1992. Weinberg, A.S./D.N. Pellow/A. Schnaiberg, Urban Recycling and the Search for Sustainable Community Development, Princeton 2000. Wilson, D.C., »The global in the local: the environmental state and the management of the Nile perch fishery on Lake Victoria«, in: A.P.J. Mol/F.H. Buttel (Hg.), The Environmental State under Pressure, Amsterdam/New York 2002, S. 171–192. Wong, C.M.L., »The Developmental State in Ecological Modernization and the Politics of Environmental Framings: The Case of Singapore and Implications for East Asia«, Nature and Culture, Jg. 7, H. 1 (2012), S. 95–119. York, R./E.A. Rosa, »Key Challenges to Ecological Modernisation Theory«, in: Organization and Environment, Jg. 16, H. 3 (2003), S. 273–287. York, R./E.A. Rosa/T. Dietz, »A Rift in Modernity? Assessing the Anthropogenic Sources of Global Climate Change with the STIRPAT Model«, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Jg. 23, H. 10 (2003), S. 31–51. Young, S. (Hg.), The Emergence of Ecological Modernisation, London 2001. Zhang, L./A.P.J. Mol/D.A. Sonnenfeld, »The Interpretation of Ecological Modernization in China«, Environmental Politics, Jg. 16, H. 4 (2007), S. 659–668.