Examination SOCB13 - spring 2012 - sub-course 2Turcut Daniela Alexandra

Analyzing two approaches in order toAnalyzing two approaches in order tocombat combat endless economic growthendless economic growthwithout regard to limits inwithout regard to limits in

resources or pollution sinks ofresources or pollution sinks ofindustrial capitalismindustrial capitalism

Turcut Daniela Alexandra

This paper aims at discussing the central ideas in

Ecological Modernization theory and De-Growth theory,

going further in relation to environmentalism and deep

green political though, analyzing the differences between

them and it ends with a discussion regarding

various policy options for solving

sustainability problems in a certain sector.

One of the two approaches in order to combat endless

economic growth without regard to limits in resources or

pollution sinks of industrial capitalism is ecological

modernization. Within this approach does not exist

inherent conflict between industrial capitalism and

sustainability. Ecological modernization theory argues

that the systematic eco-innovation and its diffusion have

by far the largest potential to achieve environmental

improvements. The theory argues that the economy benefits

moves towards environmentalism. “Unlike earlier

environmental thinking, which perceived technological

development as a source of ecological problems,

ecological modernization theorists argue that, in the

contemporary era, technology is being used to help us

achieve ecological sustainability. ” (Obach, 2007: p.

231) Eco-innovations invariably require political support

because there is interplay between environmental policy-

making and technological innovators: politicians in favor

of technology-based (marketable) solutions co-operate

with industrial innovators that seek regulatory support

for their respective technologies.

Another important idea in this theory is the role for the

state in environmental protection, a fundamentally

different one from its traditional ‘‘command and

control’’ approach. “Instead of imposing rigid

regulations from an insulated centralized bureaucracy, in

the modern ecological era the state acts to ‘‘steer’’

private actors toward environmentally sound practice, all

the while allowing for flexibility and incorporating

targeted parties into a participatory process of site-

specific reform. ” (Obach, 2007: p.231)

Ecological modernization is the “interplay of ecology and

economy” (Janicke, 2007: p. 558). Therefore the

importance of ‘‘smart’’ environmental regulation and

growing business risks for polluters in the context of

multi-level environmental governance is high. The first

one plays an important role in the political competition

for environmental innovation and can be identified as a

key driving force behind environmental innovation.

Environmental regulation may create impediments for

companies and industries, but generally it also presents

a number of advantages for them. Examples of ‘‘smart’’

regulation that combine strict standards with flexible

implementation are obligatory feed-in tariffs for

renewable energy. ‘Smart’’ regulation presents challenge

and opportunity, but the second driving force seems to be

highly relevant for the global process of ecological

modernization. Growing economic insecurity and risks for

polluting industries in the context of the increasing

complexity of global environmental governance. “In the

highly complex actor constellation of global

environmental governance, this pressure for innovation

can be exercised from below (local NGOs or consumers), or

from above (the EU or international institutions), or

from both sides. It can originate from competitors as

well as from pioneer countries that initiate new

regulatory trends causing ‘regulatory risk’ for

polluters.” (Janicke, 2007: p. 561)

The central ideas in ecological modernization are to

radically reduce the burden of industrial growth without

alternatives; using “smart” regulation as the interplay

of high environmental pressure and high innovation

capacity being often motivated by potential competitive

advantages and increasing business risks which makes

ecological modernization a more secure strategy for

environmentally intensive companies. (Janicke, 2007)

The critique regarding this theory argue that ecological

modernization will fail to protect the environment and

does nothing to change the impulses within the capitalist

economic mode of production that unavoidable lead to

environmental degradation. The question is whether

technological advances alone can achieve resource

conservation and better environmental protection,

particularly if left to business self-regulation

practices because many technological improvements are

currently feasible but not widely utilized. The most

environmentally friendly product or manufacturing

process, which is often the most economically efficient,

is not always the one automatically chosen by self-

regulating corporations (as an example: hydrogen vs. peak

oil). In addition, some critics have argued that

ecological modernization does not redress gross

injustices that are produced within the capitalist

system, such as environmental racism - where people of

color and low income bear a disproportionate burden of

environmental harm such as pollution, and lack access to

environmental benefits such as parks, and social justice

issues like eliminating unemployment. Environmental

racism is also referred to issues of the asymmetric

distribution of environmental resources and services.

Moreover, the theory seems to have limited global

efficacy, applying primarily to its countries of origin:

Germany and the Netherlands, and having little to say

about the developing world.

“A useful perspective on the origins of national-

governmental environmental regulatory capacity and the

historic consensus about its role can be based on the

notion that one of the intrinsic roles of governments in

a societal division of labor is to rationalize social

arrangements in the interest of order and efficiency.”

(Buttel, 2003: p. 318)

The second approach in order to combat endless economic

growth without regard to limits in resources or pollution

sinks of industrial capitalism is the De-Growth theory

which argue that we should ”put the economy in its

place”, make it less central our lives, change our

values, work less, consume less. This theory is based on

environmentalist, anti-consumerist and anti-capitalist

ideas. The key concept of de-growth theory is that

reducing consumption does not require individual

martyring and a decrease in well-being. The global

solutions offered by the de-growth theory involve a re-

localization of economic activities in order to end

world’s dependence on fossil fuels and reduce the

ecological imprint. De-growth opposes sustainable

development because sustainable development aims to

address environmental concerns but it does so with the

goal of promoting economic growth which has failed to

improve the lives of people and unavoidable leads to

environmental degradation.

“Georgescu-Roegen (1971) introduced the notion of de-

growth in response to what he regarded as the

irreversible damage inflicted by the politics of endless

growth preached by neo-liberal economics. He argued that

classical economics was based on a mechanistic vision

that ignores the principle of entropy, the second

principle of thermodynamics. ” (Fournier, 2008: p. 531)

This principle function upon the “case that energy is

conserved”, therefore everything is transformed or

degraded which means that cannot be returned to its

original form and used again in the same way.

The de-growth approach “is not just a quantitative

question of doing less of the same, it is also and, more

fundamentally, about a paradigmatic re-ordering of

values, in particular the (re)affirmation of social and

ecological values and a (re)politicization of the

economy. It aims to take us out of the economy, of the

domain of the calculable and economic rationality, and

ask fundamental questions about the nature of wealth, its

distribution, its use, and misuse.” (Fournier, 2008: p.

532)

Furthermore, growth-based development has been shown to

be more effective in expanding social inequality,

concentrating wealth in the hands of a few, than in

actually generating more wealth and increasing living

standards in the world. However, critics of de-growth

argue that a slowing of economic growth would result in

increased unemployment and increase poverty. In this

sense, international environmental governance through a

strengthening of environmental concerns in the policies

of international organizations such as the IMF the World

Bank, the WTO, and the UN. Therefore the economic

policies recommendations of such international

organizations impact tremendously on most developing

countries.

The central idea of this theory is to ask us the

fundamental questions about our society and economy – is

it really rational to continue expanding the economy

indefinitely? Do we really need more and more material

things or would we be happier if we organized our lives

differently?

Further in this paper I will analyze the difference

between environmentalism and deep green political

thoughts related to the ecological modernization and de-

growth theory.

Environmentalists advocate the sustainable management of

resources, and the protection of the natural environment

through changes in public policy and individual behavior.

In its recognition of humanity as a participant in

ecosystems, the movement is centered on ecology, health,

and human rights. Environmentalism thoughts concerns for

environmental conservation and improvement of the health

of the environment, particularly as the measure for this

health seeks to incorporate the concerns of non-human

elements. Dobson argues that environmentalism is like

other political ideologies and says “one of the most

striking political transformations of the past two

decades has been the way in which environmental concern

has moved from the margins to the mainstream of political

life. ” (Dobson, 2007: p. 2) In his book, “Green

Political Thought”, Dobson makes a clear distinction

between ecologism and environmentalism because they

differ in kind and degree. Even if they belong to the

same family, environmentalism is not an ideology. In

order to be an ideology is necessary to provide an

analytical description of society; it must prescribe a

particular form of society employing beliefs about the

human condition that sustain and repro- duce views about

the nature of the prescribed society and must provide a

programme for political action which conclude that

ecologism qualifies as a political ideology, but

environmentalism does not. (Dobson, 2007) Therefore, if

we keep ecologism and environmentalism apart we can

understand better the nature of green political thoughts.

Deep greens are generally suspicious of technological

fixes because the technological solutions may prolong the

period of population and industrial growth but it cannot

remove the ultimate limits to growth. Deep greens argue

for the benefits of a less materialistic society and

advocate a sustainable society that is to replace the

existing consumer society. Deep ecology ascribes a value

to nature and the environment in its own right; they

perceive the nature as a system. The aim is to find ways

of avoiding treating nature only as means to our ends.

They want to sustain the value of things created by

natural processes rather than by artificial human ones.

The central idea is that the natural world should

determine the political, economic and social life of

communities, thus decentralization. In this sense, living

with the land means living in and according to the ways

and rhythms of its natural regions, its bioregions. This

means that sustainability is for reducing the spiritual

and material distance between the land and us. Meanwhile,

industrial agriculture is considered unacceptable and

unsustainable. Based on the identification of bioregional

boundaries big enough to support its residents with

sufficient food, energy, shelter and clothing, people

would live in communities of about 500 – 10 000 people.

According to this theory, communities bigger than this

are undesirable, since their own resources cannot sustain

them. In order to achieve a sustainable society, they

offer 4 possibilities. (Dobson, 2007)

The first one refers to a new global order, arranged so

as to deal with the problems global coordination

presented by the international nature of the

environmental crisis, as ‘the state is too big and too

small to deal with global problems’. The second one

argues that the centralized authoritarianism is the focus

of authority which is seen as national governments that

would simply decided upon a course of action leading to

sustainability (like protectionism, rationing, population

control and restriction of immigration) and put it into

effect. The third solution refers to the authoritarian

commune that is based on devolved hierarchical

structures. The final solution argues that the classical

ecocentric proposal is the self-reliant community modeled

on anarchist lines – fundamentally egalitarian and

participatory. (Dobson, 2007)

Because the idea of modernization increasingly called

into question, a new middle class of non-marketized

professionals (like educationalists, public health

workers etc.) has occupations that are conducive to the

generation of green values. Dobson talks about three

aspects of the limits to growth thesis which consist in

technological solutions that will not lead to sustainable

development and in the mean time the interaction effects

of the mixing of various pollutants may be disastrous.

Also, dangers, which have been stored up over a long

period can suddenly and very rapidly, have catastrophic

effects. Hence, the interaction of environmental problems

cannot be dealt with in isolation. Since the basic

features of the green ideologies are providing an

analytical description of society; prescribing a

particular form of society, using beliefs about the human

condition; providing a programme for political action as

how to get from the society we currently inhabit to one

prescribed by the ideology, “Green politics can be a part

of a technological, affluent, service society.” (Dobson,

2007: p. 5)

It’s clear that Dobson sees ecologism as a utopian

vision, which provides the indispensable fundamentalist

of inspiration, that all political movements need if they

want to operate effectively. Because environmentalists do

not necessarily subscribe to the limits to growth thesis,

green reformers need a radically alternative picture of

post-industrial society, they need deep-ecological

visionaries, and they need the phantom studies of the

sustainable society. In this case, ecological

modernization is the response to the limits of growth

position. (Dobson, 2007)

In the last part of my paper I will describe

various policy for solving sustainability problems in

energy sector. Sustainable development is an important

concept for humanity in understanding the relationship

between people and nature.

“Sustainable development raises questions about the post-

war claim, that still dominates much main- stream

economic policy, that international prosperity and human

well-being can be achieved through increased global trade

and industry (Reid, 1995; Moffat, 1996; Sachs, 1999). It

recognizes that past growth models have failed to

eradicate poverty globally or within countries.”

(Hopwood*, Mellor and O’Brien, 2005: p. 39) Because no

programms or policy models, as we discussed above in the

paper, offer any real hope of narrowing the growing gap

between rich and poor nations. The development proposed

means to eradicate poverty, to meet human needs and to

ensure that all get a fair share of resources, which is

very different from present development. Social justice

today and in the future is a crucial component of the

concept of sustainable development. (Hopwood*, Mellor and

O’Brien, 2005)

Another discussion regarding sustainability is between

strong and week sustainability.

“Weak sustainability sees natural and manufactured

capital as interchangeable with technology able to fill

human produced gaps in the natural world (Daly and Cobb,

1989) such as a lack of resources or damage to the

environment.” (Hopwood*, Mellor and O’Brien, 2005: p. 40)

“Strong sustainability criticizes this, pointing out that

human- made capital cannot replace a multitude of

processes vital to human existence such as the ozone

layer, photosynthesis or the water cycle (Rees, 1998;

Roseland, 1998). ” (Hopwood*, Mellor and O’Brien, 2005:

p. 40) Deep-greens supporters will argue that non-human

species, natural systems and biodiversity have rights and

values in themselves.

In most parts of the world, the issues of sustainable

development are not at the top of the world’s policy

agenda. Not even issues such as climate change or mass

starvation do not dominate the news or political debate.

However, the challenges at the core of sustainable

development, the environment and equity, will force it up

the political agenda. (Hopwood*, Mellor and O’Brien,

2005)

Deep-greens come up with alternatives that imply the

reduction in living standards more fairly in a world that

drastically reduces consumption and, which usually is

population. But a return to low technology and living on

the land would risk a return to the poverty and high

infant mortality of the past for the west and

continuation of the present nightmare for many of the

poor of the world. However, the conclusion regarding

sustainable development is that the world needs to

transformation. (Hopwood*, Mellor and O’Brien, 2005)

In order to describe how different environmental policy

modes differentially impact sustainability problems in

energy sector, we have to understand what is a policy.

A policy is described as a principle or rule to guide

decisions and achieve rational outcomes. It can be

considered as a "Statement of Intent" or a "Commitment".

For that reason, the decision-makers can be held

accountable for their "Policy". Policy or policy study

may also refer to the process of making important

organizational decisions, including the identification of

different alternatives such as programs or spending

priorities, and choosing among them on the basis of the

impact they will have. Policies can be understood as

political, management, financial, and administrative

mechanisms arranged to reach explicit goals.

I will discuss five policy categories that are created

and sustained in an institutional context, being

characterized by benefits/costs. These are: category I

(command and control), category II (market based),

category III (mandatory information disclosures),

category IV (business–government partnerships) and

category V (private voluntary codes). (Prakash and

Kollman, 2004)

The first category, command and control, represents the

traditional style of government regulation in which

legally binding performance standards such as emissions

limits and the use of specific (or best available)

technology are prescribed. This provides the basic

environmental policy infrastructure across jurisdictions.

These categories supply government regulation and demand

environmental stakeholders. Therefore, governments are

main decision-making bodies, set legal standards for

technology, emission limits and penalties. As an example

for energy sector, the European Union has a basic

renewable energy policy. They advocate for research and

development, while setting renewable energy goals for its

members and have also set a renewable energy goal,

abbreviated 20/20/20. This stands for twenty percent of

energy to come from renewable energy sources by 2020.

Regarding managerial perceptions of net benefits, in a

positive perspective firms have elastic product prices,

expertise in green technologies and the innovative firms

can influence standard settings. The negative perspective

show firms in price competitive markets, the existence of

dirty firms and environmentally laggard firms. (Prakash

and Kollman, 2004)

The second category, market-based instruments, was

created largely in reaction to the perceived

inefficiencies (static and dynamic) of command and

control policies. These are designed to encourage firms

to internalize the costs of environmental externalities

through various kinds of price signal. The key

characteristic of this policy lays in the decision power

on technology and emission levels and levels of cost and

benefits. These categories supply government regulation

and demand some environmentalists, economists and some

industrial groups. The positive managerial perceptions of

benefits shows firms with elastic product prices; low

polluting firms that can sell pollution permits in

trading schemes; influential firms that can influence

permit schemes; and firms in high risk industries that

fear liability risk. The negative perception comes with

dirty firms in price competitive industries and firms in

high risk industries that fear liability risk but can

obstruct policy. (Prakash and Kollman, 2004)

Policies in the third category, mandatory information

disclosure, make use of market and non- market mechanisms

by increasing the amount of environmental information

available to shareholders, consumers and other stake-

holders through such instruments as emissions registers

and product labels. These policies do not specify

technologies or emission levels (as in command and

control policies), or put a specific cost on every unit

of pollution generated by firms (as in market

instruments). This category only imposes information

disclosure requirements without specifying the desired

outcome or the technology that firms need to adopt. The

firms have considerable autonomy regarding choice of

management systems, technology and environmental

performance. Another characteristic of this category is

the use of public emissions registers, the public right-

to-know legislation. As an example regarding energy

sector, an transparency electricity company from Oradea,

Romania:  http://www.electrica.ro/ which has as positive

managerial perceptions of net benefits a firm that

perform comparatively well and with green products.

(Prakash and Kollman, 2004)

The fourth category, business–government partnerships,

pertains to more specific voluntary agreements between

individual firms and regulators in which the latter

create incentives for the former to meet environmental

standards that go beyond those contained in law. The key

characteristics of this category are private benefits as

well as public while the costs are private; the

government bestows excludable benefits for firms that

meet higher standards that are required by law. The

negative managerial perceptions are regarding firms in

countries with poor stakeholder relations and

dirty/laggard firms. In this case, partnerships for

sustainable development between business, government and

civil society, seek not to shift responsibility and risk

from one party to another, but to share risks and pool

resources and talents. For example, Stockholm +40

Partnership Forum for sustainable development shows how

governments, businesses, organizations and individuals

can promote and contribute to sustainable development.

(25 April 2012). (Prakash and Kollman, 2004)

The fifth and final category, private environmental

codes, are schemes developed by nongovernment actors

designed to create uniform standards of practice as well

as advertising participation to external stakeholders.

This category is proactive beyond compliance and has

corporate reporting schemes, technical standard, private

labeling schemes and environmental managerial schemes.

For example, energy label, which is issued by the

National Environment Agency (NEA) mandatory for

registered suppliers of air-conditioners, refrigerators

and clothes dryers to affix the Energy Label on their

appliances. In September 2011, Minimum Energy Performance

Standards (MEPS) have implemented for air-conditioners

and refrigerators. All 0-tick appliances and some 1-tick

and 2-tick appliances will no longer be available. The

negative managerial perceptions of net benefits will

affect in this case firms in countries with adversarial

economies and firms in countries that lack institutional

promoters for these codes. (Prakash and Kollman, 2004)

Reference List

Brian K. Obach (2007: p. 231): Theoretical

Interpretations of the Growth in Organic

Agriculture: Agricultural Modernization or an

Organic Treadmill ?, Society & Natural Resources: An

International Journal, 20 : 3

Martin Janicke (2007: p. 558-561): Ecological

modernisation: new perspectives, Environmental

Policy Research Center, Freie Universitaet Berlin,

Ihnestrasse 22, D-14195 Berlin, Germany

Valerie Fournier (2008: p. 531-532): Escaping from

the economy: the politics of degrowth, University of

Leicester School of Management, Leicester, UK

Andrew Dobson (2007: p. 2-5): Green Political

Thought, Fourth Edition, published in the Taylor &

Francis e-Library, 2007

Bill Hopwood*, Mary Mellor and Geoff O’Brien (2005:

p. 39-40): Sustainable Development: Mapping

Different Approaches; Sustainable Cities Research

Institute, University of Northumbria, Newcastle on

Tyne, UK

Aseem Prakash and Kelly Kollman (2004): POLICY

MODES, FIRMS AND THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, Published

online in Wiley InterScience

(www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/bse.394

Frederick H. Buttel (2003: p. 318): Organization &

Environment, Environmental Sociology and the

Explanation of Environmental Reform, Organization

Environment 2003 16: 306 DOI: 10.1177/1086026603256279