ENVIRONMENTAL DISCLOSURE AND ACCOUNTABILITY - Waikato ...

ENVIRONMENTAL DISCLOSURE AND ACCOUNTABILITY: AN ECOFEMINIST PERSPECTIVE

Nola Buhr College of Commerce and Economics Sultan Qaboos University Al Khod, 123, Sultanate of Oman 968-515-854 (968-514-043 fax) [email protected]

Sara Reiter School of Management Binghamton University Binghamton, New York 13902-6015 607-777-6174 (607-777-4422 fax) [email protected]

Conference Stream: Environment

1

ENVIRONMENTAL DISCLOSURE AND ACCOUNTABILITY: AN ECOFEMINIST PERSPECTIVE

ABSTRACT Environmental disclosure reflects and reveals how corporations view their relationship with the natural environment and how their environmental management affects and is affected by others. The accountability relationships of corporations are circumscribed by the worldview reflected in environmental reports. We identify typical worldviews expressed in recent award-winning environmental reports from a variety of corporations in a number of countries. We then analyze the underlying assumptions about the relationships of man to nature and corporations to society in relation to environmental philosophy, particulary an ecofeminist perspective. We find that corporate environmental reports reflect a mixture of environmental goals, such as sustainable resource use, and capitalist values, such as shareholder wealth maximization, efficiency, and productivity. The companies see scientific and technological advances as the solution to past and future environmental problems. Our ecofeminist critique questions the possibilities for environmental solutions coming from such a human-centered, instrumental worldview – particularly one based on the shallow character of “economic man.” We question the abstraction and reductionism of the quantitative approach to accountability in the reports. We call for a reconceptualization of the relationship of corporations and society to nature and of the corporate decision-making process.

2

INTRODUCTION Environmental disclosure reflects and reveals how corporations view their relationship with the natural environment. We identify typical worldviews expressed in recent award-winning environmental reports from several corporations in different countries. We then analyze the underlying assumptions about the relationships of man to nature and corporations to society using a philosophical critique. Our basic premise is that the accountability relationships of corporations are circumscribed by the worldview reflected in environmental reports. We find the philosophical perspective of ecofeminism particularly valuable in critiquing the basic assumptions underlying corporate environmental reporting. This approach to studying corporate environmental disclosure differs from a typical approach in the accounting literature exemplified by Gray et al. (1995) where trends in social and environmental reporting in the United Kingdom over a thirteen year period are analyzed from the standpoints of stakeholder, legitimacy, and political economy theories. The purpose of such studies is to better understand the role and antecedents of social and environmental disclosure. Our purpose in this study is to uncover the worldview and underlying assumptions about the relationship of man to the environment prevalent in current corporate reporting, and to evaluate whether approaches based on these assumptions are likely to be successful in meeting critical environmental goals of sustainability. Eder (1996) describes three phases of modern environmentalism starting in the late 1960s. The first phase is when the incompatibility of ecology and economy characterized environmental problems. This is the jobs versus the environment debate. The second phase is one in which regulatory approaches dominated environmental action. It is in this second phase that the term sustainable development entered the public discourse. The third, emerging, phase is one in which environmental concerns have become normalized and integrated into common ideology. While it may be a matter of debate as to how far we have come into the third phase, it is evident that there is no longer the lone voice of the environmental protestor. Instead there are various actors with different roles to constitute and reconstitute through public discourse. According to Eder (1996, pp. 168-169): The symbolic package of industrial actors, on the other hand, is related to a world where actors are engaged in learning to create a better and ‘sustainable’world and desperately trying to convince society of their progressive ideas. This is the concern of industrial actors for moral and scientific progress and for an environment that allows for the economic well-being of people. According to this theory, corporations should internalize a set of environmental values and ideologies, which should be reflected in environmental reports. To the extent that this is happening, we would expect award-winning environmental reports to be most likely to reflect emerging environmental thought. To evaluate these thoughts, we turn to the realm of environmental philosophy. As Salleh (1997) explains, we “need to be able to see why a problem occurs; know who wants to change it; see what alternatives there are; and know how these can be put in place” (p. 184). Philosophy offers a systematic study of the first three factors, which are vital for gaining insight into possibilities

3

for change. Environmental philosophy is critical in the project of locating and examining flaws in moral perception and thought that underlie current practice (King, 1991, p. 82). Philosophical perspectives that mirror the status quo will not be effective at this job, however, because the environmental crisis facing us may not be resolvable without significant changes in worldview and assumptions. For example, Hawken (1998) explains: If every company on the planet were to adopt the environmental and social practices of the best companies – of, say, the Body Shop, Patagonia, and Ben and Jerry’s – the world would still be moving toward environmental degradation and collapse (p. 376). If the problem cannot be resolved with the best current practices and structures, perspectives from radical environmental philosophy may be worth pursuing. Sessions (1998) notes: During the 1960s, biologists, conservationists, ecotheologians, and ecophilosophers were beginning to realize that the dominant anthropocentric ideology of Western civilization that promotes the technological domination, management, and control of Earth – the domestication, urbanization, and humanization of Earth – in the name of progress was producing a human and ecological disaster (p. 166). For reasons that are developed more fully later, we choose the ecofeminist philosophical framework for our analysis. Ecofeminism is an umbrella term for a variety of perspectives1 focusing on parallels between the domination of women and the domination of nature (Warren, 1994). Ecofeminist thought sees the conceptual framework of domination as the principal problem and develops tools to explicate the value hierarchies, value dualisms, and logic of domination implied in the framework (Warren, 1998b, p. 327). In addition, ecofeminist philosophy theorizes problematic power relations at both personal and systemic levels (Birkeland, 1993, p. 16) which provides a breadth and flexibility of analysis not shared by other single philosophical frameworks: Ecofeminism encompasses both the psychological and systemic manifestations of the androcentric value system and the personal and political expressions of insecurity and dominance. It accommodates both perceptual/spiritual and analytical/rational approaches, and addresses both personal and systemic barriers to social change ... It therefore provides a holistic framework that can draw upon and integrate the insights developed by [other] radical critiques (p. 31-32). In the next section of the paper, we provide a necessarily brief overview of the domain of environmental philosophy and organization/society relations. Then, we proceed to a rudimentary discourse analysis of environmental reports using a framework provided by Eder (1996). The end-product of the analysis is a survey of conceptual frameworks or worldviews of the corporations. We apply the theoretical insights of environmental philosophy, particularly the ecofeminist perspective, to critique the corporate worldviews. In conclusion, we summarize our critique and make suggestions for future change. OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL PHILOSOPHY Traditional philosophy is divided between consequential (or teleological) theories such as

4

utilitarianism and non-consequential (or deontological) theories such as rights-based philosophies. Environmental philosophy also has a large non-traditional or holistic branch typified by deep ecology and ecofeminism (Warren, 1998a, p. 270). One can divide environmental philosophies between anthropocentric (human-centered) and ecocentric (earthcentered) viewpoints, which are generally seen as incommensurable (Purser et al., 1995). Such delineation negates the reality of a wide range of “paradigms” under which organizations might operate. Gray et al. (1996) offer a seven level classification framework to explain “a few general ways in which different groups in society might envisage the organization-society relationship (p. 56)”. These levels include: (1) pristine capitalists - the dominant view in accounting and finance in which the only responsibility of the corporation is to make money for shareholders; (2) expedients - those with a long-term view who realize that economic welfare and stability can only be achieved by the acceptance of certain social responsibilities; (3) proponents of the social contract - an attitude that companies and other organizations exist at society’s will and are therefore responsible to respect and respond to that society; (4) social ecologists - those who are concerned for the social environment and feel that because large organizations have been influential in creating social and environmental problems that they should also be influential in helping to eradicate these problems; (5) socialists - who feel that there should be a significant readjustment in the ownership and structuring of society; and (6) radical feminists - those who feel that there is something essentially wrong with the aggressive masculine constructs that guide out social systems and that there is a need for more feminine values such as love, compassion and cooperation; and (7) deep ecologists - who hold that humans have no greater right to existence than any other form of life. These organizational political stances have different underlying philosophical perspectives. Anthropocentric (Human-centered) Philosophies The stances of pristine capitalists and expedients relate to neo-classical economics, which is theorized under a utilitarian framework based on narrowly conceived rational self-interest. Individual preference is privileged over collective needs and society is conceived of as the product of competitive struggle best realized through market forces. There is a belief that the “good of all can be promoted through the unrestricted operation of the market economy” (Clark, 1998, p. 346). Nature is valuable because of its usefulness to humans (instrumental value) (Birkeland et al., 1997, pp. 125-128). The role of government is to protect life, liberty and property rights. There is a belief that there are no real future environmental problems since humans and technology are infinitely adaptable (Clark, 1998, p. 347). Proponents of the social contract and the social responsibility of corporations operate from a rights-based perspective. Generally it is the rights of humans that are considered, although some philosophers make a case for extending rights to other sentient beings. The rights perspective is

5

reflected in liberal environmentalism, which assumes that significant government activity is needed in the form of regulation since prices do not reflect all true costs of environmental (and human) damage associated with production and consumption. (Clark, 1998, p. 349). Sylan (1998, p. 18) explains three Western traditions of the relationship of man to nature. The dominant Western view, which is expressed in the neo-classical, utilitarian perspective just discussed, is that nature is the dominion of man, who is free to deal with it in any way. Two lesser traditions, reflected in the social contract and responsibility views, are of man the custodian, who has a stewardship relationship to nature, and man the perfecter, who has a role to “develop, cultivate, and perfect” nature (presumably for the benefit of man). The role of man the perfecter is also consistent with economic expediency. Ecocentric (Holistic) Philosophies The human-centered approaches are associated, at best, with an environmentalist point of view which involves taking account of the environment in decision-making and may involve actions such as pollution abatement, resource conservation, and restoration activities. Clark (1998, p. 345) explains that ecology is different from environmentalism in that it takes a more holistic view that involves re-thinking the place of humans in nature. The first three approaches listed by Gray et al. (1996) can be undertaken without significant alteration of the basic philosophical assumptions of utilitarian and rights-based thinking so prevalent in Western societies. The last four perspectives involve a reconception of the basic assumptions of that society. They are based on the premise that “society would make better policies and decisions if nature, other species and ecosystems were recognized as having values beyond human usage and perceptions” (Birkeland et al., 1997, p. 130). Socialist and social ecology movements attempt to situate humans within the context of nature and offer critiques of all forms of domination, but in particular of the nation state, concentrated economic power, authoritarianism, repressive ideology, and “the vast eco-technological machine” (Clark, 1998, p. 351-355). A philosophy of bioregionalism calls into question nation states and political boundaries and calls for the “creation of a culture and way of life based on a very specific, detailed knowledge of ecological realities of the larger natural community..” (Clark, 1998, p. 356). Deep ecology is “concerned with encouraging an egalitarian attitude on the part of humans not only toward all members of the ecosphere, but even toward all identifiable entities or forms in the ecosphere” (Fox, 1998, p. 227-228).1 In Leopold’s famous Land Ethics, “(c)onservation is a state of harmony between men and land” (Leopold, 1998, p. 90). Naess (1998, p. 196) argues that we need an “ethic based on either a deeper or more fundamental philosophic or religious perspective ..” Deep ecology is consistent with a number of different philosophical perspectives that provide an non-instrumental value for non-human life. Tenets that unite the deep ecology movement include a basic belief that both human and non-human life, as well as diversity of life forms, have intrinsic value and that humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs. A smaller human population is needed, we need to recognize that human interference is worsening, and policies must be changed in fundamental ways. Changes in economic, technological and ideological structures cannot come about without a fundamental philosophical change in the way humans view themselves and nature (Naess, 1998, p. 197).

6

Ecofeminist Philosophy Warren and Cheney (1991) explain that an “adequate understanding of the nature of the connections between the twin dominations of women and nature requires a feminist theory and practice informed by an ecological perspective and an environmentalism informed by a feminist perspective” (p. 180). The basic insight of ecofeminism is that the problem is not really humancenteredness, but androcentrism, a particular conception of maleness. This is not to say that the problem is male humans, but that the problem is a way of thinking that devalues both women and nature. This oppressive conceptual framework has three elements - value hierarchies (in which women and nature are devalued), value dualisms, and a logic of domination (Warren, 1998b, p. 326-327). Feminist theory has a long history of analyzing this problem, and can be helpful to understanding the Western views of nature and how to change them. Some of the conceptual links between women and nature include historical connections (the effects of the Enlightenment and the death of nature (Merchant, 1989)), conceptual connections (the same value dualisms operate to subjugate both women and nature), and epistemological connections (challenges to reason and rationality, ways of knowing) (Warren, 1998a, p. 267). Plumwood (1991) explains that the key dualism of human/nature is closely related to other dualisms of mind/body, reason/nature, reason/emotion, and masculine/feminine. The dualistic structure of Western thought separates man from nature and identifies nature with the feminine, the devalued second term in each dualism. This process is central to understanding what is called the discontinuity problem, the belief in a fundamental difference between humans and nature. While deep ecologists maintain that we have to resolve the discontinuity problem to continue to exist with nature, ecofeminism supplies the analytic tools to understand discontinuity. Birkeland (1993) sees five essential elements in the androcentric premise: “the polarization of masculine and feminine archetypes and the elevation of so-called masculine traits and values ... instrumentalism, whereby things are valued only to the extent that they are useful to Man ... the idea that Man is autonomous or independent from both nature and community...the universalization of male experience and values... [and] ... the linkage between masculinity and power over others” (pp. 24-25). Birkeland (1993) sees the essence of ecofeminism as “changing from a morality based on ‘power over’ to one based on reciprocity and responsibility (‘power to’)” (p. 19). While ecofeminism is by no means a unified body of theory, Warren (1998b, p. 337) provides some “boundary conditions.” Ecofeminism is anti-naturist, contextualist, structurally pluralistic, and inclusivist. It is a theory in progress with no objective point of view that gives a central place to the values of care, love, friendship, trust, and reciprocity. These characteristics lead to a set of basic precepts articulated by Birkeland (1993): (1) Fundamental social transformation is necessary. ... (2) Everything in nature has intrinsic value. ... (3) Our anthropocentric viewpoint, instrumentalist values, and mechanistic models should be rejected for a more biocentric view that can comprehend the interconnectedness of all life processes. (4) Humans should not attempt to “manage” or control nonhuman nature ... (5) Merely redistributing power relationships is not the answer ... We must move beyond power.

7

(6) We must integrate the false dualisms that are based on the male/female polarity ... (7) Process is as important as goals ... (8) The personal is political. We must change the ideology that says the morality of the (female) private sphere has no application to the (male) public sphere of science, politics, and industry. ... (9) We cannot change the nature of the system by playing Patriarchal “games”. ... (p. 20). Ecofeminist perspectives differ from other philosophical perspectives. Warren and Cheney (1991, p. 187) see it as mediating between deontological and teleological approaches by emphasizing rights in some contexts, values in others. Plumwood (1991, p. 7) emphasizes the role of special relationships in ecofeminist thought, as opposed to the detached, universalist perspective associated with rights-based philosophies. Ecofeminism would seem to have much in common with deep ecology. Ecofeminism, however, does not seek the merger of humans and nature sought by some deep ecologists - it seeks to understand both the commonalities and differences between humans and nature. Plumwood (1991, p. 14) explains that “holistic selfmerger is not the only alternative to egoistic accounts of the self.” Ecofeminist philosophy is more relational than holistic. Slicer (1994) also contrasts the “single-tiered, linear understanding of environmental problems” in the deep ecology approach with a “multi-leveled, ‘zig-zag’ ecofeminist understanding...” (p. 38). Table 1 presents an overview of the connection between organization-society stances and associated environmental philosophies. Insert Table 1 here

WORLDVIEWS IN ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS Through the use of discourse analysis we wish to expose the worldview or ideology expressed in the text provided in environmental reports. Discourse is a cultural and social product used to express and (re) produce meanings, ideologies and social structures (Fairclough, 1989; van Dijk, 1985). While there are many different levels of discourse analysis, such as surface properties of layout and presentation or syntactic structures and rhetorical devices, we limit our analysis to the level of discourse analysis that seeks to draw out underlying meaning. Fairclough (1989) stresses the relationship between language, power and ideology. Media discourse (in which we would include environmental reports) is able to exercise a pervasive and powerful influence in social reproduction. The text provided in the report is the result of a process whereby the producer (the company) determines what is included and what is excluded and how events are represented. Because the production of text lacks the flexibility of verbal discourse, there is no opportunity for the producer to adapt to the audience as would be available in face-to-face encounters. Therefore, the company must address what it sees as an ideal subject. It should be noted that social reproduction is not entirely within the purview of the corporation.

8

As social movements such as environmentalism develop and go through various phases, discrepancies develop between the producer’s representation of the world and the world itself. The position of the producer is problematized and discourse conventions become destabilized (Fairclough, 1989). It is this corporate response to environmentalism and representation of their place in nature that we wish to explore. In order to better structure our analysis of the text provided by the chosen companies we choose the cognitive framing devices outlined by Eder (1996). Eder describes three devices: moral responsibility, empirical objectivity and aesthetic judgment. These relate to the social, factual and subjective worlds, respectively. These devices are combined in various ways and with different emphases and used by social actors to generate a sense of self and to further their own interests. Moral responsibility refers to how we should act in this world. It answers the “What is our responsibility toward nature?” question. Various environmental philosophy perspectives on this question were reviewed in the previous section. We will see that the utilitarian tradition dominates business discourse although moral underpinnings are not explicitly discussed in corporate reports. The factual or empirical objectivity device utilizes our empirical observations of nature in a mechanistic, scientific and technological manner. Eder notes (p. 174): With the rise of modern environmentalism, it has become obvious that science no longer controls the vision of the world. Experts have to tell us what the facts are, yet they produce contradictory evidence. In short, (Eder, p. 184) asserts that “(e)nvironmentalism has put into question the procedures through which facts about nature are objectified and represented as empirically valid.” We will see, however, that our companies place great faith in science and technology to resolve problems and in quantification to discharge accountability relationships. Aesthetic judgment refers to our expressive relationship with nature. Rooted in this device is the romantic attitude toward nature as the original paradise from which man was expelled. From this is derived the notion that an unpolluted nature offers a better way of life. The Christian interpretation of the original paradise is one in which humans both dominate and care for nature. These expressive attitudes are also reflected in the various environmental philosophy perspectives reviewed in the previous section. The importance of expressive attitude to environmental stances is based on the assumption that it constitutes an important dimension of human motivation to take various actions toward the environment, and, thus, represents the key to change in some views (for example, deep ecology). Table 2 delineates the worldviews of environmental philosophies, summarizing views of morality, the role of science and technology, aesthetic judgments, and preferred solutions to environmental problems. Insert Table 2 here

9

Through discourse, a symbolic package is offered that serves to constitute the actor. (Actor here is referred to in the broad sense of individual, organization or more pertinent to the current study, a corporation.) The symbolic package serves to define self and in so doing, differentiate self from other actors, be they industrial, political or otherwise. What is on offer from the industrial actors? How may we delineate these symbolic packages? In line with Purser et al. (1995) we expect that the examples of text that we have chosen will reveal organizations who put “the bottom line” first - pristine capitalists and expedients. The Environmental Reports For almost a decade now, companies have been producing environmental reports. These reports are stand-alone documents, produced on a voluntary basis. They have been produced by many different companies (albeit to a large extent natural resource companies with the bulk in the forest products industry) in many different countries. The amount of text varies significantly from report to report as does the content. Many of these reports serve as nothing more that blatant public relations vehicles while some are a more sincere effort to report on a company’s environmental performance ‘warts and all’. This is to be expected, as there are no established and sanctioned guidelines for environmental reporting as there are for financial reporting. However, the state of environmental reporting has advanced to the stage where various organizations recognize and award the better (i.e., more informative) of the environmental reports. We selected five award-winning environmental reports for our study: Noranda Inc., WMC Limited, Novo Nordisk, Northern Telecom and British Telecom. Noranda Inc. is a Canadian company operating in three natural resource sectors: mining and metals, forest products and oil and gas. The report chosen for examination is their 1997 Environment, Safety and Health Report which was the environmental report award winner of the Investor Relations Magazine Awards for Canadian companies. WMC Limited is an Australian minerals company. The report chosen for examination is the 1997 Environmental Report which was the recipient of the AMEEF Excellence Award in Company Environmental Reporting. AMEEF is the Australian Minerals & Energy Environment Foundation thus the playing field for the award is rather closely circumscribed. Novo Nordisk is a Danish company that operates in the health care and enzyme business sectors. The company manufactures and markets pharmaceutical products and services and discovers, develops, manufactures and markets industrial enzymes for biological solutions to industrial problems. The Novo Nordisk Environment & Bioethics Report 1997, which is studied here, was selected to be an award winning report by the Danish Foreningen Statsautoriserede Revisor. Nortel (Northern Telecom) is a Canadian Telecommunications Company. We have chosen to study their 1996 Progress Report on Environment, Health and Safety which was given an environmental reporting award by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants as part of the Financial Post Annual Report Awards competition. British Telcom (BT) is the U.K.’s principal supplier of telecommunications services. It is also a major supplier of associated products. The report chosen for study is BT’s 1995/1996 environmental report which won an award in the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants annual report contest. These five reports were all recipients of an environmental report award and thus should represent the best available corporate environmental communication (at least to the bodies presenting the

10

awards). All five reports are available on the worldwide web and have been referenced using website location information. A review was made of the reports using the three framing devices proposed by Eder: moral responsibility, empirical objectivity and aesthetic judgment. Based on the use of these devices a symbolic package or worldview emerges. The review of the environmental reports found little explicit discussion of morality in relationship with nature. Thus, this first framing device is presented as what the company is committed to doing and what it thinks it ought to do. The extent of discussion surrounding science and quantification differs from company to company. The third framing device has been expanded to included not only relationship with nature but relationship with others in the context of nature. Vision of Morality The vision statement of each of the selected companies is a key location to examine the organizations’view of responsibility. Noranda states (http://www.noranada.ca/environment /body012.htm): Noranda is dedicated to the responsible and profitable development of minerals around the world for the benefit of its shareholders. In doing so, we strive to improve the quality of life for our employees, the communities in which we operate, and for the users of our products. Hence, although there appears to be a commitment to sustainability, it is clear that profitability and shareholder wealth is important as would be expected in a modern corporation. WMC’s vision for sustainability is strong on development and weak on preservation: WMC’s vision for sustainability is to be the preferred resource developer, maximizing shareholder value by fulfilling our responsibility towards people, the environment and management of natural resources (http://wmc.com.au/envrep97/page34.htm). WMC sees economic development as fundamental to environmental protection: Economic development is fundamental to a company’s ability to contribute to environmental protection, natural resource conservation and social well-being. To make such a contribution, companies must be sustainable (http://wmc.com.au/envrep97/page34.htm). The vision statement of Novo Nordisk is similar to the environmental policy of WMC, but there is decidedly more emphasis on being responsible to a range of stakeholders: We shall all over the world conduct our business as socially and environmentally responsible neighbours, and contribute to the enrichment of our communities (http://www.novo.dk/environm/er97/intro/start.html). This stance is expanded greatly in the company’s environmental policy: At Novo Nordisk we will work to continuously improve our environmental performance by setting high objectives. Environmental considerations will be an integrated part of our daily business and we will work proactively with issues of importance to the international environmental agenda. - We will comply with environmental legislation and regulations, and with other

11

requirements to which Novo Nordisk subscribes - We are determined to minimize the impact of our activities on the global, regional and local environment by: - Developing environmentally sound processes and products - Optimizing resource efficiency - Minimizing emissions and wastes - We will promote environmental awareness in the company and ensure that everyone has the skills and knowledge to comply with this policy - We will assist our customers in achieving their environmental objectives - We will encourage our suppliers and contractors to provide environmentally sound goods and services - We will maintain an open dialogue with our stakeholders and report annually on our performance (http://www.novo.dk/environm/er97/env/howwemanage.html) The notion of a shared environment is much stronger here than in the two mining companies. Nortel is even more oriented toward stakeholders than the environment and organizes its report on a stakeholder basis with each section titled “Commitments to...”. The sections cover, in this order of priority: customers, employees, suppliers, shareholders, communities, all Nortel stakeholders. The environmental and health and safety policies are not reproduced in the environmental report. However, mention is made that the policies state that the corporation will comply with the applicable legal and regulatory requirements. The format of the BT environmental report precludes any explicit reference to moral responsibility. The first section discusses the report itself. The remainder of the report is, for the most part, simply a series of tables that show the company’s targets, the status and a report on the item. It would be a stretch to infer what the company sees as its commitment to society and/or nature. However, the substance of these tables seems to indicate that the company is focused on reducing its impact on the environment through reduction in energy usage, reduction in emissions, etc. On the concrete level, the duties and moral obligations identified by the companies relate to statutory expectations. For example, Noranda indicates that it has an obligation to take extra precautions when handling and transporting potentially dangerous chemicals and that the company must meet its obligation for capturing SO2 emissions at the Horne Smelter. Of course, many of these “obligations” are prescribed by legal statute and regulations to which there is some limited reference in the report. Most of the explicit reference to legislation is made when discussing actual emissions levels, effluent discharges and environmental fines. WMC indicates that it is committed to the Australian Minerals Industry Code for Environmental Management. Hence, the duty of the organization is defined by laws and industry standards. Interestingly, WMC takes what may be seen as a social contract view of what its duties are (http://wmc.com.au/envrep97/page9.htm): “As public attitudes and aspirations evolve, we need to refine policies and processes to address community concerns about WMC’s activities.” Such an approach to environmental responsibility is consistent with Gray et al. (1996)’s category of expedient. They will do what it takes knowing that public expectations change over time.

12

Reference to Science Interestingly, Harré (1985) makes the comment: “Of all the forms of contemporary discourse, scientific talk and writing seems to have the greatest power (pp. 129-139).” Three of the companies studied use science in extensively in their discourse but to different effect. Noranda is a company that sees science and technology as the pathway to sustainability and, coupled with this, an opportunity to increase profitability. For example (http://www.noranada.ca/environment/body010.htm): While Noranda research has made an enormous contribution to improving our environmental performance, it’s clear that we must do better. To reduce our impact on the environment more than just incrementally, and to accommodate the economic growth we hope to achieve, it will be necessary to develop new “quantum leap” technologies. The Noranda Continuous Converter, for example, helped us to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions at the Horne copper smelter, while making us more competitive because the technology allows us to treat more complex metals. Environmental challenges such as the Kyoto Agreement are seen as a spur to “stimulate greater effort to find new technologies to help us reduce greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption (http://www.noranada.ca/environment/body010.htm)”. In an interview with the Senior Vice-President, Environment, Safety and Health the comment is made (http://www.noranada.ca/environment/body011.htm): “Breakthroughs in technology and as-yetundefined emissions trading will probably be the source of solutions”. Like Noranda WMC discusses the actions that it will take to mitigate the damage it has caused. For example: acid plants to convert SO2 emissions into sulphuric acid; rehabilitate land; research the behaviour of cyanide in tailings storage facilities and monitor impact of ground water extraction. While the company has many research and development projects underway, science and technology are not held up as highly as Noranda as the solution to problems. In fact, WMC uses science as a tool to contest its environmental responsibilities. Following are various quotes that illustrate that the company view that environmental “problems” are debatable and that science is the ultimate authority which has not yet defined clear environmental standards: We respect views based on science and fact, and strive for high standards in our public contributions (http://wmc.com.au/envrep97/page1.htm). We are aware of public concern and uncertainty regarding the extent of humaninduced greenhouse gas problems (http://wmc.com.au/envrep97/page9.htm). Public debate is continuing on what is an acceptable sulphur dioxide (SO2) exposure level, in order to protect the health and wellbeing of affected communities (http://wmc.com.au/envrep97/page20.htm). There are no agreed international standards for SO2 emissions (http://wmc.com.au/envrep97/page20.htm). Research suggests concentrations of below 50 parts per million WAD cyanide are unlikely to cause serious harm or fatalities to wildlife

13

(http://wmc.com.au/envrep97/page23.htm). Novo Nordisk discusses its concern for product stewardship and how life cycle assessments (cradle to grave) of various products have been conducted. Hence science is used as a means of guiding product development. An example is provided in the report: The assessment showed that disposal as household waste is an environmentally sound alternative to recycling of plastic in countries where household waste is incinerated and the energy recovered (http://www.novo.dk/environm/er97/intro/start.html). The company seems to have an underlying faith in science and technology: As the deterioration of the global environment continues and the limits for what we though science and technology could achieve are transgressed . . . http://www.novo.dk/environm/er97/env/stakeholderdialo.html. Like Novo Nordisk, Nortel is concerned with a life cycle analysis of its products in order to minimize the toxicity of a product and its consumption of materials and energy. Science is also involved in various developments such as pioneering research to find a less toxic alternative to replace lead. Measurement and quantification are important to Noranda and there are efforts underway to develop a series of measurement indicators to track the company’s progress toward sustainability. The company has not yet been successful in developing these indicators. This is in aid of being able to better define sustainable development. Measurement and classification is also important for WMC. Rather than simply track incidents of non-compliance, the company has developed a 5 level system to categorize the severity of non-compliance. As with Noranda, Novo Nordisk is concerned about measurement and quantification as a means to monitor progress towards sustainable development. The company indicates that the development of specific sustainability indicators is still in its infancy. However, the company has developed an index that they call an eco-productivity index which is to be used to monitor efforts towards increased resource efficiency. Nortel has also developed environmental performance targets for which results are detailed in the report and an environmental performance index that provides a single overall rating of the corporation’s performance against its stated goals. Nevertheless, science is emphasizes less by Nortel than relationships with others. Because of the mechanistic format of the BT’s report, there is little discussion about the science that is employed. The company is doing some work on environmental performance indicators. However, this is at the early stages. Of all five companies selected for this study, Novo Nordisk is the keenest to link environmental performance with financial performance. The traditional quantification of costs for financial statement purposes is extended by the company to quantification of costs for environmental performance purposes. However, the talk of costs is not very sophisticated from a full costing or sustainable costing perspective. The company deals with training costs and end-of-pipe pollution abatement measures rather than say the costs of using ‘free’natural resources.

14

Relationship with Others and Nature Probably the most forthright comment in Noranda’s environmental report has to do with the relationship that a mining company has with nature (http://www.noranada.ca/environment /body010.htm): When trying to define sustainable development, it is difficult to claim that the mining part of our business is sustainable. We cannot replace the ore in the ground. On the other hand, it is possible for the metals part of our business to be considered sustainable, because metals are recyclable. The environmental report contains a brief blurb which succinctly indicates how the process of mining is harmful to nature (http://www.nornada.ca/environment/airtext.htm): Smelting and refining operations emit sulphur dioxide (SO2 ) and various metals into the atmosphere. Sulphur dioxide contributes to acid rain which increases the acidity of lakes and impairs their ability to sustain aquatic life. Emissions from the smelting of sulphide ore also contain metal particulates that are released into the atmosphere and persist in soils and aquatic sediments. At high accumulations, these metals can be toxic. Thus, Noranda sees itself from the view of what it is doing to nature. As far as the its relationship with others, the company is not very vocal. The company is engaged in employee training programs in order to familiarize employees with the environmental implications of their work and to stimulate new ideas for pollution prevention and other environmental improvements. The only other relationship that is referred to is one of competitive advantage through superior environmental performance. For WMC, the strongest relationship that emerges from the text is that between the company and the communities in which it operates. While describing this relationship as adversarial would probably be too strong, it is clear that obtaining community approval to get access to lands for mining is a key concern of the company. Our access to land and water, and our public licence to operate depend on community confidence in how we do business (http://wmc.com.au/envrep97/page30.htm). Companies which successfully implement sustainable mining practices are more likely to be perceived as responsible corporate citizens. The greater the community’s confidence in a company, the more secure its longer-term viability (http://wmc.com.au/envrep97/page34.htm). WMC extends its relationship to other stakeholders. Contractors and suppliers to the company are required to comply with the company’s environmental policy. This means that there are specified environmental procedures and codes established for these parties. The company also strives to legitimize its position by discussing its association with the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network and its support of Australia’s emission reduction targets as agreed to at Kyoto. Also, made known is the company’s affiliation with the International Council for Metals and the Environment and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. As far as the company’s relationship with nature, the text refers to water being a valuable

15

resource. Mention is also made that it is important to conserve and ensure the sustainable use of biodiversity. Concern is expressed over managing operations so as to minimize environmental impact. However, terminology and acknowledgment of damage to the environment is not as strongly stated as in the Noranda environmental report. For Novo Nordisk, the text in the environmental report refers to the shared nature of sustainability and how sustainable development is not something that the company can achieve by itself. Rather, the company must work closely with customers, suppliers and other stakeholders to ensure that products meet real needs are being produced in an environmentally sound manner. Emphasis is placed on how employees are encouraged to continue their environmental efforts and how an international network of managers has been established with responsibility for environmental issues. The reader is told that this network meets annually to discuss shared environmental challenges and responsibilities and exchange best practices on how to ensure progress in environmental performance. However, much about these issues, challenges and performance remains undefined. Mention is also made of how suppliers will be encouraged to provide environmentally sound goods and how customers will be assisted in achieving their environmental objectives. The details of such relationships are not spelled out. Most of the emphasis is placed on others rather than nature. However, it is telling that the environment is seen as something more to be managed. “How we manage the environment” is a heading on one of the pages (http://www.novo.dk/environm/er97/intro/howwemanage.html). Of all the five companies, Nortel is the most focused on stakeholders -- so focused that there is little mention of the environment. The comment is made that there is a critical link between a healthy environment and economic growth. To Nortel, management of the environment means that “we’re constantly looking for opportunities to innovate to better met the needs of our stakeholders” (http://www.nortel.com/cool/Habitat/CommSol/96pre/andr.html). This translates into the following approaches. From a customer perspective, the company is working on initiatives such as product recovery, packaging reduction and the development of environmentally preferable products. For example, Nortel is recycling and reselling equipment that still has a useful life but no longer meets the needs of the original owner. From an employee perspective, employees are seen as the source of innovation. Networking and sharing are important concepts that appear in the text of this report. From a supplier perspective (http://www.nortel.com/cool/Habitat/CommSol/96pre/supp.html): Nortel’s goal is to create network solutions that provide the highest value, while consuming the minimum amount of materials and energy, and generating the least amount of waste. Our purchasing decisions are based on criteria such as competitive pricing, quality and service, but they’re also influenced by the environmental and ethical standards of our suppliers. Leadership in corporate responsibility includes dealing fairly with suppliers, and sharing with them knowledge about solutions to business problems. To date, we’ve focused on helping suppliers become more eco-efficient. From a shareholder perspective, “using resources efficiently and productively is helping us

16

reduce costs and provide better value to both customers and shareholders (http://www.nortel.com/cool/Habitat/CommSol/96pre/share.html)”. With respect to communities, the company is concerned about minimizing the impact of its operations. This is carried further though for the report indicates that the company is concerned about changing the behavior of others: It’s our hope that our innovations in environmental management will ripple out into the wider community making a difference to people’s lives and businesses. So we were pleased when the successful chemical reduction program at our plant in Belleville, Canada spawned an innovative community-wide Chemical Inventory Exchange Program (http://www.nortel.com/cool/Habitat/CommSol/96pre/comm.html).

BT is in the same line of business as Nortel which means that there is not nearly as much impact on the environment as there is, say, in mining operations. Compared to Nortel though, BT focuses more on the reduction of its environmental impact and much less on stakeholder relationships. For the most part it would seem that environmental progress from Nortel’s point of view involves sharing and cooperating with all stakeholders. From BT’s point of view it seems to mean simply reducing environmental impact. Some of the initiatives in this area include the following: increasing the recycled fibre content of the phone directory, reducing the weight of copier paper used, making the lights in phone kiosks more energy efficient; monitoring the use of refrigerants; reusing existing telephone poles where possible; recycling old phone directories; minimizing employee commuting; and improving the management of bulk fuel storage. Emerging Worldview Noranda has advanced along with public discourse to a state where the goal is sustainability, however it may be defined, rather than good environmental performance. The company seems to see its duty as minimizing its impact on the environment while at the same time insuring that operations are profitable. Technology is seen as the key to sustainability and the answer to environmental issues and challenges. WMC appears to be a company that has recognized the importance of the environment although it seems most heavily motivated to win community approval to continue to gain access to mineral deposits. In short, to do what it takes to keep the public happy so they can stay in business. This would seem to be the view of an expedient rather than a social contract adherent. There is some heel-dragging (at least in comparison to Noranda) with admitting that mining itself is an unsustainable activity that damages the environment. WMC also uses lack of agreement in science as a defense in assessing the extent of environmental damage.

17

Novo Nordisk is a company sees itself as having a greater responsibility to others than to the environment. This is a contrast to the mining companies who, because of their intrusive nature, place greater emphasis on the minimization of environmental impact. Science plays a different role here than with either of the two mining companies. Science is an ally and a means to environmental solutions but it has no clear priority over working with other stakeholders towards sustainability. For the most part Nortel is conscious of the environment and uses science to improve its environmental management. However, the focus of the company is clearly on its stakeholders, stakeholder needs and extends so far as to improving the environmental performance of stakeholders through networking and sharing. While BT is working towards minimizing its impact on the environment this is being done without a great deal of emphasis on science, or the consideration of other stakeholders or the environmental responsibility of the company. Summary Comments To a greater or lesser extent, all of the discourses studied suffer from a lack of definition and explanation. What is sustainable development? What does environmental performance mean? Where does environmental responsibility begin and end? Some companies admit that there is trouble in defining sustainable development. Novo Nordisk is probably the most vocal about the difficulty in defining sustainable development. This is illustrated with the following comments: Sustainable development continues to be a complex challenge - notwithstanding the difficulties there can be in defining the term and the means by which we can measure progress towards it. For how exactly can we define the “carrying capacity of the earth” and ensure that we are not “compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs”? (http://www.novo.dk/environm/er97/intro/start.html). However, the meaning of the term environment and words associated with the environment seem to be a taken for granted. In many places in the chosen texts, one could substitute the words quality or productivity in place of environment and still obtain meaningful communication. The vision of morality conveyed in these reports is a mixture of environmental goals, often stated in terms that imply environmental responsibilities, with adherence to a narrow view of shareholder wealth maximization. Environmental goals include reducing pollution, reducing impact, responsible development and product design, product stewardship, conservation and rehabilitation, promoting environmental awareness and finding innovative solutions to environmental problems. The reports refer in varying degrees to the financial aspects of environmental responsibility but a good deal of the text links environmental benefit with financial benefit. Most notable in this regard is Noranda. However, the other companies also make reference to the idea that resource conservation is important from both a financial as well as an environmental perspective. Despite lofty goals, much of the moral responsibility comes down to complying with the law - surely a minimal goal. The companies see science and technology as a pathway to attaining simultaneous goals of sustainability and profitability. They seem to be counting on future scientific breakthroughs to resolve past and current damages. One company, WMC Limited, even uses current lack of

18

agreement in scientific knowledge as an excuse for an understandable inability to comply. Companies also rely on quantification in their presentations making quantitative assessments of progress in attaining various goals. The meaning of the goals and the meaning of the progress is not clear, however. Several companies aggregate these measures into an overall environmental performance index. The feelings expressed by the companies include a sense of unease about the feasibility of sustainability and low environmental impact in the extraction industries, some degree of commitment to environmental goals such as sustainability and protection of diversity, and a commitment to the efficient and productive use of resources. In addition, there is a strong sense of the importance of relationships with communities and other stakeholders and of the need for cooperation and networking to achieve goals of sustainability and profitability. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS The corporate worldviews expressed in environmental reports conform with Gray et al.’s (1996) pristine capitalist and expedient stances, with an overlay of social contracting and social ecology commitments. As Eder (1996) noted, corporations are beginning to normalize and integrate social and environmental ideology, at least into their accountability statements. What are the problems with this corporate stance? Questions can be raised about whether goals of compliance and sustainability are sufficient to meet the real environmental challenge, even if they are taken seriously by corporations. Wells and Wirth (1997, p. 301) query: Is sustainable development a contradiction is terms? If not, can the same be said of sustainable economic development? That this new discourse for development can be so readily appropriated into the mainstream vernacular offers little compelling hope that it will in practice be more respectful of nature, indigenous cultures, and women and children. The corporations’worldviews are certainly anthropocentric in that they reflect man’s needs and an instrumental view of nature as there to be used (albeit responsibly). However, as feminist economists (see, for example, Nelson 1992a,b, 1993) point out, economic man presents an extremely narrow view of mankind consisting of only rational, utility maximizing elements of human possibility. Economic man is a parody of elevation of the masculine (left hand) side of dualisms such as abstract/concrete, individual/societal, mind/body, efficiency/randomness, exploitation/conservation, autonomy/connectedness, self-interest/mutuality, and simplicity/complexity (Reiter, 1995, p. 38). Ecofeminists challenge the centrality of the rationalist account of the self, manifested so clearly in economic man, and also challenge the associated view of nature as passive and purely mechanistic (Plumwood, 1991, p. 18). For example, Noranda defines sustainability as follows: (http://www.noranada.ca/environment/body010.htm): It means maintaining sustainable ecosystems at our operations by continuously reducing the air pollution we emit and the metals and other effluents we discharge. It means working harder on implementing product stewardship through a growing commitment to metals recycling. It means ensuring that when we enter a community our environmental homework is done. It means operating

19

responsible, and when we leave, helping the community prepare for new opportunities, and returning the land to a productive state. Agency seems to reside almost solely in the corporation and economic implications, such as restoring potential for productivity, are primary. WMC’s environmental policy stresses economic concerns: (http://wmc.com.au/envrep97/page8.htm): The Company is committed to achieving compatibility between economic development and the maintenance of the environment. It therefore seeks to ensure that, throughout all phases of its activities, WMC personnel and contractors give proper consideration to the care of the flora, fauna, air, land and water, and to the community health and heritage which may be affected by these activities. To fulfill this commitment, the Company will observe all environmental laws and, consistent with the principles of sustainable development, will: - Progressively establish and maintain Company-wide environmental standards for our operations throughout the world. - Integrate environmental factors into planning and operational decisions and processes. - Assess the potential environmental effects of our activities, and regularly monitor and audit our environmental performance. - Continually improve our environmental performance, including reducing the effect of emissions, developing opportunities for recycling, and more efficiently using energy, water and other resources. - Rehabilitate the environment affected by our activities. - Conserve important populations of flora and fauna that may be affected by our activities. - Promote environmental awareness among Company personnel and contractors to increase understanding of environmental matters. The activities described are fairly conservative in nature (assessing, improving, rehabilitating, conserving, promoting awareness) and undertaken for the purpose of ultimate economic gain. WMC explains that corporations’ “goal should be increased profits and shareholder value through responsible environmental and social behaviour” (http://wmc.com.au/envrep97/page34.htm). While green capitalists promote market solutions to ecological problems as a viable alternative to conflict or scientific management (Anderson and Leal, 1998, p. 365), one has to wonder how a holistic, balanced world can arise from using imbalanced concepts (individual and corporate selfinterest, utility maximization, and competition) as the cornerstone for environmental solutions. As Sessions (1997, p. 176) explains: In the supercharged and too often unanalyzed system of values built into our economic reckoning, the revered bottom line dominates: things are valued for their contribution to the economy. From within this system we tend to think of economic values such as costs and benefits, profits and efficiency, instead of environmental values such as biodiversity, ecosystemic health, homeostasis or the inherent worth of natural beings.

20

The way society conceptualizes nature contains powerful implicit sanctions on the way nature can be used (abused). Merchant (1989, p. 3) explains that the “image of the earth as a living organism and nurturing mother had served as a cultural constraint restricting the actions of human beings ... As long as the earth was considered to be alive and sensitive, it could be considered a breach of human ethical behavior to carry out destructive acts against it.” The activity of mining had both sacred and sexual overtones: For most traditional cultures, minerals and metals ripened in the uterus of the Earth Mother, mines were compared to her vagina, and metallurgy was the human hastening of the birth of the living metal in the artificial womb of the furnace – an abortion of the metal’s natural growth cycle before its time. Miners offered propitiation to the deities of the soil and subterranean world, performed ceremonial sacrifices, and observed strict cleanliness, sexual abstinence, and fasting before violating the sacredness of the living earth by sinking a mine. Smiths assumed an awesome responsibility in precipitating the metal’s birth through smelting, fusing, and beating it with a hammer and anvil; they were often accorded the status of shaman in tribal rituals and their tools were thought to hold special powers (Merchant, 1989, pp. 3-4). The enlightenment had a different view. Bacon advocated that “[m]iners and smiths should become the model for the new class of natural philosophers who would interrogate and alter nature” (Merchant, 1989, p. 171). Bacon, Descartes, and other seventeenth century scientists advocated “ mastering” and “managing” the earth through science. Merchant (1989, p. 189) notes that the “new image of nature as a female to be controlled and dissected through experiment legitimated the exploitation of natural resources... [and] ... constraints against penetration associated with the earth-mother image were transformed into sanctions for denudation.” Another effect of the Scientific Revolution on conceptual models was the adoption of a mechanistic model of nature and the universe. Merchant (1989) notes that this was a necessary conceptual development for the rise of capitalism: The removal of animistic, organic assumptions about the cosmos constituted the death of nature – the most far-reaching effect of the Scientific Revolution. Because nature was now viewed as a system of dead, inert particles moved by external, rather than inherent forces, the mechanical framework itself could legitimate the manipulation of nature. Moreover, as a conceptual framework, the mechanical order had associated with it a framework of values based on power, fully compatible with the directions taken by commercial capitalism” (p. 193). Thinking in the eighteenth century backed away a bit from a purely mechanistic view of nature by reconceptualizing the cosmos with a vegetable character: Thus nature’s fundamental organic character was maintained, while the unpredictability associated with an animistic world was minimized. The cosmos was reduced to a vegetable - still alive, but not uncontrollably so (Merchant, 1989, p. 243).

21

We are heirs to the eighteenth century “optimism over the progress of the human race as a rational species in control of its environment” (p. 251): By further reducing the vegetative community to an ecosystem, the anthropomorphic connotations of group sharing give way to the physical descriptions and equations associated with quantitative analysis” (p. 252). However, there are limitations to the rational control of nature. Interestingly, Noranda expresses some basic concerns with the nature of mining activity which echo the concerns of traditional societies (albeit with a more utilitarian focus): Noranda’s activities are inherently intrusive to land. We produce mine tailings that need to be stored and which, in the case of sulphide-bearing ore, cause acid mine drainage. In addition, roads, railways, and corridors for power transmission must be constructed to access remote sites. Noranda is committed to reducing its impact on the land we use by reducing the amount of rock displaced, minimizing the tailings that need to be stored, and reclaiming disturbed land by returning it to an environmentally acceptable state after our operations have concluded (http://www.nornada.ca/environment/landtext.htm). Noranda seems to assume that these intrusions are necessary and that their effects can be minimized and erased, that the earth and indigenous cultures can be restored to an “acceptable” state. Noranda’s thinking reflects a mechanistic model where the processes and interrelationships can be easily known, controlled, and fixed. If nature is a complex and animate system, however, such fixes will not work. Birkeland (1993) explains how the elevation of abstract, analytical techniques and focus on objects to be quantified is the result of gender imbalance and the devaluing of holism and concreteness. This process creates a “dangerous illusion of rationality and objectivity which is biased in favor of the existing distribution of power and against the preservation of communities and nature” (p. 32). The rhetoric of quantification in the corporate reports reflects this dangerous illusion - we have no way of knowing whether the goals set are adequate or of gauging the meaning of quantitative steps toward the goals or of overall performance indicators. As Novo Nordisk notes, “Our understanding of sustainable development is evolving and the development of specific sustainability indicators is still in its infancy” ( DisplayText cannot span more than one line!

The notion of science and technology as savior of environment expressed in some of the corporate reports is ironic from an ecofeminist point of view. Merchant (1998) delineates how “(f)emale imagery became a tool in adapting scientific knowledge and method to a new form of human power over nature” (p. 281) in the writings of early proponents of Science like Francis Bacon. Adding the insight that environmental degradation to the extent currently witnessed is in many ways a direct result of advances in science and technology, it seems problematic to call on advances in science, rather than radical reconceptualization of what is going on, as a solution to our environmental problems. Naess (1998, p. 202), for example, calls for a shift from the shallow solution of more experts and better manipulative technology to a deep solution of increasing sensitivity to the holistic nature of the environment and a shift to a soft science with an emphasis on understanding systems and promoting the values of diverse cultures.

22

The issue of development comes up in the context of the corporate reports, particularly in association with mining projects, as the following quotes from WMC indicate: Of particular importance to WMC, is developing community confidence to continue to allow access to land for exploration and to establish our operations.(http://wmc.com.au/envrep97/page9.htm). We are conducting widespread consultation with the host communities. Our aim is for any individual or group with an interest in, or that may be affected by, WMC’s activities at Tampakan to be part of this program. This process helps us learn about community concerns, and assists their understanding of our activities (http://wmc.com.au/envrep97/page31.htm). The corporate reports champion a type of scientific management characterized by Anderson and Leal (1998, p. 365) as “marginal analysis by dispassionate experts.” Ecofeminists are wary of the effects of this type of approach on indigenous cultures and on the environment. They call for an integration of science with local knowledge so that development does not create more harm than good: Though new ecological directions devoid of scientific understanding are limited, perhaps even threatening, in their narrow-mindedness, a larger vision is also impossible through a narrow scientific approach. None of us can be so well educated and experienced as to have an expert’s depth of understanding of enough individual disciplines to truly see a whole picture. Which makes seeing the connections across disciplines and to our everyday lives – which only the local voice can do – and acknowledging them as legitimate all the more important. Here the insights of feminists, local people, and science become equally important... (Loer, 1997, p. 285). It is also important to reject reductionism in science and to view “nature as a nonfixed, bodied, subject that humans may ‘know’in multiple ways” (Legler, 1997, p. 234). Ecofeminism embraces science, but insists that effective science pays attention to context, uses multiple methods and data sources, analyzes using a pluralistic framework, embraces complexity and relational views of phenomena, and rejects assumptions that scientific knowledge can arise from an ahistorical, context-free, neutral observational stance (Warren and Cheney, 1991). Merchant (1989) concludes that an “organismic small-community approach, which relies on human decision makers and participatory democracy rather than experts, represents an alternative to the managerial ethic that developed out of seventeeth century mechanism” (p. 252). While the mining companies talk about developing community consensus for their projects, one wonders whether the information flow is truly two-way, whether the companies and communities have equal power relations, and whether resulting development is ultimately beneficial to indigenous cultures. Radical environmentalists call for reconceptualizations of the human/nature relationship and the internalization of this new ideology as the solution to the environmental crisis. Plumwood (1997) explains how nature has been subject of a process of “Othering” that historically has been used to suppress “inferior” groups. Understanding this process is important to understanding

23

how to undo its effects and restore concern with nature to its proper place in human moral concerns. The process of “Othering” begins with the radical exclusion of the Other, in which nature is seen as an entirely different type of thing than man. The Other is also homogenized and seen as simple and unitary. Thus, the essential complexity of nature is vastly understated. The Other is represented as inessential, and nature has been “massively denied as the unconsidered background to technological society..” (p. 341). Like other Others, “[n]ature is judged as lacking in relation to the human colonizer ... [and] .. [t]he intricate order of nature is perceived as disorder, as unreason, to be replaced where possible by human order and development” (p. 341). The Other is also viewed instrumentally and “Nature’s agency and independence of ends are denied and are subsumed in, or remade to coincide with, those of the human.” (p. 341). The instrumental view leads to a guiding ethic: Since it has no agency of its own and is empty of purpose, it is appropriate that the colonizer impose his own, and nature can only have purpose and value when it is made to serve the human colonizer as a means to his ends. Since there are no moral limits, expediency is the appropriate morality (p. 341). Ways to combat this Otherness are to contest dualized conceptions, challenge conceptions of human virtue based on exclusion of nature, stress virtues that acknowledge caring, raise awareness of dependency, critique economics, change systems of distribution, bring about understanding of diversity and complexity, create understanding of the developmental story of nature, establish humility, and stress uncertainty (Plumwood, 1997, p. 342). Other necessary social transformations would have us “eliminate hierarchies of dominance, dramatically reduce consumption, also make work more sociable and to create (once again) rich social lives” (Sessions, 1997, p. 186). A certain degree of internalization of environmental rhetoric can be witnessed in the corporate environmental reports, although an increased concern with environmental issues is not accompanied by radical changes in conceptualizing the role of humans, nature, and corporations. For example, Nortel has the following to say about global corporations: Global corporations have social obligations that extend beyond the payment of taxes, employment of people and provision of goods and services. They have a responsibility to protect and enhance the health and safety of their employees, to produce safe and environmentally responsible products, and to develop innovative solutions to environmental problems (http://www.nortel.com/cool/Habitat/CommSol/96pre/96pre.html). The widening net of social responsiveness is a positive (albeit shallow) development. The politics of deep ecology is often seen as grassroots, concerned with changing the minds of consumers and voters and thus forcing economic and political change. However, there is an important role for corporate change as well. Birkeland (1993) notes that “environconsciousness, better policies, and more scientific research ... cannot change the deeply rooted behavior patterns and structural relationships that led to the environmental crisis in the first place ... [or] ... “change the nature of the decision-making methods and processes that support business as usual” (p. 14). She calls for “retooling our technocratic, political, and corporate decision-making arenas” (p. 44) as the most promising actions for realizing change.

24

There is an important role for accountants, as persons who understand models of corporate decision-making, to help in affecting this change. This project calls for more than just estimating and internalizing the costs of pollution and environmental damage. Basic economic concepts need to be reconceived and expanded beyond their current narrow focus. For example, the concept of property rights as control over nature must be changed to an ecofeminist view that emphasizes the reciprocity and responsibility inherent in the ownership of property. In addition, ecofeminist analytic tools can be used to expose the hidden assumptions of science and technology so it can be used more effectively in ways that respect culture and context. Finally, the ecofeminist emphasis on complexity, interconnectedness, and a holistic perspective provides impetus to rethink abstract, linear, and reductionist decision models.

25

26

Bibliography A Report on BT’s Environmental Performance 1995/1996, http://www.bt.com/environment/epr, 12/6/98. Anderson, T. and Leal, D. “Free Market versus Political Environmentalism”, in M. Zimmerman, J. Callicott, G. Sessions, K. Warren and J. Clark (eds.), Environmental Philosophy, pp. 364-374, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1998. Birkeland, J. “Ecofeminism: Linking Theory and Practice”, in G. Gaard (ed.) Ecofeminism: Women, Animals, Nature, pp. 13-59, Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1993. Birkeland, J., Dodds, S. and Hamilton, C. “Values and Ethics”, in M. Diesendorf and C. Hamilton (eds.) Human Ecology, Human Economy, pp. 125-147, St. Leonards NSW: Allen & Unwin, 1997. Clark, J. “Introduction to Political Ecology”, in M. Zimmerman, J. Callicott, G. Sessions, K. Warren and J. Clark (eds.), Environmental Philosophy, pp. 345-363, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1998. Davion, V. “Is Ecofeminism Feminist?”, in K. Warren (ed.) Ecological Feminism, pp. 8-28, London: Routledge, 1994. De-Shalit, A. “Is Liberalism Environment-Friendly?”, in M. Zimmerman, J. Callicott, G. Sessions, K. Warren and J. Clark (eds.), Environmental Philosophy, pp. 386–406, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1998. Eder, K. The Social Construction of Nature, London: Sage Publications, 1996. Fairclough, N. Language and Power, London: Longman Group UK Limited, 1989. Fox, W. “The Deep Ecology-Ecofeminism Debate and Its Parallels”, in M. Zimmerman, J. Callicott, G. Sessions, K. Warren and J. Clark (eds.), Environmental Philosophy, pp. 227-244, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1998. Glasser, H. “Demystifying the Critiques of Deep Ecology”, in M. Zimmerman, J. Callicott, G. Sessions, K. Warren and J. Clark (eds.), Environmental Philosophy, pp. 212-226, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1998. Gray, R., Kouhy, R. and Lavers, S. “Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 1995, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 47-77. Gray, R., Owen, D. and Adams, C. Accounting and Accountability: Changes and Challenges in Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting, London: Prentice Hall, 1996.

27

Harré, R. “Persuasion and Manipulation”, in T. A. van Dijk (ed), Discourse and Communication, pp. 126-142, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1985. Hawken, P. “A Declaration of Sustainability”, in M. Zimmerman, J. Callicott, G. Sessions, K. Warren and J. Clark (eds.), Environmental Philosophy, pp. 375-385, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1998. King, R. “Caring about Nature: Feminist Ethics and the Environment”, Hypatia, 1991, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 75-89. Legler, G. “Ecofeminist Literary Criticism”, in K. Warren (ed), Ecofeminism: Women, Culture, Nature, pp. 227-238, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1997. Leopold, A. “The Land Ethic”, in M. Zimmerman, J. Callicott, G. Sessions, K. Warren and J. Clark (eds.), Environmental Philosophy, pp. 87-100, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1998. Loer, J. “Ecofeminism in Kenya: A Chemical Engineer’s Perspective”, in K. Warren (ed), Ecofeminism: Women, Culture, Nature, pp. 279-289, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1997. Merchant, C. The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and the Scientific Revolution, New York: Harper SanFrancisco, 1989. Merchant, C. “The Death of Nature”, in M. Zimmerman, J. Callicott, G. Sessions, K. Warren and J. Clark (eds.), Environmental Philosophy, pp. 277-290, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1998. Naess, A. “The Deep Ecological Movement: Some Philosophical Aspects”, in M. Zimmerman, J. Callicott, G. Sessions, K. Warren and J. Clark (eds.), Environmental Philosophy, pp. 193-211, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1998. Nelson, J. “Gender, Metaphor, and the Definition of Economics”, Economics and Philosophy, 1992a, Vol. 8, pp. 103-125. Nelson, J. “Thinking About Gender”, Hypatia, 1992b, Summer, pp. 138-154. Nelson, J. “The Study of Choice or the Study of Provisioning? Gender and the Definition of Economics”, in M. Ferber and J. Nelson (eds.) Beyond Economic Man: Feminist Theory and Economics, pp. 23-36, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1993. Noranda 1997 Environment, Safety and Health Report, http://www.noranada.ca/environment, 12/6/98. Nortel Networks 1996 Progress Report on Environment. Health & Safety, http://www.nortel.com/cool/Habitat/CommSol/96pre, 12/6/98.

28

Novo Nordisk Environment & Bioethics Report 1997, http://www.novo.dk/environm/er97, 12/6/98. Plumwood, V. “Nature, Self, and Gender: Feminism, Environmental Philosophy, and the Critique of Rationalism”, Hypatia, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1991, pp. 3-27. Plumwood, V. “Androcentrism and Anthropocentrism: Parallels and Politics”, in K. Warren (ed), Ecofeminism: Women, Culture, Nature, pp. 327-355, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1997. Purser, R. E., Park, C., and Montuori, A. “Limits to Anthropocentrism: Toward an Ecocentric Organization Paradigm?”, Academy of Management Review, 1995, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 10531089. Reiter, S. “Theory and Politics: Lessons From Feminist Economics”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 1995, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 34-59. Salleh, A. Ecofeminism As Politics: nature, Marx and the postmodern, London: Zed Books Ltd, 1997. Sessions, G. “Introduction to Deep Ecology”, in M. Zimmerman, J. Callicott, G. Sessions, K. Warren and J. Clark (eds.), Environmental Philosophy, pp. 165-182, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1998. Sessions, R. “Ecofeminism and Work”, in K. Warren (ed), Ecofeminism: Women, Culture, Nature, pp. 176-192, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1997. Slicer, D. “Wrongs of Passage: Three challenges to the maturing of ecofeminism”, in K. Warren (ed.) Ecological Feminism, pp. 29-41, London: Routledge, 1994. Sylan, R. “Is There a Need for a New, an Environmental, Ethic?”, in M. Zimmerman, J. Callicott, G. Sessions, K. Warren and J. Clark (eds.), Environmental Philosophy, pp. 17-25, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1998. The International Corporate Environmental Reporting Site, http://home.wxs.nl/~folmolen/mjv.htm. van Dijk, T. A. “Introduction: Discourse Analysis in (Mass) Communication Research”, in T. A. van Dijk (ed) Discourse and Communication, pp. 1-9, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1985. Warren, K. “Introduction”, in K. Warren (ed.) Ecological Feminism, pp. 1-7, London: Routledge, 1994. Warren, K. “Introduction to Ecofeminism”, in M. Zimmerman, J. Callicott, G. Sessions, K. Warren and J. Clark (eds.), Environmental Philosophy, pp. 263-276, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1998.

29

Warren, K. “The Power and Promise of Ecological Feminism”, in M. Zimmerman, J. Callicott, G. Sessions, K. Warren and J. Clark (eds.), Environmental Philosophy, pp. 325-344, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1998. Warren, K. and Cheney, J. “Ecological Feminism and Ecosystem Ecology”, Hypatia, 1991, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 179-197. Wells, B. and Wirth, D. “Remediating Development through an Ecofeminist Lens” in K. Warren (ed), Ecofeminism: Women, Culture, Nature, pp. 300-313, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1997. WMC Environment Report 1997, http://www.wmc.com.au/envrep97, 12/6/98.

30

TABLE 1 OVERVIEW OF ORGANIZATION-SOCIETY STANCES AND ASSOCIATED ENVIRONMENTAL PHILOSOPHIES

ORGANIZATION - SOCIETY STANCES

ENVIRONMENTAL STANCES

PRISTINE CAPITALISTS EXPEDIENTS

PRAXIS

ENVIRONMENTAL PHILOSOPHIES

WORK

NEO-CLASSICAL ECONOMICS (UTILITARIAN)

WITHIN ANTHROPO-

SOCIAL CONTRACT

STATUS

LIBERALISM (RIGHTS)

CENTRIC QUO SOCIAL ECOLOGY

SOCIAL ECOLOGY

SOCIALISM

SOCIALISTS RADICAL RADICAL FEMINISTS DEEP ECOLOGISTS

ECOFEMINISM ECO-

RE CONCEP T-

CENTRIC

UALIZATION

(Source for organization-society stances - Gray et al., 1996)

31

DEEP ECOLOGY

TABLE 2 WORLDVIEWS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PHILOSOPHIES

Neoclassical Economics

Liberalism

Social Ecology

WORLDVIEW

Capitalist

Protectionist

Communitarian

MORALITY

Shareholder wealth maximization

Rights, preserved by contract, regulation

Social and ecological community

ROLE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Solution to past and future environmental problems

AESTHETIC JUDGMENT

SOLUTION TO PROBLEMS OF ENVIRONMENT

Economic and political considerations block use of scientific solutions

Efficiency, productivity, competition, property rights (freedom)

The common good (for society), respect for others

Market forces, innovative property rights, green taxes and subsidies

State regulation to protect the common good

(Sources - Anderson and Leal, 1998; de-Shalit, 1998; Clark, 1998)

32

Science and technology as tools of domination

Harmony, relatedness, planetary good

Social decentralization, local and regional solutions, organic communities

TABLE 2 - CONTINUED WORLDVIEWS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PHILOSOPHIES

33

Deep Ecology

WORLDVIEW MORALITY

ROLE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

AESTHETIC JUDGMENT

SOLUTION TO PROBLEMS OF ENVIRONMENT Ecofeminism Holistic Intrinsic value of human and non-human life

Relational

Technology to advance culturally specific goals

Expansion of personal morality to public sphere, biocentric view

Richness and diversity, Self-realization Distrust of decontextualized, universalizing science

Change in government policy affecting basic economic, technical and ideological structures

Care, cooperation, complexity, interconnectedness

Re-think ideology

34

and institutions of patriarchy, go “beyond power” to reciprocity and responsibility

(Sources - Naess, 1998; Warren, 1998; Plumwood, 1991; Birkeland, 1993) 1

Our analysis uses feminist philosophical perspective concerned with an historically based ideology centered on the concept of gender. We do not claim that women have a different relationship to nature than men (Salleh, 1997, p. 13), nor do we assert that women have different (or superior) essential characteristics. Davion (1994, pp. 21-22) characterizes a set of views as ecofeminine rather than ecofeminist. These views include claims of a women’s separate reality, claims to a “natural” gender role of conservation and nurturing, claims of women’s special understanding of nature (epistemic privilege), and the Gaia tradition and Goddess worship. None of these views is incorporated in our feminist theory analysis, and we do not subscribe to them. 1

Deep ecology refers to a perspective that can be theorized from a number of different points of view including Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, Baha’i, and a whole range of philosophical viewpoints (Naess, 1998, p. 206-207). It remains a quite eclectic movement. There is a certain deliberate philosophical and methodological vagueness. Glasser (1998, p. 215) explains that one key misconception of critics is confusing ecocentrism with misanthropy. It is not generally assumed that the extension of care to nonhumans must mean that humans get less (or less than they need), nor do discussions of population reduction imply draconian methods of reducing already existing populations.

35