Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy - CiteSeerX

Volume 8 ● Issue 12 Winter 2012 ISSN: 1548-7733

Journal Editor Maurie Cohen (New Jersey Institute of Technology)

Managing Editor Amy Forrester

Special Issue:

A Missing Pillar? Challenges in Theorizing and Practicing Social Sustainability Guest Editor: Magnus Boström, Södertörns University, Sweden

Editorial On social sustainability in a world of limits facing prolonged austerity Tim O’Riordan (University of East Anglia, United Kingdom)……………………………………….......1 Articles A missing pillar? Challenges in theorizing and practicing social sustainability: introduction to the special issue Magnus Boström, (Södertörn University, Sweden) ……………………………..…........………..........3 The social pillar of sustainable development: a literature review and framework for policy analysis Kevin Murphy (Institute of Technology Blanchardstown, Ireland)………………………………..…….15 Growing the social: alternative agrofood networks and social sustainability in the urban ethical foodscape Katerina Psarikidou & Bronislaw Szerszynski (Lancaster University, United Kingdom)……………...30 Making sense of the social: human-nonhuman constellations and the wicked road to sustainability Juha Hiedanpää, Ari Jokinen, & Pekka Jokinen (Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute, Finland)...…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….40 Organizing for social sustainability: governance through bureaucratization in meta-organizations Åsa Casula Vifell & Renita Thedvall (Södertörn University, Sweden)……………….....................…50 Issues of scale in the global accreditation of sustainable tourism: schemes toward harmonized re-embeddedness? Mikael Klintman (Lund University, Sweden)...............................................................................……59

(Continued)

Tradeoffs and entanglements among sustainability dimensions: the case of accessibility as a missing pillar of sustainable mobility policies in Italy Roberta Cucca & Enrico Maria Tacchi (Politecnico di Milano, Italy).........................................……70 Green social cooperatives in Italy: a practical way to cover the three pillars of sustainability? Giorgio Osti (University of Trieste, Italy).........................................................................................…82 Has social sustainability left the building? The recent conceptualization of “sustainability” in Danish buildings Jesper Ole Jensen, Michael Søgaard Jørgensen, Morten Elle, & Erik Hagelskjær Lauridsen (Danish Building Research Institute, Denmark)....................................................................................…94 Contention, participation, and mobilization in environmental assessment follow-up: the Itabira experience John Devlin & Denise Isabel Tubino (University of Guelph, Canada)...........................................…106 Book Review Perspectives Understanding the Environment and Social Policy by Tony Fitzpatrick (Editor) Karin Bradley (Linköping University, Sweden); Henrike Rau (National University of Ireland, Ireland); Ylva Uggla (Örebro University, Sweden); Rejoinder from author: Tony Fitzpatrick (Nottingham University, United Kingdom)………….............................................……………………………………….…116

Published online ● http://sspp.proquest.com

email: [email protected]

Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy http://sspp.proquest.com

2012 O’Riordan Winter 2012 | Volume 8 | Issue 1

1

EDITORIAL

Tim O’Riordan Emeritus Professor, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

On social sustainability in a world of limits facing prolonged austerity

I applaud Magnus Boström and his colleague authors for addressing the still hugely neglected topic of social sustainability in its broad context.

We are entering a decade without precedent for human well-being. One-fifth of people alive today have experienced wealth creation, technological su-premacy, longer lifespan, international outreach, more leisure, greater comfort, and an ambiguous sen-sitivity to the plight of the remaining four-fifths of global population that are losing on all fronts.

These achievements can no longer be guaranteed for the majority of this minority. Unemployment among young adults below 25 in the European Union is approaching one in seven. Throughout Europe, five workforce entrants are chasing every job opening. Entrenched unions continue to demand jobs for life for those already employed, and resist attempts criti-cally to evaluate declining productivity among their members. The economic turbulence of the past three years is rooted in deep economic and social inequali-ties and working safeguards which shield uncompeti-tive wage structures at both the top and the bottom of the pay scales. Protecting currencies and banks adds to these injustices. The social “floor” is being exca-vated throughout the globe.

In an age of austerity, it is deemed convenient to jettison much, if not all, of sustainability. The term is so abused and so mishandled that it no longer has political meaning. Essentially it is regarded as “con-tinuous”: more of the same for as long as we can see. Yet its real meaning is “self-reliance”; recycling and reconstituting materials and energy, creating well-being for everyone and ensuring that everything we do is everlasting, mimicking the enduring materials and energy cycles of the planet. But in recession, such bold concepts are deemed fanciful.

Yet we dismiss sustainability at our peril. We do indeed live in a world of planetary boundaries. Rockström and his colleagues (2009) in the Resil-ience Alliance chart eight fluxes of life-giving chemicals and the all important ninth of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. They contend—drawing

on the best evidence available—that in three of these cycles, nitrogen, phosphorus, and carbon, the “hand of man” has exceeded natural tolerances and that for biodiversity the game is almost up. We have no idea of what might happen to the rest, or what might be the consequences. These boundaries may be unmap-pable, but they provide a “ceiling” for our future ex-traction and manipulation.

Kate Raworth (2011) offers the phrase “social floor” to this zone of potential human use of our planet. These are irreducible platforms of human well-being which should not be lowered without causing morally unacceptable injustice. She posits poverty, lack of basic human rights, illiteracy and ill-education, ill-health, personal insecurity, lack of community, unemployability, and loss of self-esteem as constituting this platform.

This coupling of planetary boundaries and social floor gives us a “space” in which it is safe to operate so as to create wealth and enable secure and equitable well-being. This collection of articles provides the basis for the social protection floor. It mirrors the United Nations Social Protection Report (Bachelet & Somavia, 2011) specially prepared for the forth-coming Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sus-tainable Development due to be held in Rio de Janeiro in June, 2012. This document also introduces the notion of a “social protection floor” which, it claims, should form the basis for a re-evaluation of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

This combination of planetary boundaries and a social floor is leading to coherent calls for a new set of world sustainability goals for 2020. This could be the first time that the unifying concepts of ecological resilience and social well-being are coupled into de-finable and achievable targets. This may well prove to be the legacy of Rio+20. It would involve rede-fining the MDGs into Millennium Sustainability Goals, placing the purposes of human betterment and fairness of treatment at the heart of the sustainability agenda for the forthcoming, much-troubled decade.

O’Riordan: On Social Sustainability

Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy | http://sspp.proquest.com Winter 2012 | Volume 8 | Issue 1

2

But let us not kid ourselves. Part of Rio+20 is to reassess the institutions that currently guide the paths to sustainability. Yet none is presently designed to do so. This is the case for two reasons. One is that sus-tainability is simply not “designed in” to any politi-cal, economic, or social governing process at present. Indeed, only “nonsustainability” drivers enable these mechanisms to survive the suspicious frowns of mar-kets and electoral democracies (to say nothing of cor-rupt governments and dictatorships). The other is that the human condition cannot foresee far-off danger that affects future generations, and which, if ad-dressed, could result in real “losers” without clearly defined “beneficiaries.” So the ceiling is heightened and the floor is lowered.

This important collection of articles offers the beginning of the much-needed redress of this dys-functional sustainability deficit. It is likely that pro-longed suffering from human-induced hazards (e.g., floods, storms, drought, fires, disease, exotic migra-tions of pests and parasites) and dangerously in-creased inequality (e.g., migration, chronic indebted-ness, wage reduction, household poverty, inflation, insecurity) will lead to social strife, to profound physical and mental-health crises, to deepening vio-lence and criminality, and to a whole “lost genera-tion.” This last factor is already in place over large parts of the globe. As it seeps into the nooks and crannies of formerly contented families, social un-sustainability will surely be noticed.

There is no precedent in our lifetimes for such wholesale calamity across so much of the human race. Identifying, measuring, monitoring, and safe-

guarding this critical planetary “safe operating and socially fair space” will surely become the driving force for sustainability. This is the real agenda for Rio+20. Sadly, more suffering may have to afflict us all before we confront that ultimate reality. References Bachelet, M. & Somavia, J. 2011. UN Social Protection

Report. New York: United Nations. Raworth, K. 2011. Planetary Boundaries and Social

Boundaries: Defining a Safe and Just Operating Space for Humanity. Oxford: Oxfam.

Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F., Lambin, E., Lenton, T., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R., Fabry, V., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., & Foley, J. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461(282):472–475.

About the Author Tim O’Riordan OBE is Emeritus Professor of Environ-mental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, a Fellow of the British Academy, and a Deputy Lieutenant of Nor-folk. He actively engages in creating citizenship schemes for young people unable to find employment and who wish to create social enterprises for sustainable futures. He can be contacted at [email protected].


2012 Boström Winter 2012 | Volume 8 | Issue 1

3

ARTICLE

A missing pillar? Challenges in theorizing and practicing social sustainability: introduction to the special issue Magnus Boström Department of Life Sciences, Södertörn University, Huddinge SE-141 89 Sweden (email: [email protected]) Since publication of the Brundtland Report in 1987, the notion of sustainable development has come to guide the pursuit of environmental reform by both public and private organizations and to facilitate communication among ac-tors from different societal spheres. It is customary to characterize sustainable development in a familiar typology comprising three pillars: environmental, economic, and social. The relationships among these dimensions are gener-ally assumed to be compatible and mutually supportive. However, previous research has found that when policy makers endorse sustainable development, the social dimension garners less attention and is particularly difficult to realize and operationalize. Recent years though have seen notable efforts among standard setters, planners, and practitioners in various sectors to address the often neglected social aspects of sustainability. Likewise, during the past decade, there have been efforts to develop theoretical frameworks to define and study social sustainability and to empirically investigate it in relation to “sustainability projects,” “sustainability practice,” and “sustainability initia-tives.” This introductory article presents the topic and explains some of the challenges of incorporating social sustain-ability into a broad framework of sustainable development. Also considered is the potential of the social sustainability concept for sustainability projects and planning. This analysis is predicated on the work represented in this special issue and on related initiatives that explicitly discuss the social pillar of sustainable development and its relationship to the other dimensions. KEYWORDS: human-environment relationship, environmental sociology, socioeconomics, sustainable development, public policy Introduction: The Hope

Since publication of the Brundtland Report in

1987, the notion of sustainable development has come to guide the pursuit of environmental reform by both public and private organizations and to facilitate communication among actors from different societal spheres. While there is no universal consensus on how to define the concept, its inherent vagueness and interpretative flexibility contribute to its broad ap-peal. It is nonetheless customary to characterize sus-tainable development in a familiar typology com-prising three pillars: environmental, economic, and social (or sociocultural). These are also known as the three “Ps” (People, Planet, and Profit) or the three “Es” (Environment, Economy, and Equity). For both substantive and normative reasons, the relationships among these dimensions are generally assumed to be compatible and mutually supportive (Littig & Grießler, 2005). For instance, the Johannesburg Con-ference in 2002 further stressed the need to integrate the three dimensions, as well as to build a humane, equitable, and caring global society for present and future generations.

This broad call for a comprehensive and integra-tive understanding and practice of sustainability ap-

pears promising and compelling. However, a consid-erable amount of sustainable development research indicates that huge are involved in the realization of this hope. The obstacles are of two related kinds. The first is theoretical and concerns how we should define and understand this fluid concept of social sustaina-bility. The other involves the practice: how are the social sustainability aspects to be operationalized and incorporated into various sustainability projects and planning? Partly due to its contested character, a number of scholars argue that the social dimension garners less attention or is dismissed altogether (Dobson, 1999; Agyeman et al. 2003; Agyeman & Evans, 2004; Lehtonen, 2004; Agyeman, 2008; Cuthill, 2009; Dillard et al. 2009). Rather, it is mainly the merging of environmental and economic dimen-sions that has been seen to create synergies and po-tentials for environmental policies and reforms (Littig & Grießler, 2005; Bluhdorn & Welsh, 2007). Fur-thermore, at least thus far, very little actual attention has been paid to the linkages between and integration of the social and environmental dimensions (Lehtonen, 2004; Fitzpatrick, 2011a). While social policies in terms of welfare institutions have a long history in developed countries, they have been deeply embedded and reliant upon a society marked by

Boström: A Missing Pillar


4

productivism, overconsumption, and economic growth, as well as national and short-term timescales. These are all objectives that most variants of green thinking oppose (Fitzpatrick, 2011c). Rethinking and reorganizing for green social policies and welfare—social sustainability—is thus both a crucial task and a very big challenge.

It must be acknowledged, however, that recent years have seen notable efforts to address and inte-grate social aspects of sustainability on the part of standard setters, planners, and practitioners. This has occurred within such diverse areas as urban and re-gional planning (Schlossberg & Zimmerman, 2003; Cuthill, 2009; Davidson, 2009; Dempsey et al. 2011), fair trade certification (e.g., Taylor, 2004), forest certification (e.g., Klooster, 2010; Boström, 2011), organic agriculture (e.g., Shreck et al. 2006), con-ventional agriculture (Nordström Källström & Ljung, 2005; Mancini et al. 2008), as well as corporate so-cial and environmental management, reporting, and responsibility (e.g., Sharma & Ruud, 2003; Bebbington & Dillard, 2009; Brown et al. 2009). This special issue contributes to this trajectory first pre-senting a typology for organizing research on social sustainability (Murphy, 2012) and then featuring studies on alternative agrofood networks and prac-tices (Psarikidou & Szerszynski, 2012), conflicts surrounding human-animal relations (Hiedanpää et al. 2012), bureaucratization of fair trade and organic food policy making (Casula Vifell & Thedvall, 2012), sustainable tourism (Klintman, 2012), access to mobility (Cucca & Tacchi, 2012), green social cooperatives (Osti, 2012), sustainable buildings (Jensen, et al. 2012), and participatory environmental monitoring of a Brazilian mining company (Devlin & Tubino, 2012).. These examples demonstrate some progress toward the realization of an integrative vi-sion of sustainability in various sectors, but they also confirm many challenges.

Readers of this special issue will encounter use-ful frameworks, understandings, and analyses of so-cial sustainability. With this introductory article, I do not aim to provide a ready-to-use definition and schema. I rather envisage the concept of sustainable development, including social sustainability, as a “frame.” In other words, it is a conceptual tool that policy makers and practitioners can use to communi-cate, make decisions, and measure or assess current developments, and that scholars can very well study and even refine. My objective is primarily to seek a number of explanations for why it seems challenging to incorporate social sustainability into a robust framework of sustainable development, as well as to point out this concept’s potential for sustainability projects and planning. To accomplish this, I refer to articles included in this special issue as well as to

previous literature that explicitly discusses the social dimension, or its relationship to the other sustainabil-ity dimensions. In the next section, I describe how a selection of scholars uses and defines the concept of social sustainability, and present a table with aspects to which they commonly refer. This discussion is followed by an analysis of six challenges to integrat-ing the social dimension into concrete sustainability projects and planning. In the concluding part, I con-sider some potential benefits of the frame. What Does Social Sustainability Refer To?

Like the general concept of sustainable devel-opment (e.g., Baker, 2006), social sustainability is an open and contested concept. According to Nicola Dempsey and colleagues (2011), “social sustainabil-ity is neither an absolute nor a constant…[it] has to be considered as a dynamic concept, which will change over time (from year to year/decade to dec-ade) in a place.”

Such conceptual imprecision and interpretative flexibility is often seen as both a strength (in that it encourages communication among different and dis-agreeing actors) and a weakness (in that people must constantly elaborate what they actually mean when they address social sustainability) (e.g., Davidson, 2009; Dempsey et al. 2011). Such vagueness has given rise to many efforts by scholars to suggest ty-pologies and frameworks. Accordingly, during the past decade, a body of literature has emerged that focuses specifically on developing theoretical schemes to define and study social sustainability (Agyeman & Evans, 2004; Lehtonen, 2004; Littig & Grießler, 2005; Pawlowski, 2007; Cuthill, 2009; Dillard et al. 2009; Larsen, 2009: Magis & Shinn, 2009; Seghezzo, 2009; Casula Vifell & Soneryd, 2012).

A few examples deserve specific consideration. Cuthill (2009), based on an action research approach that involved input from government managers and other stakeholders involved with social policy and community development, developed a social sustain-ability framework that includes 1) social justice and equity, 2) social infrastructure, 3) engaged govern-ance, and 4) social capital. Littig & Grießler (2005) argue that social sustainability has to be guided by an analytical concept that provides a sound theory of the relationship between society and nature. Sustainabil-ity strategies and indicators should have both analyti-cal depth and clarity, including clearly defined ideas about what kinds of social values to promote. Littig & Grießler (2005) expand on the notion of needs, taken from the Brundtland definition of sustainabil-ity, and introduce work in a very broad sense to dis-cuss key elements of social sustainability. Georgio



5

Osti, in his analysis of green social cooperatives in this special issue, also emphasizes work as a basis not merely for income but for human dignity, recovery, recognition, and social integration. An anthology entitled Understanding the Social Dimension of Sus-tainability (Dillard et al. 2009) discusses a number of relevant perspectives. In one chapter, Magis & Shinn (2009) define four universal principles covering so-cial sustainability: human well-being, equity, demo-cratic government, and democratic civil society.

Yet another relevant tradition is found in the “environmental justice” literature (Agyeman & Evans, 2004), concerned with questions of distribu-tion. On one hand, this work focuses on who—in terms of gender, race, and class—experiences im-pacts from environmental “bads” and access to envi-ronmental “goods” (e.g., natural resources, quality of life). On the other hand, research on environmental justice deals with questions of procedure and partici-pation—what social groups have access to delibera-tive forums and participatory decision making. This perspective rests on the assumption that “most envi-ronmental pollution and degradation is caused by the actions of the more affluent” at the same time as “en-vironmental problems are vested disproportionately upon the poor” (Agyeman & Evans, 2004). Agyeman & Evans (2004) coined the term “just sustainability” to emphasize the conceptual linkages between sus-tainable development and environmental justice, as well as to avoid a one-sided emphasis on the envi-ronmental dimension of sustainability.

The proliferation of various frameworks—and not one hegemonic theory—is constructive because sustainable development is enormously complex. Pluralism is preferable to a single common approach. As Lehtonen (2004) notes, “Different geographical and temporal scales as well as situational contexts require their own frameworks, which do not neces-sarily provide a coherent picture, but a mosaic of partly contradicting views of reality.” The various approaches reflect the need for “framing” or “con-structing” social sustainability (Davidson, 2009). Contributions to this special issue further theorize the concept of social sustainability and authors outline four different types of theoretical contributions.

First, several articles (including the present one) engage in a dialogue with the literature on the con-cept of social sustainability. For instance, Kevin Murphy (2012) provides a comprehensive literature review and outlines a framework relevant for policy development and assessment. He bases his scheme on four key dimensions: equity, awareness, participa-tion, and social cohesion. An important element of this approach is that it links social sustainability to environmental implications and thus provides a way

to integrate a set of issues often treated disparately (see also the next section).

Second, articles in this special issue connect the notion of social sustainability to a variety of other so-cial science perspectives, concepts, and theories in-cluding theories of scale (Klintman, 2012), notions of temporality (Devlin & Tubino, 2012; Hiedanpää et al. 2012; Psarikidou & Szerszynski, 2012), moral econ-omy and moral taskscape (Psarikidou & Szerszynski, 2012), human-nonhuman animal relations (Hiedanpää et al. 2012), concepts of work related to green social enterprises (Osti, 2012), ecological mod-ernization and transition theory (Jensen et al. 2012), governance through bureaucratization (Casula Vifell & Thedvall, 2012), as well as social movement the-ory (Devlin & Tubino, 2012).

Third, a couple of articles penetrate the term “so-cial” and by this route challenge the very pillar-oriented view of sustainability. For example, Hiedanpää and colleagues develop a pragmatically oriented socioecological perspective in which both humans and nonhuman animals take part in estab-lishing the social. When the present social order is disturbed, such as when wolves attack sheep or when animal welfare groups politicize swine-rearing prac-tices, “the social” (including cultural habits and cus-toms related to the unsettled practices) becomes acti-vated, contested, and reorganized. Psarikidou & Szerszynski (2012) also criticize the view that social sustainability should constitute a separate pillar adja-cent to the “dominating dyad of the ecological and the economic.” Instead, they stress a sociomaterial perspective of sustainability in which the economy and the environment are always entangled in the so-cial. The latter refers to social relations, practices, cultural meanings, and so forth. The material dimen-sion would recognize “that social life is conducted by embodied beings in constant exchange with their physical environment.” A lesson from these and other contributions in the special issue is that neglect of the social dimension of sustainability not only leads to inattention to a number of social aspects, but that our understanding of environmental problems, and society-nature relationships in general, becomes fun-damentally flawed.

Finally, the special issue highlights a number of concrete social aspects that are commonly referred to in empirical studies and policy debates about social sustainability. While my aim here is not to provide yet another definition and framework of social sus-tainability, it is instructive to map out what social sustainability often includes in such studies (Table 1). Such a map helps to visualize that social sustainabil-ity often refers to both the improvement of conditions for living people and future generations and the quality of governance of the development process.



6

Table 1 Examples of substantive (What) and procedural (How) aspects of social sustainability.*

Substantive aspects: What social sustainability goals to

achieve? Procedural aspects: How to achieve sustainable

development? • Basic needs such as food, housing, and income and

extended needs such as recreation, self-fulfillment • Inter- and intra-generational justice along gender, race,

class, and ethnicity dimensions o Fair distribution of income o Fair distribution of environmental “bads” and

“goods” • Equality of rights, including human rights, land user

and tenure rights, and indigenous people’s rights • Access to social infrastructure, mobility, local services,

facilities, green areas, and so forth • Employment and other work-related issues, facilitating

for local small and medium enterprises • Opportunity for learning and self-development • Community capacity for the development of civil

society and social capital • Security (e.g., economic, environmental) • Health effects among workers, consumers, and

communities • Social cohesion, inclusion, and interaction • Cultural diversity and traditions • Sense of community attachment, belonging, and

identity • Social recognition • Attractive housing and public realm • Quality of life, happiness, and well-being

• Access to information about risks and the sustainabil-ity project

• Access to participation and decision making in different stages of the process and over time

• Proactive stakeholder communication and con-sultation throughout the process

• Empowerment for taking part in the process (e.g., awareness, education, networking, economic compensation)

• Participating in the framing of issues, including defining criteria, scope, and subjects of justice

• Social monitoring of the policy, planning, and standard-setting process

• Accountable governance and management of the policy, planning, and standard-setting process

* In addition to the articles in this special issue, other work along these lines includes Agyeman et al. 2003; Agyeman & Evans, 2004; Lehtonen, 2004; Littig & Grießler, 2005; Nordström Källström & Ljung, 2005; Cuthill, 2009; Davidson, 2009; Dillard et al. 2009; Magis & Shinn, 2009; Seghezzo, 2009; Dempsey et al. 2011; Fitzpatrick, 2011a; Casula Vifell & Soneryd, 2012. Accordingly, I find it instructive to distinguish be-tween a substantive and procedural dimension, a dif-ferentiation found in the environmental justice liter-ature (Agyeman & Evans, 2004; cf. Fitzpatrick, 2011d) and implicitly discussed more widely (in-cluding in the contributions that comprise this special issue). The social pillar of sustainable development could thus be seen as including both procedural as-pects, such as the role of democratic representation, participation, and deliberation and substantive as-pects, that center on “what” is to be done (i.e., the social goals of sustainable development). The proce-dural aspects include the “how” or the means to achieve these goals. Procedures cannot be static, but should always include a temporal dimension. Aspects overlap, and it is also not always easy to distinguish between substantive and procedural issues as they may reinforce one another. For example, by achiev-ing certain social sustainability goals—such as providing opportunities for learning or improving the participatory capacities of local civil societies—one is simultaneously improving opportunities for actors to take part in sustainability projects and planning. While the “what” aspects specifically concern social sustainability goals and their relationship to eco-nomic and environmental dimensions, the “how” aspects may be seen as social sustainability elements

that foster sustainable development in general, that is, in all of its dimensions.1

What Explains Challenges to Integrate Social Aspects in Sustainability Projects and Planning?

The following discussion departs from the argu-

ment, introduced by a number of scholars, that the concept of social sustainability is more difficult to analyze, comprehend, define, and incorporate into sustainability projects and planning than the other dimensions of sustainability (e.g., Lehtonen, 2004; Littig & Grießler, 2005; Dillard et al. 2009).2 I seek to explain some of the challenges reported in the lit-erature and the obstacles discussed in the contribu-tions to this special issue. The first three topics relate

1 It would, of course, be equally relevant to label this as an “institutional” or “governance” dimension, but this is just a matter of wording. My intent here is to collect and sort elements that are commonly seen as social sustainability aspects. 2 I certainly do not claim that “social problems” are more difficult to solve than, for example, “environmental problems.” Considering a global issue such as climate change, for example, it would be unreasonable to suggest that the “environmental” dimension of this issue is easier to tackle than the “social” dimension, because these are inseparable.



7

to framing issues, while the last three concern organi-zational, institutional, and structural factors. High Expectations

As seen in Table 1, notions of social sustainabil-ity often refer to such aspects as social welfare, qual-ity of life, social justice, social cohesion, cultural diversity, democratic rights, gender issues, workers’ rights, broad participation, development of social capital and individual capabilities, and so forth. It goes without saying that achieving “success” in terms of all these aspects would be an enormous task. A comment by Johan Hedrén (2009) illustrates the enormity of actually putting the world on an effective pathway to social sustainability.

In the Johannesburg documents this is defi-nitely not just a matter of slight corrections to the current structures, but rather a creation of something fundamentally new: a world without chronic hunger, malnutrition, for-eign occupation, armed conflict, illicit drug problems, organized crime, corruption, natu-ral disasters, illicit arms trafficking, traf-ficking in persons, terrorism, intolerance and incitement to racial ethnic, religious and other hatreds, xenophobia, and endemic, communicable and chronic diseases, in par-ticular AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis (em-phasis in original). Such goals are, of course, tremendously ambi-

tious, especially given the extremely complex and problematic circumstances that exist today on a worldwide basis. Indeed, there is nothing wrong with high ambitions. Hedrén (2009) discussed the im-portant political role of “utopian thought” in both abstract and concrete manifestations. The concept of sustainable development is a good example of uto-pian thought because it offers a formulation of alter-natives with which existing societies can be com-pared. Visions, utopias, and aspirations are surely needed. At the same time, expressions of extremely high ambition can create unrealistic expectations and may, in the long run, lead to great disappointment and claims of major failure.

The win-win-win framing embedded in the con-cept of sustainable development (the positive inte-gration of the three pillars) may conceal the fact that clashes or tradeoffs between environmental and so-cial goals are sometimes (or even often) unavoidable (cf. Fitzpatrick, 2011c). Given this rhetoric, real-life examples of such putative tradeoffs are likely to lead to frustrations. For example, ecotaxes have often given rise to heated discussion about negative distri-butional effects. The case of access to mobility

(Cucca & Tachi, 2012) effectively illustrates the complex tradeoffs that arise in policy practice. Envi-ronmental problems often imply the need for re-strictions on access to long- and short-range mobility. Such measures tend to affect the population asym-metrically—wealthy people still find ways to reach their intended destinations—and thus clash with so-cial goals such as equal accessibility and integration. Vague, Subjective, and Ideological Framing

Many scholars agree that the meaning of social sustainability remains unclear and there exists un-certainty about how it relates to both the other dimen-sions and wider policy issues (Littig & Grießler, 2005; Davidson, 2009; Dillard et al. 2009; Casula Vifell & Soneryd, 2012; Dempsey et al. 2011). It has been argued that environmental sustainability has more concrete objectives and is easier to measure (Davidson, 2009; Bebbington & Dillard, 2009). A related argument is that there is no evident scientific basis for measuring social sustainability. As Bebbington & Dillard (2009) observe,

[S]ocial sustainability appears to present dif-ferent and more severe challenges in specifi-cation, understanding, and communication than environmental sustainability because there is no widely accepted scientific basis for analysis, unlike the ability to debate population ecology, acceptable levels of toxicity, or acceptable concentrations of green-house gases in the atmosphere. Nor is there a common unit of measure such as monetary units with the economic dimen-sion of sustainability. These authors referred particularly to corporate,

social, and environmental accounting. In these fields, social sustainability appears to be more subjective, soft, less scientific, more ideological, and local in contrast to global (cf. Klintman, 2012), which in many instances puts it in a disadvantageous position relative to both the economic and environmental di-mensions. Brown et al. (2009) develops the argument further, claiming that the “triple bottom line” concept in corporate reporting implies three separate, assessa-ble measures. This atomistic view masks and misrep-resents the complex relations among the three dimen-sions and neglects the fundamentally different nature of social systems.

In a broad sense, social systems differ dra-matically from systems that can be maxim-ized (or minimized)…In economic systems, maximizing wealth may be appropriate. In natural systems, maximizing (or minimiz-



8

ing) biological diversity (or greenhouse gas emissions) may be desirable, but does it make sense to either maximize or minimize in the realm of social sustainability (Brown et al. 2009)? Aspects of social sustainability such as employ-

ment rates or income equality can be measured (and maximized), but the problems Brown and colleagues highlight are very relevant when it comes to such social sustainability issues as quality of life, commu-nity well-being, and social recognition. They argue that “the fundamental differences in the attributes of economic, environmental, and social sustainability illustrate the inappropriateness of measuring, report-ing and conceiving of these facets in the same way” (Brown et al. 2009).

An observation by Osti (2012) in this special is-sue is relevant to address here. He remarks that green social cooperatives offer great potential both for job creation and environmental services, for example in relation to waste recycling or energy supplies. How-ever, they face huge difficulties entering these fields due to the requirement of expertise in ecosystems or other complex systems. The majority of green social enterprises engages in more labor-intensive services such as urban sanitation. As little or no expertise is needed for such tasks, these enterprises impart only weak social recognition and negotiating power.

Because of the vague, subjective, and often more politicized nature of social sustainability, it generally appears to be more difficult to legitimize. However, state or nonstate initiated sustainability projects often refer to well-established principles such as the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights or the Interna-tional Labour Organization’s conventions. Such global frameworks help to validate inclusion of some social aspects (cf. Tamm Hallström & Boström, 2010). Furthermore, the proliferation of social sus-tainability frameworks discussed earlier can be seen as an effort to clarify for both academics and practi-tioners how social sustainability should be delimited, what it contains, and how it relates to the other di-mensions (see also Murphy’s article in this special issue). Such efforts make social sustainability more visual, measurable (also through qualitative means), and hence more legitimate.

Historical Roots: The Sustainability Framing is Better Suited to Environmental than Social Issues

Although the Brundtland Commission and Rio documents clearly stressed a social dimension, for instance through their insistence on intra- and inter-generational justice, gender equity, and calls for par-ticipatory decision making, several scholars argue

that a more systematic focus on the social dimension has been secondary to environmental and economic considerations (Marcuse, 1998; Agyeman, 2008; Bebbington & Dillard, 2009). Some scholars have discussed the risk that the concept of sustainable de-velopment tends to depoliticize matters because no-tions of nature and environmental sustainability often remain tied to a particular ontology.

As such, calls for sustainability, made gen-erally or with specific reference to particular pillars, can attach themselves to certain on-tological and consequently epistemological positions—most notably notions about “equilibrium,” “balance” and “stability” (Davidson, 2009). As the sustainability framing emerges from its

environmental roots, a conservative bias is potentially created. It is easy to see the many complexities in-volved if one tries to integrate such abstract catego-ries as “social” and “environment” without much reflection on what constitutes the social and the envi-ronmental. As Marcuse (1998) observes, “[s]ustain-ability as a goal in itself, if we are to take the term’s ordinary meaning, is the preservation of the status quo. It would, taken literally, involve making only those changes that are required to maintain that status.”

While the conservation or strengthening of the environment “as it is” is usually assumed to be desir-able, this is less often the case regarding the conser-vation of some social sustainability features. “No one who is interested in justice wants to sustain things as they are now” (Marcuse, 1998). Indeed, far-reaching social change may well be required to achieve con-servation of the environment. Goals of environmental and social sustainability may be conflicting rather than compatible. For example, efforts to overcome social inequalities and develop human capabilities could easily mean increasing the use of natural re-sources to the detriment of the conservation or resili-ence of the biophysical environment. Likewise, social sustainability goals could be internally inconsistent when the interests of the present generation are con-fronted with those of future generations, as environ-mental justice theorists have observed.

A related topic is the criticism that social scien-tists raise in relation to the conceptual separation among the three sectors (see above), which are as-sumed to be on equal levels, and in relation to the corresponding lack of clarification of the connections across the sectors (Littig & Grießler, 2005). Such a division may, for example, give the wrong impres-sion that the economy is independent of a social or institutional context and that the economy and the



9

social are instead independent from the environment (Lehtonen, 2004; Hopwood et al. 2005; Dillard et al. 2009). As discussed below, the conceptual separation of sectors is also reflected organizationally in institu-tions.

A Missing Institutional Link (Rather Than a Missing Pillar)

The division between “environment” and “so-cial” (or “nature” and “culture”) reflects a historical dualism that has been institutionalized in administra-tion and management. We tend to use phrases such as the “environmental sector,” which is meant to include such activities as nature protection and environmental management, while the “social sector” encompasses welfare politics, social insurance systems, and so forth.

These two sectors have very distinct and separate traditions, and are only beginning to relate to one other (cf. Fitzpatrick, 2011a). Is the sustainability discourse helpful for overcoming this dualism or should it be blamed for preserving it? Psarikidou & Szerszynski (2012) argue in their article in this spe-cial issue that the difficulty in conceptualizing and implementing social sustainability partly originates from its very conceptualization as a separate pillar.

I may take Sweden as an example that supports this latter view. In Sweden, despite all the talk about sustainable development and recognition of its three dimensions, and notwithstanding a strong emphasis on sector integration, sustainable development is seen as being covered by a huge administrative system with sixteen “environmental quality objectives,” that actually only consider the environmental dimension. No, or at best few, links to social objectives are con-sidered. Sector integration is to be achieved by re-quiring that an extensive number of public agen-cies—including “social” agencies—on different lev-els integrate environmental goals and concerns, but there is no similar system for taking “social sustaina-bility goals” into account. A previous study on sus-tainability planning in the areas of food production and electromagnetic fields in Sweden confirmed this picture (Casula Vifell & Soneryd, 2012). There is very little incorporation of the social dimension, re-garding either the procedural (participation of actors representing social goals and concerns) or substantive elements, despite the explicit conceptual connection to the goals of sustainable development (see also Casula Vifell & Thedvall in this issue). We see the same separation in civil society. Historically, labor unions have seldom collaborated with environmental organizations (Boström, 2001) because the former have tended to defend what the latter has opposed: the productivist, growth paradigm that is believed to ensure continual “full employment.”

Similarly, measurement and monitoring of eco-nomic development, social welfare, and environ-mental conditions are usually institutionally distinct practices. For example, Lehtonen (2004), on the basis of an investigation of the environmental performance reviews carried out by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, argues that interac-tion (synergies and tradeoffs) between the social and environmental dimensions is the least developed as-pect of sustainability analysis and measurement. Similar results were reported in a case study of statewide sustainability indices in Oregon (Schlossberg & Zimmerman, 2003). The authors of this study, however, argue that the development of sustainability indicators itself is an area with the po-tential to bridge the gap between previously separated activities.

Sometimes, as Davidson (2009) has observed, the term social sustainability is simply used to de-scribe the current system of social welfare and policy. Particularly in urban studies, social sustainability has been discussed only in terms of social relations—or socially sustainable communities—thereby excluding social-environmental relationships. Such usage of the social sustainability frame achieves nothing more than further perpetuating the institutional separation between social and environmental sectors.

The article by Kevin Murphy in this special issue explicitly aims to develop a framework that should help analysts and policy makers to connect social and environmental sustainability. The book edited by Tony Fitzpatrick (2011a), which is the subject of a review symposium in this issue, also fills a very im-portant role in this regard. And other articles featured here by Katerina Psarikidou & Bronislaw Szerszynski; Juha Hiedanpää, Ari Jokinen, & Pekka Jokinen; and John Devlin & Denise Tubino show how the “social” and the “environmental” are in real-ity inseparable. And they could also be deliberately integrated. For example, Jensen, Jørgensen, Elle, & Hagelskjær Lauridsen (2012) demonstrate that the sustainability concept applied in ecovillages in Den-mark reveals a close relationship between the envi-ronmental and social dimensions (community-building, local empowerment, shared facilities) in contrast with the new wave of “sustainable” buildings that rely more exclusively on an environmental di-mension. It should be mentioned, however, that inte-grating the “social” and the “environmental” in pol-icy, administration, and management is not some-thing done overnight, but will require a long-term learning process, and careful attention to the proce-dural dimension including participatory aspects (dis-cussed further below).



10

Global Capitalism for Sustainable Development? Several novel sustainability projects are embed-

ded within local and/or global capitalist structures, and this special issue highlights cases such as sus-tainable buildings (Jensen et al. 2012), certification of sustainable tourism (Klintman, 2012), fair trade, and organic food (Casula Vifell & Thedvall, 2012). These and other sustainability initiatives—framed as corpo-rate social responsibility or the triple bottom line—are often seen as concrete attempts to integrate all three dimensions of sustainability. To date, scholars have discussed the inherent contradictions and limi-tations of using market-based governance and politi-cal action to foster sustainable production and con-sumption (e.g., Guthman, 2009; Shaw & Black, 2010). Klooster (2010), who focuses on forest certifi-cation, claims,

Certification cannot make the current model of insatiable demands for goods from all over the world either environmentally sus-tainable or socially equitable. This reflects the contradiction of using a market-based, consumption-dependent strategy to leverage sustainable development in a world where markets and consumption patterns are fun-damentally inequitable. Hopwood et al. (2005) argue that the interpreta-

tive flexibility and ambiguity of the sustainability concept “allows business and governments to be in favour of sustainability without any fundamental challenge to their present course.” In this way, the concept helps to legitimize (or greenwash) the status quo which means further expansion of capitalism, more economic growth, increasing social inequalities and more environmental destruction (Lehtonen, 2004). In other words, it helps to “sustain the unsus-tainable” (Bluhdorn & Welsh, 2007).

The literature reminds us that fundamental con-tradictions in such market-based strategies need to be acknowledged. Contradictions are not solved, only handled. On the whole, market-based solutions can-not avoid a general compromise between market pragmatist/expansionist goals, on one hand, and am-bitious environmental and social goals on the other (Taylor, 2004; Boström & Klintman, 2008). To fulfill its objectives, market-based systems such as product certification and labeling must enter into the main-stream market. Overly stringent social and environ-mental criteria would imply huge costs and prevent a substantial market impact. Approaches originally identified as “alternative” face challenges maintain-ing their “outsider” political identity as they move toward the mainstream. At the same time, as they become more influential, such products are exposed

to the pressures of resourceful and powerful actors. Thus, dilemmas stem “not so much from an opposi-tional strategy as from their significant success in the market” (Taylor, 2004).

Studies reported in this special issue confirm these situations. Jensen et al. (2012) demonstrate how mainstreaming in the area of sustainable buildings implies a narrow/technical sustainability framing in which social sustainability goals came to be ex-cluded. Klintman (2012) shows how the movement toward international harmonization of criteria for sustainable tourism elicited protracted debate. More-over, important tradeoffs are involved in finding a balance between overly strict and excessively lax criteria. For instance, very exacting sustainability criteria may induce negative effects in terms of social sustainability because they undermine the ability of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to attain certification.

A related topic is that a market-based approach has great difficulty dealing with structural issues such as poverty reduction, capacity building in de-veloping country contexts, or equitable wealth distri-bution (Klooster, 2010; Boström, 2011); prerequisites that may be a necessary if one is to work for all di-mensions of sustainability.

However, pessimism should not be exaggerated. Researchers are recognizing that companies at times do shoulder responsibilities and develop proactive strategies to prevent harmful social and environmen-tal side effects from their production. The corporate sector can play a key role in achieving social goals, such as improving conditions for workers and local communities. Although based on compromises as discussed above, labeling and certification have at least potential to go a few steps beyond status quo.

As an example, in a recent study of how the For-est Stewardship Council has pursued social sustaina-bility, Boström (2011) found tangible benefits re-garding some substantive social goals (for example, related to labor issues such as safe and humane working conditions, and respect of local communi-ties’ right for other uses of forest resources) as well as procedural goals related to local organization, em-powerment, and stakeholder communication. Never-theless, many problems were unresolved and the dif-ficulties accomplishing these benefits were not insig-nificant. Moreover, Klooster (2010) argues that we should acknowledge various instantiations of “ne-oliberal environmental governance,” as some may contain elements of questioning current practices, “especially when certification institutions were con-structed with the participation of social movements promoting social and environmental goals that seem to counter neoliberal tendencies.” Accordingly, he emphasizes the importance of the procedural (partici-



11

patory) dimension of social sustainability, which I elaborate in the next section. Relation Between the Procedural (How) and Substantive (What) Dimension of Social Sustainability

Allow me to turn back to Table 1 and to suggest that many challenges to fully incorporate social sus-tainability have to do with insufficient attention to the relationship between procedural and substantive di-mensions. A number of scholars indeed assume posi-tive internal linkage between these dimensions of social sustainability (e.g., Agyeman & Evans, 2004; Dillard et al. 2009). The way a sustainability project is organized, which entails, for example, participatory aspects (who is allowed to contribute) and the way that leaders frame the issues that participants discuss, may affect if and how substantive sustainability as-pects are considered. As Casula Vifell & Soneryd (2010) remark, “[I]f no actors explicitly addressing the social dimension are invited, this pillar is likely to remain weak.” And merely providing opportunities for participation is not sufficient. “Social recogni-tion” is important for participants’ motivation and confidence (Nordström Källström & Ljung, 2005) and it is also essential to consider individual stake-holders’ capabilities (e.g., financial, cognitive, or-ganizational) to play effective roles in sustainability projects (Boström & Tamm Hallström, 2010; Boström, 2011). If one fails to develop a system in which procedural aspects are taken into account (ef-fective participation of social stakeholders), then one can expect few incentives to include goals and con-cerns that run counter to leaders’ framing of the issue (Casula Vifell & Soneryd, 2012). The organizing process itself may lead to bureaucratization, as seen in the cases of fair trade and organic food policy making (Casula Vifell & Thedvall, 2012), that can obscure power struggles and the political aspects of negotiations, as well as create obstacles to partici-pation, particularly for weak social stakeholders (see also Tamm Hallström & Boström, 2010).

Klintman considers scale-related participatory and representational challenges, including the dis-tance between the global actors that dominate the definition and regulation of sustainable tourism and the local communities and SMEs that are targets for such activity. This case is an echo of the common social sustainability call for local empowerment and participation in planning accreditation/certification. It also reveals the difficulties involved in deciding who are legitimate participants/representatives. Who should represent social sustainability? This difficult question is, according to Klintman, related to the vagueness of the scale entity “local”—and what the

local community is and who is supposed to represent it (often a local elite).

A focus on how procedures affect substance ought to take into account a longitudinal perspective. Devlin & Tubino (2012) highlight instances of both success and failure in the very same case, but at dif-ferent stages. The authors demonstrate how rising public mobilization/participation, in connection with certain enabling conditions, could bring about change in the environmental plan of a Brazilian mining com-pany. Yet, the initial victory turned to failure during implementation due to the firm’s strategic moves and changing conditions (such as less vigilant attention by the state). As public mobilization is episodic, a powerful company has considerable flexibility to behave as it wants. The case under study reveals that the firm in question could reach out directly to com-munities and introduce new programs to deflect at-tention from past agreements. In light of these chal-lenges, Devlin & Tubino (2012) argue that continu-ous supervision and participation need to be institu-tionalized. Deliberative democracy cannot be re-stricted to public participation only during the plan-ning process.

What is the Potential Benefit of the Concept?

The inherent vagueness and interpretative flexi-bility of both the sustainability concept in general and social sustainability in particular cannot be fully overcome. And indeed, it is precisely this feature that explains why it has played an extraordinarily im-portant historical role in facilitating communication among actors with colliding interests (Hajer, 1995; Jacobs, 1999). Similarly, Fitzpatrick (2011b) argues that sustainability can be “thought of as a ‘portal,’ and entrance into a series of debates.” Before Brund-tland, few such conceptual tools were in place that could bring various actors together.

The consequence is that (social) sustainable de-velopment needs to be framed, filled with content, and interpreted from time to time and place to place. In the absence of active engagement, it is merely an empty conceptual space (Davidson, 2009). Green-washing will always be a risk, as will the possibility that the sustainability framing just helps to cement the institutional separation of “the environment” and “the social” in policy, administration, and manage-ment. Yet, the various frameworks, such as those briefly discussed here, or the one suggested by Murphy in his contribution to this special issue, as well as the various aspects listed in Table 1, shed light on topics that ought to be considered in policies and planning.

Sustainable development is, as I see it, not a very useful theoretical concept for social scientists for



12

understanding the relationship between society and nature, or for studying environmental governance, management, and communication, and so forth. This criticism is, for example, echoed in the articles by Juhu Hiedanpää and colleagues and Katerina Psarikidou & Bronislaw Szerszynski. Neither should we treat “social sustainability” as the best theoretical tool for studying social-environmental relations in general, although parts of the referenced literature clearly provide useful analytical tools for under-standing and investigating sustainability projects and planning, as well as normative tools for improving them. In its very broadest sense, the “social” has to do with the entire relationship between society and nature, which thereby includes economic, cultural, political, and institutional structures and processes. From a social constructionist perspective, there is nothing in principle—including nature—that cannot be labeled as “social.” Environmental sociology chal-lenges the dualism between society and nature, and economic sociology teaches us that the economy is socially embedded. However, the aim in this intro-ductory article is not to carry out a sociological anal-ysis—or deconstruction—of the sustainability dis-course.

If we take this discourse as given (in the sense of having a robust place in the public debate), we can ask if and how social sustainability, viewed as frame (discourse), enables policy makers to take into ac-count, integrate, and simultaneously work for social, economic, and environmental goals. This article has presented six challenges for operationalizing and integrating social sustainability: 1) high expectations; 2) vague, subjective, and ideological framing; 3) historical roots (sustainability framing is better suited to environmental than social issues); 4) missing institutional linkage (rather than a missing pillar); 5) global capitalism for sustainable development? 6) the relation between the procedural (how) and substan-tive (what) dimensions of social sustainability.

This discussion of the challenges has also indi-cated some opportunities. First, both scholars and policy makers should acknowledge the potential of the social sustainability framing for sustainability projects and planning. For example, although Davidson (2009) expressed concerns about the onto-logical and epistemological roots of sustainable de-velopment, which may end up in a depoliticized no-tion of the concept (see third challenge in the previ-ous section), he still envisioned potential in another version that endorses its political dimension. The debate surrounding social sustainability may still offer a useful site for politics. Within the question “what type of society do we want to sustain?” resides latent political potential. The very framing of what (social) sustainability is should be part of the broadly

participatory process of working toward sustainabil-ity (cf., Dillard et al. 2009). Furthermore, Cuthill (2009) showed how the social sustainability concept worked well as a communicative platform among academics and planners.

[A] focus on the concept of “Social sustain-ability” was seen to provide a meeting place, which drew together participants’ diverse perspectives around a relatively new concept that did not carry any political or academic baggage from previous use. This concept provided an umbrella under which existing disciplinary and operational perspectives, relating to the social dimension of sustaina-ble development, could be sheltered. Social sustainability appeared to have a “low pro-file,” among both researchers and bureau-crats. Second, opportunities are to be found in the sys-

tematic focus on the very process of defining social sustainability goals and criteria. If certain “social stakeholders,” such as labor unions or community groups, are both given access and empowered (eco-nomic, education, social capital) to take part in sus-tainability planning and projects, it is unlikely that social sustainability will be defined as all or nothing. The effective participation of such social stakehold-ers should prevent very narrow or unbalanced fram-ings. As Cuthill (2009) argued, there is “an interde-pendent and self-reinforcing relationship” between the different social sustainability dimensions. By seriously taking into account both the substantive (what) and procedural (how) dimensions, while ac-knowledging structural limitations and inherent con-tradictions, there could be a strong potential role for social sustainability projects. He observes, “A strong marketing point for social sustainability lies in its strategic, preventive approach to social issues, ad-dressing the ‘causes’ rather than just treating the ‘symptoms.’”

Third, while the win-win-win framing of the sustainability concept may lead to unrealistic expec-tations, it is also fair to say that the frame of social sustainability has, during the past decade, assisted in focusing attention on many new issues among aca-demics, policy makers, and practitioners. It has trig-gered several new debates about the connections, including the synergies and tradeoffs, between social and environmental issues. Learning about tradeoffs in, for example, the use of policy instruments or ac-cess to mobility is a first step toward formulating integrated sustainable transportation policies.

Finally, the related frame of “environmental jus-tice” has resulted in “the environment” being rede-



13

fined so that “the dominant wilderness, greening and natural resource focus now includes urban disinvest-ment, racism, homes, jobs, neighborhoods and com-munities” (Agyeman, 2008). Similarly, initiatives such as alternative agrofood networks, fair trade, the Sustainable Tourism Stewardship Council, and the Forest Stewardship Council provide regulatory frameworks and organizational and discursive plat-forms that enable actors to demonstrate alternatives, to work hard on the topic of social sustainability, and to make room for serious debate on the challenges.

In closing, I do not think social sustainability is the best concept for studying all of the complexities in the social-environment relationship, but it certainly has potential as a frame to assist and improve local and transnational sustainability projects. For social scientists, it has proven to be easily and fruitfully linked to a number of other social scientific concepts such as social capital, moral economy, identity, work, participation, democracy, and civil society. Social sustainability provides social scientists with a prom-ising channel for communicating more broadly and playing a constructive part in wider sustainability debates, both locally and transnationally. The readers of this special issue will hopefully find both critical perspectives and well-founded frameworks useful for understanding, investigating, and assessing sustaina-bility projects and planning. Acknowledgement Work on this article, as well as my guest editorship of this special issue, was conducted within the research project “The Missing Pillar: Incorporating the Social Dimension in Transnational Sustainability Projects.” This project was funded by the Swedish Research Council Formas and dur-ing 2011 received additional funding from Södertörn Uni-versity. I am grateful to the numerous people who have contributed to this special issue and provided constructive comments regarding this article. References Agyeman, J. 2008. Toward a “just” sustainability? Continuum:

Journal of Media & Cultural Studies 22(6):751–756. Agyeman, J., R. Bullard, & B. Evans (Eds.). 2003. Just Sustaina-

bilities: Development in an Unequal World. London: Earthscan.

Agyeman, J. & Evans, B. 2004. Just sustainability: the emerging discourse of environmental justice in Britain? The Geo-graphical Journal 170(2):155–164.

Baker, S. 2006. Sustainable Development. New York: Routledge. Bebbington, J. & Dillard, J. 2009. Social sustainability: an

organizational-level analysis. In J. Dillard, V. Dujon, & M. King (Eds.), Understanding the Social Dimension of Sustain-ability. pp. 157–173. New York: Routledge.

Bluhdorn, I. & Welsh, I. 2007. Eco-politics beyond the paradigm of sustainability: a conceptual framework and research agenda. Environmental Politics 16(2):185–205.

Boström, M. 2001. Miljörörelsens Mångfald (The Diversity of the Environmental Movement). Lund: Arkiv.

Boström, M. 2011. The problematic social dimension of sustaina-ble development: the case of the Forest Stewardship Council. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology Published Online: July 13.

Boström, M. & Klintman, M. 2008: Eco-Standards, Product La-belling, and Green Consumerism. New York: Palgrave.

Boström, M. & Tamm Hallström, K. 2010. NGO power in global social and environmental standard setting. Global Environ-mental Politics 10(4):36–59.

Brown, D., Dillard, J., & Marshall, S. 2009. Triple bottom line: a business metaphor for a social construct. In J. Dillard, V. Dujon, & M. King (Eds.), Understanding the Social Dimen-sion of Sustainability. pp. 211–229. New York: Routledge.

Casula Vifell, Å. & Soneryd, L. 2012. Organizing matters: how the “social dimension” gets lost in sustainability projects. Sus-tainable Development 20(1):18–27.

Casula Vifell, Å. & Thedvall, R. 2012. Organizing for social sus-tainability: governance through bureaucratization in meta-organizations. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy 8(1).

Cucca, R. & Tacchi, E. 2012. Trade-offs and tangles between sustainability dimensions. Case of accessibility as a missing pillar of sustainable mobility policies in Italy. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy 8(1).

Cuthill, M. 2009. Strengthening the “social” in sustainable devel-opment: developing a conceptual framework for social sus-tainability in a rapid urban growth region in Australia. Sus-tainable Development 18(6):362–373.

Davidson, M. 2009. Social sustainability: a potential for politics? Local Environment 14(7):607–619.

Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S., & Brown, C. 2011. The social dimension of sustainable development: defining urban social sustainability. Sustainable Development 19(5):289–300.

Devlin, J. & Tubino, D. 2012. Contention, participation and mobi-lization in EA follow-up: the Itabira experience. Sustainabil-ity: Science, Practice, & Policy 8(1).

Dillard, J., V. Dujon, & M. King (Eds.). 2009. Understanding the Social Dimension of Sustainability. New York: Routledge.

Dobson, A. (Ed.).1999. Fairness and Futurity: Essays on Envi-ronmental Sustainability and Social Justice. New York: Ox-ford University Press.

Fitzpatrick, T. (Ed.). 2011a. Understanding the Environment and Social Policy. Bristol: Policy Press.

Fitzpatrick, T. 2011b. Introduction. In T. Fitzpatrick (Ed.), Under-standing the Environment and Social Policy. pp. 1–16. Bris-tol: Policy Press.

Fitzpatrick, T. 2011c. Challenges for social policy. In T. Fitzpatrick (Ed.), Understanding the Environment and Social Policy. pp. 61–90. Bristol: Policy Press.

Fitzpatrick, T. 2011d. Environmental justice: philosophies and practices. In T. Fitzpatrick (Ed.), Understanding the Envi-ronment and Social Policy. pp. 131–154. Bristol: Policy Press.

Guthman, J. 2009. Unveiling the unveiling: commodity chains, commodity fetishism, and the “value” of voluntary, ethical food labels. In J. Bair (Ed.), Frontiers of Commodity Chain Research. pp. 190–206. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Hajer, M. 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Eco-logical Modernization and the Policy Process. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hedrén, J. 2009. Shaping sustainability: is there an unreleased potential in utopian thought? Futures 41(4):220–225.

Hiedanpää, J., Jokinen, A., & Jokinen, P. 2012. Making sense of the social: human-nonhuman constellations and the wicked road to sustainability. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy 8(1).



14

Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., & O’Brien, G. 2005. Sustainable devel-opment: mapping different approaches. Sustainable Devel-opment 13(1):38–52

Jacobs, M. 1999. Sustainable development as a contested concept. In A. Dobson (Ed.), Fairness and Futurity: Essays on Envi-ronmental Sustainability and Social Justice. pp. 21–45. New York: Oxford University Press.

Jensen, J., Jørgensen, M., Elle, M., & Hagelskjær Lauridsen, E. 2012. Has social sustainability left the building? The recent conceptualisation of “sustainability” in Danish buildings. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy 8(1).

Klintman, M. 2012. Handling issues of scale in global accredita-tion of sustainable tourism schemes towards harmonised re-embeddedness? Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy 8(1).

Klooster, D. 2010. Standardizing sustainable development? The Forest Stewardship Council’s plantation policy review pro-cess as neoliberal environmental governance Geoforum 41(1):117–129.

Larsen, L. 2009. An inquiry into the theoretical basis of sustaina-bility: ten propositions. In J. Dillard, V. Dujon, & M. King (Eds.), Understanding the Social Dimension of Sustainability. pp. 45–82. New York: Routledge.

Lehtonen, M. 2004. The environmental-social interface of sustain-able development: capabilities, social capital, institutions. Ecological Economics 49(2):199–214.

Littig, B. & Grießler, E. 2005. Social sustainability: a catchword between political pragmatism and social theory. International Journal of Sustainable Development 8(1–2):65–79.

Magis, K. & Shinn, C. 2009. Emergent principles of social sustain-ability. In J. Dillard, V. Dujon, & M. King (Eds.), Under-standing the Social Dimension of Sustainability. pp. 15–44. New York: Routledge.

Mancini, F., Termorshuizen, A., Jiggins, J., & van Bruggen, A. 2008. Increasing the environmental and social sustainability of cotton farming through farmer education in Andhra Pra-desh, India. Agricultural Systems 96(1–3):16–25.

Marcuse, P. 1998. Sustainability is not enough. Environment and Urbanization 10(2):103–111.

Murphy, K. 2012. The social pillar of sustainable development: a framework for policy analysis. Sustainability: Science, Prac-tice, & Policy 8(1).

Nordström Källström, H. & Ljung, M. 2005. Social sustainability and collaborative learning. Ambio 34(4–5):376–382.

Osti, G. 2012. Green social cooperatives in Italy: a practical way to cover the three pillars of sustainability? Sustainability: Sci-ence, Practice, & Policy 8(1).

Pawlowski, A. 2007. How many dimensions does sustainable development have? Sustainable Development 16(2):81–90.

Psarikidou, K. & Szerszynski, B. 2012. Growing the social: alter-native ago-food networks and social sustainability in the ur-ban ethical foodscape. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy 8(1).

Schlossberg, M. & Zimmerman, A. 2003. Developing statewide indices of environmental, economic, and social sustainability: a look at Oregon and the Oregon benchmarks. Local Envi-ronment 8(6):641–660.

Sharma, S. & Ruud, A. 2003. On the path to sustainability: inte-grating social dimensions into the research and practice of environmental management. Business Strategy and the Envi-ronment 12(4):205–214.

Shaw, B. & Black, I. 2010. Market based political action: a path to sustainable development. Sustainable Development 18(6):385–397.

Shreck, A., Getz, C., & Feenstra, G. 2006. Social sustainability, farm labor, and organic agriculture: findings from an explor-atory analysis. Agriculture & Human Values 23(4):439–449.

Seghezzo, L. 2009. The five dimensions of sustainability. Envi-ronmental Politics 18(4):539–556.

Tamm Hallström, K. & Boström, M. 2010. Transnational Multi-stakeholder Standardization: Organizing Fragile Non-state Authority. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Taylor, P. 2004. In the market but not of it: fair trade coffee and Forest Stewardship Council certification as market-based so-cial change. World Development 33(1):129–147.


2012 Murphy Winter 2012 | Volume 8 | Issue 1

15

Figure 1 Four Pre-eminent Concepts of the Social Pillar.

ARTICLE

The social pillar of sustainable development: a literature review and framework for policy analysis Kevin Murphy School of Business and Humanities, Institute of Technology Blanchardstown, Blanchardstown Road North, Blanchardstown, Dublin 15 Ireland (email:[email protected]) There is a need to develop a clearer understanding of what the social pillar of sustainable development means and how it relates to the environmental pillar. This article contributes to this process by presenting a conceptual frame-work that identifies four overarching social concepts and links them to environmental imperatives. These concepts are: public awareness, equity, participation, and social cohesion. The framework builds on concepts and policy objec-tives outlined in research on international sustainable development indicators and the social sustainability literature. The social pillar can be expanded to include environmental, international, and intergenerational dimensions. This framework can then be used to examine how states and organizations understand the social pillar and its environ-mental links. KEYWORDS: social policy, environmental education, public awareness, environmental equity, sustainable development, environmental sociology Introduction

While the concept of sustainable development (SD) generally refers to achieving a balance among the environmental, economic, and social pillars of sustainability, the meaning and associated objectives of the social pillar remain vague (Dempsey et al. 2011; Casula Vifell & Soneryd, 2012). Indeed, it has been described as the most conceptually elusive pillar in SD discourse (Thin, 2002). Moreover, the social dimensions of sustainability have not received the same treatment as the other two pillars (Cuthill, 2009; Vavik & Keitsch, 2010) and there are various inter-pretations regarding what issues should be addressed (Dixon & Colantonio, 2008). The selection of social measures in sustainable development indicator sets (SDIs) is often a function of power rather than policy coherence, as influential groups are more likely to have their concerns included (Littig & Griessler, 2005). These indicators reflect different sociocultural priorities (Omann & Spangenberg, 2002) and as such are often picked for political rather than scientific reasons (Fahey, 1995). For example, preferences for neoliberalism or the European social model will re-sult in different social objectives (Colantonio, 2007).

These ambiguities suggest that a greater under-standing of the social pillar of SD is desirable. The literature also indicates that it is necessary to develop greater linkage between the social and environmental pillars (Dobson, 2003b; Littig & Griessler, 2005; Gough et al. 2008). This article contributes to estab-

lishing such connections by presenting a conceptual framework for understanding the social pillar and outlining its environmental implications. A review of eight bodies of literature related to SD suggests four pre-eminent policy concepts (Figure 1).

While the literature highlights the relatively lim-ited treatment afforded to the social pillar, some work has been done. In particular, SDIs and the social sus-tainability literature present us with policy concepts and objectives specifically identified as “social” and represent a significant contribution to how the social pillar is conceived. However, I argue that establishing clearer links with the environmental pillar will further enhance this concept, an argument rooted in an un-derstanding of SD as a concept requiring interpillar linkages. In this respect, the links between the social and environmental pillars are particularly underde-veloped. It is therefore useful to expand the parame-ters of the social pillar by connecting it empirically to environmental imperatives. Furthermore, while ex-isting approaches tend to present the social pillar in terms of national welfare objectives for current gen-erations, it is useful to broaden the understanding of the social to incorporate international and intergener-ational dimensions. In so doing, a policy framework

Murphy: Social Pillar of Sustainable Development


16

emerges that provides the basis for an alternative set of social indicators to those specified in international SDIs or implied in the social sustainability literature. This approach constitutes a set of policy objectives that have clear social and environmental dimensions. The framework may be employed to conduct an em-pirical analysis of how different states and organiza-tions understand the social pillar and to what extent they develop social/environmental links.

This article is divided into two parts. The first part describes the origins of the proposed framework, explaining the identification of eight key types of SD-related literature that discuss social concepts and policy objectives (Table 1). I then explore how de-bates to date have presented “the social” in SD. Drawing on key United Nations (UN) and European Union (EU) SD policy documents and environmental policy integration (EPI) literature, the argument then moves to a justification for linking social and envi-ronmental imperatives.

The second part of this article presents the four policy concepts at the heart of the framework, which are linked to thirteen policy objectives that address social and environmental concerns simultaneously. These conceptual categories and policy objectives constitute the proposed approach for understanding the social pillar of SD and for providing the basis to develop an alternative set of social indicators. It is important to note that while some of the social policy objectives outlined in the framework may have global application, others are likely only appropriately ap-plied in a global northern context. For example, some objectives refer to a redistribution of resources from North to South, while others refer to reductions in consumption, which is relevant to affluent societies only. Therefore, the framework should be understood primarily in a northern context (with the North/South dichotomy understood in terms of rich and relatively poor countries).

Constructing a Social Pillar

The proposed framework is built from social concepts and policy objectives derived from the liter-ature described in Table 1. This literature was re-viewed to explore how the “social” in SD debates is variously understood and, as such, it provides the basis upon which a social pillar of SD is constructed. While this is not an exhaustive record of all docu-ments reviewed, it identifies primary texts in each branch of literature.

Section 1 of Table 1 refers to key UN policy statements regarding the meaning of SD and its asso-ciated policy objectives. These documents enjoy a particularly authoritative status within SD discourse.

Section 2 summarizes key European policy statements on SD. These are particularly useful as they give a global northern perspective on the social goals of SD, which may be contrasted with the global view taken by the UN.1

Section 3 identifies important multilateral SDI sets that specifically allude to social concerns and how progress in these policy areas might be meas-ured.

Section 4 highlights literature that specifically focuses on the social aspects of SD.

Section 5 draws on texts from the social policy literature that specifically seek to establish relation-ships between welfare issues and environmental con-cerns.

Section 6 underscores significant work from the environmental justice literature, which highlights the disproportionate burden faced by low income or vul-nerable groups regarding the distribution of environ-mental risks (or “bads”). Both intergenerational and intragenerational equity perspectives are subsumed under this category.

Section 7 refers to central texts in the ecological modernization literature. While some commentators argue that ecological modernization theory (EMT) should not be considered part of SD discourse (e.g., Langhelle, 2000), the more prevalent view is that it is an expression of “weak” sustainability, as Baker et al. (1997) describe.2 The EMT work has become an ex-tremely influential conceptual approach in environ-mental sociology, and while some scholars (e.g., Dean, 2001) argue that it does not address social is-sues, a careful and systematic review of the relevant literature reveals that authors writing from an EMT perspective have actually considered important social concepts such as equity, awareness for sustainability, and participation.

Section 8 refers to salient research in the EPI lit-erature, which is focused on enhancing the compati-bility of sectoral policy objectives with environmen-tal objectives.

These eight bodies of literature provide the foun-dations of the conception of the “social pillar” out-lined in this article. They were selected on the basis

1 UN policy documents tend to focus on need satisfaction of a more fundamental nature than is evident in EU documents. The latter are inclined to reflect the concerns of more affluent groups. For example, while the EU Sustainable Development Strategy (Council of European Union, 2006) refers to the need to promote animal health welfare and tackle obesity, tobacco use, and harmful drinking, the 1996 UN indicator set highlights indicators of a more fundamental nature, such as “adequate excreta disposal facilities,” “access to safe drinking water,” and “the nutritional status of chil-dren” (UNCSD, 1996). 2 Some scholars compare ecological modernization and SD strate-gies as a basis to distinguish policy approaches (see, e.g., Baker, 2007; Wright & Kurian, 2009).



17

Table 1 Literature that provides the building blocks of a social pillar of sustainable development. 1. Key United Nations Sustainable Development Policy Documents

United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) (1972)

Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment

International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (1980)

World Conservation Strategy

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987)

Our Common Future

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) (1992)

Documents from the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development

World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) (2002)

Documents from the World Summit on Sustainable Development

United Nations Economic, Social, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2004)

United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005–2014) Framework for the International Implementation Scheme

2. Key European Sustainable Development Policy Documents

European Sustainable Cities and Towns Charter (ESCTC) (1994)

Aalborg Charter

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) (1998)

Aarhus Convention

Commission of European Communities (CEC) (2001)

A Sustainable Europe for a Better World: A European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development

Office of the [UK] Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2005)

Bristol Accord

Council of the European Union (CEU) (2006) Renewed European Union Sustainable Development Strategy Commission of European Communities

(CEC) (2009)

Mainstreaming Sustainable Development in EU Policies: 2009 Review of the European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development

3. Key Multilateral Sustainable Development Indicators Documents

United Nations Commission for Sustainable Development (UNCSD) (1996)

Indicators of Sustainable Development, Framework and Methodology

United Nations Department of Social and Economic Affairs (UNDESA)

(2001)

Indicators of Sustainable Development: Framework and Methodologies

Commission of European Communities (CEC) (2004)

EU Member State Experiences with Sustainable Development Indicators

United Nations Department of Social and Economic Affairs (UNDESA) (2007)

Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2008b)

Measuring Sustainable Development: Report on the Joint UNECE/OECD/Eurostat Working Group on Statistics for Sustainable

Development Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development (OECD) (2009) Society at a Glance 2009–OECD Social Indicators

Eurostat (2005) Measuring Progress Towards a More Sustainable Europe: Sustainable Development Indicators in the European Union

Eurostat (2007) Measuring Progress Toward a More Sustainable Europe: 2007 Monitoring Report of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy

4. Social Sustainability Literature

George & Wilding (1999); Barton (2000); Barron & Guantlet (2002); Goodland (2002); Omman & Spangenberg (2002); Thin (2002); Thin et al. (2002); Littig & Griessler (2005); Bramley et al. (2006); Turkington & Sangster (2006);

Colantonio (2007); Munasinghe (2007) Spangenberg (2007); Chan & Lee (2008); Dixon & Colantonio (2008); Bramley & Power (2009); Cuthill (2009); Vavik & Keitsch (2010); Dempsey et al. (2011); Casula Vifell & Soneryd (2012)

5. Green Social Policy Literature

Irvine & Ponton (1988); Cahill (1991); Ferris (1993); George & Wilding (1994); Barry (1998); Fitzpatrick (1998); Huby (1998); Trainer (1998); Cahill (2001); Fitzpatrick & Cahill (2002); Humphrey (2002); Dean (2001); Dryzek (2005; 2008);

Dobson (2003b) Meadowcroft (2005; 2008); Gough et al. (2008); Carnegie UK (2009); Davies (2009) 6. Environmental Justice Literature

Barry (1993; 1999); Hofrichter (1993); Beckerman (1995; 1999); Bryant (1995); Harvey (1996); Faber (1998); Bullard (1999; 2000); Miller (1999); Norton (1999); Wissenburg (1999); Fitzpatrick (2001); Dobson (2003a; 2007); Faber &

McCarthy (2003); Agyeman & Evans (2004); Davies (2006); Gardiner (2006); Karlsson (2009); Singer (2006); Tremmel (2006); Rees (2008)

7. Ecological Modernization Literature

Hajer (1995); Christoff (1996); Mol (1999; 2000); Frijns et al. (2000); Mol & Spaargaren (2002; 2004); Spaargaren (2000; 2003; 2006); Spaargaren & van Vliet (2000); Spaargaren & Mol (2008)

8. Environmental Policy Integration (EPI) Literature

Collier (1997); Lenschow (1997; 2002); Liberatore (1997); Lafferty (2002); Lafferty & Hovden (2003); Jordan et al. (2003); Persson (2004); Baker (2007); Jordan (2008); Jordan & Lenschow (2008); Nilsson et al. (2009)



18

that they fulfill one or more of the following criteria: they are influential texts in SD discourse; they dis-cuss the social objectives of SD; and they examine the relationships between social and environmental policy. What is Social?

Identifying a social pillar presents certain chal-lenges. A myriad of different meanings are attached to the term “social.” The Oxford Concise English Dictionary presents seven definitions referring to both nouns and adjectives. Littig & Greissler (2005) note that the term has both “analytical” and “norma-tive” meanings. There are also difficulties regarding the identification of “purely” social issues, as consid-erable overlaps exist across SD’s three pillars. This overlap is particularly pronounced with respect to the economic and social pillars (Thin, 2002), with many issues, most notably employment and unemployment, deemed relevant to both dimensions (OECD, 2009). Despite these circumstances, the literature points to certain policy concerns that have been identified as “social” within the overall SD framework. These have been variously described as social categories (UNCSD, 1996); social themes (UNDESA, 2001); social dimensions (OECD, 2009; Dempsey et al. 2011; Casula Vifell & Soneryd 2012); social indica-tors (UNCSD, 1996; UNDESA, 2001); and the social realm (Chan & Lee, 2008). Furthermore, the concepts of social sustainability (Goodland, 2002; Turkington & Sangster, 2006; Chan & Lee, 2008) and social SD (Vavik & Keitsch, 2010) have been discussed.

The policy objectives emanating from this liter-ature are broadly similar and form the basis of what might be understood by the notion of “social” in the context of SD. These classifications are primarily derived from SDI sets and the social sustainability literature.3 Various “social pillars” emerging from these literatures are outlined in Tables 2 and 3 and discussed in tandem below.4

Table 2 identifies social classifications in SDIs and Table 3 includes both classifications and exam-ples of social policy objectives. Similar policy con-cerns feature in UN and EU SD literatures. They are also prominent in the other literatures outlined in Table 1, albeit to varying degrees. The purpose of Tables 2 and 3 is to give a general flavor of the kinds of social concepts and policy objectives included in various discussions of the social pillar. These tables

3 After the early 2000s it became less fashionable to use explicit “pillar” distinctions. However, other SDIs and the social sustain-ability literature refer to the themes highlighted here as “social.” 4 The policy objectives discussed in SDIs are broadly similar to those raised in the social sustainability literature.

do not set up a detailed discussion on classifications or policy objectives. The authors already provide a fully comprehensive and detailed exposition of the conceptual and policy contours of these social dimen-sions and there is little need to revisit this work. On one hand, this literature, and the level of consensus regarding policy objectives that it suggests, implies that there is less mystery surrounding the social pol-icy objectives of SD than is generally acknowledged. On the other hand, considerable ambiguity remains with respect to the relationship between the social and environmental pillars and it is to this uncertainty that attention turns. The literature outlined in Tables 2 and 3 assists this task by fulfilling two important functions. First, it serves to identify what is generally understood as the “social” in SD discourse. Second, it provides classifications, or umbrella groupings, under which the policy objectives of the social pillar may be usefully subsumed. For example, Chan & Lee

Table 2 Social classifications and objectives in social indicator sets. Author Social Classification UN Commission for Sustainable Development (UNCSD,1996)

Social “Categories” Combating poverty Sustainable demographic

dynamics Protecting human health Promoting human settlement Promoting education, public

awareness, and training UN Commission for Sustainable Development (UNDESA, 2001)

Social “Themes”

Equity Health Education Housing Security (combating crime) Population

UN Commission for Sustainable Development (UNDESA, 2007)

“Themes”2

Poverty Governance Health Education Demographics

EU Sustainable Development Indicators (Eurostat, 2007)

“Themes”2

Social inclusion Public health Demography Good governance

OECD Social Indicators (OECD, 2009)

Social “Organizing Dimension”

Economic self-sufficiency Equity Health Social cohesion



19

(2008) employ six classifications while Dempsey et al. (2011) prefer to include all policy concerns under the two master classifications of “equity” and “sus-tainability of community.” Building on such ap-proaches, and based on a review of the literature out-lined in Table 1, I argue that four pre-eminent social policy concepts, with attendant policy objectives, emerge from this literature. These are equity, aware-ness for sustainability, participation, and social cohe-sion.

This framework employs these four conceptual classifications as “organizing dimensions” (OECD, 2009), generalized policy concepts from which more specific policy objectives may be derived. Such clas-sifications allow a large number of policy objectives to be synthesized into a smaller number, which facil-itates easier communication and comparison (OECD, 2009). While the selection of these policy concepts borrows from SDIs and the social sustainability liter-ature, the framework seeks to expand the scope of such “social pillars” by linking these four social con-cepts to environmental imperatives. The scope of the social pillar may also be expanded to include inter-

national dimensions. While international SDI sets and the social sustainability literatures have addressed a significant gap by fleshing out social policy objec-tives at a national level, the international dimensions of SD suggest that the “social” be extended to encap-sulate global challenges. For example, while the so-cial concepts of equity and social cohesion refer to key national welfare concerns, they also have signifi-cant international implications for SD policy. As such, it is appropriate that the international dimen-sions of these social concepts feed into SDIs.

Developing Links between the Social and Environmental Pillars

The novelty and essential contribution of SD as a concept and policy approach resides in its require-ment to develop interpillar links. The Brundtland Report states that the “deepening interconnections” among the pillars is “the central justification for the establishment of the Commission” (WCED, 1987). Jordan & Lenschow (2008) claim that the report’s greatest contribution was to highlight the need for

Table 3 Social policy concepts and objectives from the social sustainability literature.

Author Social Classification Description of Policy Objective Littig & Griessler (2005) “Social dimensions of sustainability”

Basic Needs and Quality of Life Satisfaction of basic material needs and self-fulfillment Social Justice Equality of opportunity Social Coherence Harmony among different social groups

Chan & Lee (2008) “Factors of social sustainability”

Social Infrastructure Physical infrastructure which delivers locally based services and opportunities for social interaction

Availability of Job Opportunities Employment Accessibility Engaging in essential work and leisure activities should not

entail too much travel Townscape Design Townscape design that is aesthetically pleasing, functional, and

promotes social interaction Preservation of Local Characteristics

Conserving physical and social/community characteristics particular to the locality

Ability to Fulfill Psychological Needs

Fulfilling the need to feel secure and participate in neighborhood design

Cuthill (2009) “Key factors of social sustainability”

Social Capital Promoting social networks and a sense of social responsibility Social Infrastructure Providing facilities which address need and capacity for

participation Social Justice + Equity Providing equitable access to essential welfare services and

employment, especially for vulnerable groups Engaged Governance Promoting bottom-up, participatory democracy Dempsey et al. (2011) “Dimensions of social sustainability”

Social Equity Reducing inequality in life chances by ensuring local access to key services

Sustainability of Community

Encouraging social interaction/social networks in the community Encouraging participation in collective groups in the community Engendering a sense of pride in the local place Ensuring safety and security

Vavik & Keitsch (2010) “Three goals of social sustainable development”

Poverty Promoting “inclusion” by providing basic needs Illiteracy Promoting access to education Access Promoting access to participation in decision making



20

mutual compatibility among the pillars. The Aalborg Charter states that policy must seek to “integrate people’s basic social needs as well as healthcare, em-ployment and housing programmes with environ-mental protection” (ESCTC, 1994). Similarly, the EU Sustainable Development Strategy calls for the “inte-gration of economic, social and environmental con-siderations so that they are coherent and mutually reinforce each other” (Council of European Union, 2006). In fact, the European Commission argues that the presentation of SD issues without reference to their interpillar relationships may be described as “bundling,” “artificial,” and “false” (CEC, 2004). Jordan & Lenschow’s (2008) review of EU docu-ments points to a clear requirement that environmen-tal and social imperatives be integrated. Developing these interconnections via policy may be linked to the concept of EPI and in particular horizontal environ-mental policy integration (HEPI), which refers to incorporating environmental concerns into all sectors of policy, including social policy (Liberatore, 1997; Lafferty, 2002; Lafferty & Hovden, 2003; Jordan & Lenschow, 2008). In an influential EPI text, Liberatore (1997) argues:

The relevance of integration for moving to-wards sustainable development is straight-forward: if environmental factors are not taken into consideration in the formulation and implementation of the policies that reg-ulate economic activities and other forms of social organization, a new model of devel-opment that can be environmentally and so-cially sustainable in the long term cannot be achieved.

While disciplines such as environmental eco-

nomics do link environmental and economic impera-tives, SD is unique in that it adds social aspects into the interdimensional mix (Dryzek, 2005). However, much of the work done on the social pillar discussed above does not place much focus on environmental links. For example, environmental factors are not addressed in George & Wilding’s (1999) conception of social sustainability. More recently, while the work of Littig & Griessler (2005), Chan & Lee (2008), Cuthill (2009), and Dempsey et al. (2011) provide excellent discussions regarding SD’s social aspects, the links between social and environmental goals do not receive much treatment. That said, both Cuthill (2009) and Littig & Griessler (2005) mention that developing such links would enhance our under-standing of the social pillar. Key EU SDI documents often cite the importance of developing “interdimen-sional” relevance among pillars (CEC, 2004; Eurostat, 2007), yet a review of key international

SDIs (e.g., UNCSD, 1996; UNDESA, 2001; 2007; Eurostat, 2005; 2007) reveals that while some link-ages are made, these are very weakly developed. In light of these observations, a strong case exists for presenting a social pillar with clear social/ environmental links, an approach central to the framework proposed here. A Social/Environmental Framework

The proposed framework consists of thirteen policy objectives with both social and environmental dimensions, grouped under the four conceptual clas-sifications of equity, awareness for sustainability, participation, and social cohesion. The following discussion explains the meaning of each objective in policy terms, examines the social-environmental policy implications, and outlines the justification for the selection of each objective. What emerges from this treatment is a set of social objectives, linked to environmental imperatives, which may function as a tool of analysis with which to examine how different states and organizations understand social policy concepts within the broader SD framework. States and organizations may be analyzed for their relative commitment to the social pillar with respect to the other pillars and their commitment to develop inter-pillar relationships. While this framework does not include a detailed set of indicators, it provides the foundation upon which such a set may be developed. It should be noted that this discussion does not view this framework as a replacement for the social pillars outlined in Tables 2 and 3, but seeks instead to aug-ment existing approaches.

Table 4 outlines the framework for expanding the social pillar in terms of social/environmental pol-icy objectives. Equity

Equity is a key social concept in SD discourse. In policy terms, it refers to the distribution of welfare goods and life chances on the basis of fairness and it applies to national, international, and intergenera-tional contexts. Equitable redistribution means that all citizens, regardless of gender, should have an equal opportunity to both survive and fulfill their development potentials. This very broad conception of equity refers to a wide spectrum of policy areas ranging from the provision of clean water, nutrition, employment, education, shelter, essential medicines, and an unpolluted environment to access to social networks. It also includes the promotion of freedom from discrimination on the grounds of gender, reli-gion, or race. Policy objectives related to equity are articulated in all of the publications identified in Ta-



21

ble 1 and in almost all cases equity is understood as a central component of sustainability.5

Presenting the concept of equity in such broad terms masks myriad conceptual and ideological de-bates that a rigorous examination of the concept would expose. However, as previously noted, such arguments are well-rehearsed elsewhere. The purpose here is to examine how the concept of equity has been linked to environmental imperatives and what policy implications emerge from these synergies. The relationship between equity and environmental ob-jectives is steeped in complexity and a simple corre-lation between increased equity and environmentally benign outcomes cannot be assumed (Ferris, 1993; Humphrey, 2002; Dobson, 2003b).

5 It is noted that in the main, ecological modernization theorists see little connection between the equitable distribution of resources and environmental ends (see, e.g., Mol & Spaargaren, 2000; 2002). Furthermore, in terms of debates around intergenerational equity, Beckerman (1995; 1999) represents a deviation from the general consensus in this literature suggesting that current generations have obligations to future generations in terms of ecological sustainability. He argues instead that “[i]ntergenerational egal-itarianism has nothing to recommend it.”

To develop this relationship theoretically, Dobson (2003b) calls for empirical examples that highlight how both objectives may be simultaneously promoted. To this end, I outline five ways in which equity has been empirically linked to environmental issues and articulate these in terms of policy objec-tives. In some cases, these goals refer primarily to the national level while others are relevant to the interna-tional sphere. I assess states and organizations with regard to their commitment to these objectives. These policy objectives are considered here in a relatively cursory manner, addressing only the basic contours of the pertinent arguments. Despite such limitations, these objectives provide a broad base for discussion regarding how the environmental dimensions of eq-uity may be understood and developed into indica-tors.

First, evidence suggests that pollution in general, and the effects of climate change in particular, are and will be disproportionately felt by the poor, whether they reside in the global North or South. For example, Gough et al. (2008) argue that the risks as-sociated with climate change are likely to exacerbate inequalities, as lower income groups are more likely

Table 4 A social pillar of sustainable development. Organizing Dimension Policy Area Policy May Be Analyzed For:

Equity The “export of pollution” • Commitment to curb the “export of pollution” Climate change and the development

needs of global southern countries • Commitment to economic transfers to global southern countries

rather than relying solely on carbon-trading mechanisms Vulnerable groups and the effects of

climate change • Commitment to assist vulnerable groups in adapting to the

effects of climate change Vulnerable groups and fiscal

measures • Commitment to protect vulnerable groups from fiscal measures

designed to mitigate climate change Welfare provision to current

generations and carbon emissions • Commitment to decarbonize current welfare provision

Protecting future generations by reducing consumption levels

• Commitment to protect future generations by reducing consumption rather than relying solely on market/technological solutions

Awareness for sustainability

ESD and environmental awareness programs and campaigns

• Commitment to designing and implementing educational programs for SD through the formal and informal education sectors

Content of ESD Programs and campaigns

• The level to which these programs embrace a challenge to the traditional growth paradigm including nonmaterial conceptions of happiness

Participation Broadening the participative base of environmental planning processes

• The level to which the views and preferences of weaker groups including future generations are reflected in environmental planning processes

Social Cohesion Promoting social cohesion and environmental objectives simultaneously

• Commitment to infrastructural planning which promotes social integration and environmental sustainability simultaneously

• Commitment to promoting social activities aimed at environmental goals

• Commitment to developing “transition towns” or initiatives of that type

• Commitment to combating the kinds of environmental conditions which cause civil strife



22

to live in higher risk areas and marginal lands, have fewer resources to cope with harmful environmental events, and have much less insurance coverage. In this context, the fallout from Hurricane Katrina indi-cates that those on low incomes are least able to pro-tect themselves from extreme weather (Singer, 2006; Dryzek, 2008). Furthermore, fiscal measures such as carbon taxes, designed to combat climate change, can place a higher burden on lower income households as energy prices increase (Scott, 2007; CPA, 2008). Low-income households spend a higher proportion of their income on domestic energy, live in less energy-efficient houses, and are more likely to consume cer-tain fuels such as peat, coal, and oil that have higher carbon content. Fiscal measures may therefore exac-erbate the effects of poverty and increase fuel pov-erty. Gough et al. (2008) also argue that budgets aimed at welfare provision may be diverted to ad-dress the negative consequences of climate change, placing greater strains on low-income groups (Gough et al. 2008). In this context, policy approaches based on a commitment to equity may be understood in terms of 1) commitment to assist vulnerable groups adapting to the effects of climate change, and 2) commitment to protect vulnerable groups from fiscal measures designed to mitigate climate change.

Second, Stern (2006), among others, argues that future generations will face serious environmental risks as a result of climate change that has been linked to economic growth (OECD, 2008b). This issue raises the question of intergenerational equity. While some commentators claim that market mecha-nisms and technological developments may be har-nessed to combat climate change,6 others argue that such approaches will be insufficient (Andersen & Massa, 2000; Backstrand & Lovbrand, 2006; Grist, 2008). Continuing increases in global greenhouse gas-emission levels provide empirical support for such skepticism (Hansen, 2006; CEC, 2009; WMO, 2009). Furthermore, evidence suggests that since the 1990s most affluent countries have not decoupled their carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse-gas emissions from growth in gross domestic product (GDP) (OECD, 2008b). Alternative approaches to the question of intergenerational equity embrace the idea that it entails reductions in consumption by current generations (Barry, 1993; Dobson, 2003a; Rees, 2008). In this context, pursuing intergenerational equity may be viewed in terms of strength of com-

6 Market mechanisms include emissions trading, carbon offsetting, and forest sequestration, while technological interventions include carbon storage/sequestration, deflection of heat away from the earth’s surface with solar shields or satellites with movable reflec-tors, and ocean fertilization using iron or similar inputs to increase plankton production (and CO2 absorption).

mitment to reduce consumption rather than relying solely on market/technological solutions.

Third, economically developing countries will disproportionately feel the effects of climate change, partly for geographical reasons and partly because they have limited resources to engage in mitigation or adaption strategies (Baker, 2006; Stern, 2006). This situation reflects the fact that relatively poor countries have contributed least to the problem, yet will suffer most from it, which raises the question of equity. While some scholars and policy makers advocate for international carbon trading, others have suggested that wealthy countries continue to unfairly dominate negotiations around these mechanisms in ways favorable to their own interests (Backstrand & Lovbrand, 2006; Liverman, 2009). Alternative or stronger approaches tend to focus on the idea of con-siderable wealth transfers from North to South to assist mitigation and adaptation policies in southern countries. In this context, a commitment to equity may be assessed in terms of resolve for economic and technological transfers to southern countries rather than relying solely on carbon-trading mechanisms.

Fourth, policy should seek to ensure that inter-generational and intragenerational equity are made compatible (Pearce et al. 1989; Redclift, 1993; Fitzpatrick & Cahill, 2002). This means that in pro-tecting future generations via environmental policies, attention and funds must not be diverted away from addressing the needs of today’s poor. At the same time, policy must ensure that the provision of welfare for the presently disadvantaged is carried out without diverting attention or funds away from addressing the needs of future generations. The HEPI attempts to overcome this dilemma by requiring all policy goals, including social policy, to be compatible with envi-ronmental objectives. Certain policies exist that ap-pear to reflect this ethos, for example, green social economy initiatives (Davies, 2009) or the energy retrofitting of social housing (Gough et al. 2008). On a broader level, the application of HEPI would re-quire agencies responsible for the provision of essen-tial welfare services (e.g., health, housing, education, social security) to develop and implement plans to substantially reduce the carbon emissions associated with the delivery of these services. In this way, policy seeks to simultaneously meet the needs of today’s poor and future generations. Gough et al. (2008) pro-vide a good overview of policy debates related to such issues. In this context, policy imbued with the spirit of equity may be viewed in terms of commit-ment to decouple welfare provision from carbon emissions.

Finally, it has been noted by writers such as Rowley & Holmberg (1995), Moffat (1996), and Purvis & Grainger (2004) that pollution is inequitably



23

distributed on a global level. A combination of de-mand for certain goods in the North and poverty in the South forces economically developing countries to eschew strict environmental legislation for eco-nomic survival. This asymmetry effectively leads to the “export of pollution” to poorer countries, a dy-namic that is manifest in different ways around the world. There is an abundance of evidence that indus-tries in rich countries relocate to poorer nations where cheaper and dirtier production processes are tolerated (Faber, 1993; Faber & McCarthy, 2003). Greenpeace (2002) notes that export credit agencies (ECAs) in developed countries have, in recent years, substantially increased their financing of fossil-fuel power in developing countries. The organization goes on to note that, while the UK continues to fund the export of dirty coal technologies to poorer nations, the last coal-powered station built in the UK was in 1972. The increased export of electrical and elec-tronic equipment waste from Western countries to Asia due to “cheaper labor” and “lack of environ-mental standards” has also been documented (Puckett et al. 2002). Furthermore, Webber et al. (2008) found that while Chinese CO2 emissions have increased dramatically in recent years, approximately one third of these releases are due to the production of exports, primarily targeted at the developed world.7 In this context, policy imbued with the spirit of equity may be viewed in terms of commitment to curb the “ex-port of pollution.”

Awareness for Sustainability

Awareness for sustainability is a key social con-cept in SD discourse. The associated policy objec-tives refer to raising public awareness of sustain-ability issues with a view to encouraging alternative, sustainable consumption patterns. Policies typically include “green” advertising campaigns, ecolabelling, awareness-raising events, environmental education programs, and education for sustainable development (ESD) programs. These initiatives and campaigns encourage consumers to engage in more environ-mentally benign behavior and to accept the legiti-macy of coercive environmental legislation. This objective is clearly articulated in key UN documents (WCED, 1987; UNCED, 1992; WSSD, 2002; UNESCO, 2004), EU communications (CEC, 2001; 2004; Council of European Union, 2006), green so-cial policy materials (Gough et al. 2008; Meadowcroft, 2008), and ecological modernization literature (Spaargaren, 2000; 2003; 2006; Spaargaren & van Vliet, 2000; Spaargaren & Mol, 2008). Awareness for sustainability receives relatively less

7 According to Weber et al. (2008), Chinese emission levels dou-bled from 2002 to 2007.

treatment in the social sustainability literature, though education as an end in itself is often seen as a key objective. For example, Vavik & Keitsch (2010) cite “access to education” as one of three important pol-icy goals for social sustainability. Similarly, while education for its own sake is presented as a key social indicator in international SDIs, these sets do not in-clude gauges to measure commitment to ESD or en-vironmental awareness. This focus represents a sig-nificant weakness, as all contributors to SD debates articulate the need for awareness. Including indica-tors related to ESD in SDI sets would more effec-tively embrace the spirit of linking social-environmental objectives.

An important distinction between UN documents and the ecological modernization literature warrants attention. While UN materials embrace a more radi-cal position on awareness, the ecological moderniza-tion position does not move too far from traditional Western development norms. For example, the Brundtland Report argues that western consumption levels are ecologically unsustainable and that atti-tudes must be changed to arrest such trends (WCED, 1987). In addition, Agenda 21 states that awareness programs should stimulate ethical consciousness, address socioeconomic issues, and encourage spir-itual development (UNCED, 1992). These programs should be “integrated into all disciplines” and a “thorough review of curricula” is called for. UNESCO (2004) furthermore argues that ESD must be informed by a “sensitivity to the limits and poten-tial of economic growth and their impact on society and the environment” and by a concern for social justice. To promote these objectives, the UN launched the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, 2005–2014.

In contrast, the ecological modernization ap-proach is more politically modest. Most comprehen-sively and coherently expressed in Spaargaren’s the-ory of consumption (Spaargaren, 2000; 2003; 2006; Spaargaren & van Vliet, 2000; Spaargaren & Mol, 2008), this understanding places great faith in a com-bination of environmental awareness and market mechanisms to deliver sustainability. As a result of greater environmental awareness and a sense of ethi-cal responsibility, consumers will seek opportunities to “green” their lifestyles and domestic routines. In particular, proponents of ecological modernization claim that environmental innovations introduced during the 1990s, such as organic food products, green electricity schemes, or greywater-management systems were a direct result of environmentally aware consumer demand (see, e.g., Spaargaren & van Vliet, 2000). In short, “green” consumption backed up by awareness campaigns, rather than reductions in ab-



24

solute consumption levels, is viewed as central to thwarting environmental threats.8

Ecological modernization does not challenge the traditional growth model in the same way as the UN documents. The latter includes calls for significant reductions in consumption, encouragement of spir-itual development, critique of socioeconomic norms, concern for social justice, and engagement with the idea of “limits to growth.” Furthermore, while a key UN document, the Aalborg Charter, suggests that quality of life should be decoupled from “maximizing consumption,” the literature on ecological moderni-zation does not generally embrace the promotion of nonmaterial conceptions of happiness. Therefore, the ecomodernist approach is far less radical. In this context, policy approaches may be examined to as-sess 1) a commitment to designing and implementing programs of ESD through the formal and informal education sectors, and 2) the extent to which ESD programs challenge the traditional growth paradigm, including the promotion of nonmaterial conceptions of happiness. Participation

Participation is a critical concept in SD dis-course. In terms of policy, it refers to the goal of in-cluding as many social groups as possible in decision-making processes. This approach is justified on the basis that benefits accrue to both citizen and state. By joining in participatory processes, individu-als and groups can enhance their social inclusion. In addition, the participation of more social groups in-creases the likelihood that civil society will deem government policy legitimate. By including a range of voices, increased public engagement promotes social cohesion and social sustainability (Goodland, 2002; Chan & Lee, 2008; Cuthill, 2009; Dempsey et al. 2011). Numerous observers also view participa-tion as important for promoting environmental goals; furthermore, policy objectives in international docu-ments point to the need for governments to engage with civil society to achieve environmental sustain-ability (WCED, 1987; UNCED, 1992; ESCTC, 1994; WSSD, 2002; ODPM, 2005; CEU, 2006). The eco-logical modernization literature also widely articu-lates the need for broadening the participatory base (Mol, 2000; Mol & Spaargaren, 2002), although some proponents of this approach are viewed as “stronger” than others (Hajer, 1995; Christoff, 1996; Dryzek, 2005; Howes et al. 2009).

The underlying premise here is that if people are involved in decision making, they are more likely to

8 While Mol & Spaargaren (2004) dispute this point, it is generally held that ecological modernization is hostile to strategies that entail reductions in consumption.

support environmental reform. Therefore, increasing participation is often presented in terms of creating legitimacy. Such forms of engagement are said to allow societies to build consensus about the legiti-macy of collective political choices such as reducing consumption and accepting ecotaxes (Baker, 2006) and allow a wide range of groups to resolve potential developmental conflicts (Toke et al. 2008).

However, the link between increased participa-tion and environmentally benign outcomes can be problematic (Jordan, 2008). Certain participating groups have more power than others and may domi-nate policy-making processes to promote their own ends in ways that undermine environmental goals (Meadowcroft & Lafferty, 1996; Baker, 2006). Countless examples from the literature illustrate how business groups, frequently supported by the state, often use their considerable resources to thwart envi-ronmental goals (Keohane, 1998; Benton, 2002). Furthermore, correlations between diffusing power to the local level and achieving environmental goals are also problematic. For example, Toke et al. (2008) point to evidence that regional/local planning systems that allow for citizen participation have in some cases hindered the development of wind power in the UK. On the basis of such outcomes, some observers con-tend that “equally strong arguments can be made against widespread public involvement” in environ-mental planning decisions (see, e.g., Connelly, 2007).

In light of such qualifications, contemporary per-spectives tend to advocate for a “smart mix” of a strong state and stakeholder participation (Baker, 2009). For stakeholders to operate on a level playing field, funding must be made available to less power-ful groups to ensure they have a genuine capacity to participate fully, not merely in a “token” way (Connaughton et al. 2008; Amajirionwu & Barlett, 2009). Environmental decision-making processes need to incorporate mechanisms that require planning to meaningfully reflect the needs of future genera-tions. Accordingly, policy approaches should be ex-amined to assess the extent to which views and pref-erences of weaker groups, including future genera-tions, are reflected in ultimate decisions.

Social Cohesion

Social cohesion is a salient concept in social policy discourse and debates; that the OECD (2009) lists it as one of four key themes in its social indicator set of 2009 indicates its centrality. Within SD dis-course, the promotion of social cohesion as a policy objective appears to occupy a particularly important place in the social sustainability literature and EU SD policy. It receives less treatment in UN documents and is ignored in ecological modernization literature. The meaning of social cohesion is variously defined.



25

It has been linked to such policy objectives as pro-moting happiness/well-being; minimizing social strife; reducing crime; promoting interpersonal trust; and combating suicide, bullying, and antisocial be-havior (OECD, 2009). The concept of social cohesion has become central to EU policy in general and EU SD policy in particular (Eurostat, 2005; 2007; ODPM, 2005; CEU, 2006). In fact, the term “social cohesion” in EU SD documents appears to be a sur-rogate for the social pillar. That is, these reports tend to refer to the three pillars of SD in terms of eco-nomic growth, environmental protection, and social cohesion (see, e.g., Eurostat, 2007). However, none of the EU SD documents reviewed for this article provide a definition of social cohesion and no EU SD indicators are directly linked to it. In general, EU SD documents establish few clear policy objectives re-lated to social cohesion. An exception is the Bristol Accord which links social cohesion to policy by urging local authorities “to promote a mix of popula-tions, non-segregated areas, accessibility and safety, and the development of opportunity, and facilitate the integration of distressed urban areas” (ODPM, 2005).9

According to several commentators, social cohe-sion is central to the concept of social sustainability (Jörissen et al. 1999; Goodland, 2002; Omann & Spangenberg, 2002; Munasinghe, 2007; Chan & Lee, 2008; Cuthill, 2009; Dempsey et al. 2011). This liter-ature represents a welcome improvement on EU SD documents in that it suggests clearer policy objectives and links social cohesion to the need to foster civic participation in public affairs (Omann & Spangenberg, 2002); to strengthen community net-works and reduce conflicts (Munasinghe, 2007); to promote tolerance, solidarity, and integration (Jörissen et al. 1999); to foster a shared sense of so-cial purpose (Baker, 2006); and to combat cultural intolerance (Cuthill, 2009). Dempsey et al. (2011) link social cohesion to the concept of “sustainability of community” and outline five interrelated and measurable dimensions: social interaction/social net-works in the community, participation in collective groups and networks in the community, community stability, pride/sense of place, and safety and secu-rity. Policy objectives related to social cohesion therefore appear to be focused on creating opportuni-ties that promote harmonious coexistence or, at least, combat the potential for civic strife.

Of the four concepts in this framework, social cohesion is most weakly connected to environmental imperatives. The links that do exist fall into two cate-

9 The Bristol Accord is an EU document that outlines what mem-ber states deem to be the chief characteristics of sustainable com-munities.

gories. First, policies and initiatives exist which sim-ultaneously promote social cohesion and environ-mental objectives (win-win). For example, infra-structure may be designed to place essential welfare and leisure services in local areas (Dempsey et al. 2011). The reduction of commuting distances to work reduces CO2 emissions and frees up time for more community participation (Putnam, 2000; Schor, 2010). Initiatives such as “Tidy Towns” competitions and “community cleanups” increase opportunities for social interaction while simultaneously promoting environmental integrity (Department of Environment, Heritage, and Local Government, 2007). In addition, “transition towns” initiatives involve local commu-nities coming together to design programs that seek to protect them from the ill effects of climate change and peak oil, thus promoting social interaction and environmental objectives simultaneously (Brangwyn & Hopkins, 2008). Community groups have a major role to play in locally based climate change adapta-tion strategies, such as responses to flooding and the formulation and implementation of heat plans (Murphy et al. 2012).

Second, environmental factors pose threats to so-cial cohesion. For example, considerable scope exists for conflict over access to food, water, and fuel as a result of climate change and fossil-fuel depletion (see, e.g., Sanchez, 2000; Brown et al. 2007). UNEP (2007) cites the conflict in Darfur as empirical evi-dence in support of this link. The predicted influx of climate refugees into Europe from Africa (Brown et al. 2007; Carnegie UK, 2009) or from Central and South America (Schwartz & Randall, 2003) also pre-sents challenges to social cohesion. The diversion of resources away from welfare provision to combat the effects of climate change may also cause considera-ble social tensions (Gough et al. 2008). Policy objec-tives therefore refer to initiatives that combat the kinds of environmental conditions that promote so-cial disharmony or upheaval. As such, policy ap-proaches may be assessed on the basis of four com-mitments: 1) to infrastructure planning that concur-rently promotes social integration and environmental sustainability, 2) to the promotion of social activities that have an environmental focus, 3) to the develop-ment of “transition towns” or initiatives of a similar nature, and 4) to combating the kinds of environ-mental conditions that cause civic strife.

Conclusion

While the social pillar of SD is relatively unex-plored territory, some of the work highlighted above suggests that a broad understanding is emerging re-garding key concepts and policy objectives. This awareness is rooted in social policy discourse and has



26

been transposed onto the social sustainability dis-course, work that represents a major contribution to our appreciation of the social pillar.

This article argues that these social pillars may be expanded to incorporate a stronger emphasis on environmental, international, and intergenerational dimensions and that this enlargement would also extend to SDIs. This contention is based on an under-standing of SD as a holistic concept requiring simul-taneous recognition of these dimensions. Existing social pillars focus on promoting welfare at national levels and the environmental implications of such provision need to be clearly articulated.

While the social sustainability literature appears to have broadly answered the question of “what is the social pillar of SD,” a host of supplementary ques-tions emerge under the remittance of the social pillar. These questions form the basis of the social pillar framework proposed in this article. For example, how can the environmental impact of current welfare pro-vision be minimized? How might the goal of global equity be made compatible with environmental ob-jectives? How might education systems be altered to resocialize citizens for sustainability? How might participative mechanisms incorporate the aspirations of vulnerable groups, current and future? The an-swers to these questions can form the basis of an alternative set of social indicators that could serve to supplement existing “social pillars” in ways that em-brace environmental, international, and intergenera-tional dimensions. This framework could be used to analyze how different states and organizations con-ceive of the social pillar and the extent to which so-cial and environmental dynamics have been linked. References Agyeman, J. & Evans, B. 2004. “Just sustainability:” the emerging

discourse of environmental justice in Britain? The Geo-graphical Journal 170(2):155–164.

Amajirionwu, M. & Barlett, J. 2009. Sub-national Sustainable Development Indicators. Briefing paper prepared for Comhar SDC. Dublin: Comhar Sustainable Development Council.

Andersen, M. & Massa, I. 2000. Ecological modernisation: origins, dilemmas and future directions. Journal of Environmental Planning and Policy 2(4):337–345.

Backstrand, K. & Lovbrand, E. 2006. Climate governance beyond 2010: competing discourses of green governmentality, eco-logical modernisation and civic environmentalism. In M. Pettenger (Ed.), The Social Construction of Climate Change: Power, Knowledge, Norms, Discourse. pp. 123–148. Alder-shot: Ashgate

Baker, S. 2006. Sustainable Development. New York: Routledge. Baker, S. 2007. Sustainable development as symbolic commit-

ment: declaratory politics and the seductive appeal of eco-logical modernisation in the European Union. Environmental Politics 16(2):297–317.

Baker, S. 2009. In Pursuit of Sustainable Development: A Govern-ance Perspective. Eighth International Conference of the Eu-

ropean Society for Ecological Economics. June 29–July 2, Ljubljana.

Baker, S., Kousis, M., Richardson, D., & Young, S. 1997. The Politics of Sustainable Development: Theory, Policy and Practice within the European Union. New York: Routledge.

Barron, L. & Gauntlett, E. 2002. Housing and Sustainable Com-munities Indicators Report: Project Stage 1 Report Model of Social Sustainability. Perth: Western Australian Council of Social Service.

Barry, B. 1993. Intergenerational justice in energy policy. In M. Fisk (Ed.), Justice. pp. 223–237. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.

Barry, B. 1999. Sustainability and intergenerational justice. In A. Dobson (Ed.), Fairness and Futurity: Essays on Environ-mental Sustainability and Social Justice. pp. 93–117. New York: Oxford University Press.

Barry, J. 1998. Social policy and social movements: ecology and social policy. In N. Ellison & C. Pierson (Eds.), Develop-ments in British Social Policy. pp. 218–233. New York: Macmillan.

Barton, H. 2000. Conflicting perceptions of neighbourhood. In H. Barton (Ed.), Sustainable Communities: The Potential for Eco-Neighbourhoods. pp. 3–18. London: Earthscan.

Beckerman, W. 1995. Small is Stupid: Blowing the Whistle on the Greens. London: Duckworth.

Beckerman, W. 1999. Sustainable development and our obligations to future generations. In A. Dobson (Ed.), Fairness and Fu-turity: Essays on Environmental Sustainability and Social Justice. pp. 71–92. New York: Oxford University Press.

Benton, T. 2002. Social theory and ecological politics: reflexive modernisation or green socialism? In R. Dunlap, F. Buttel, P. Dickens, & A. Gijswijt (Eds.), Sociological Theory and the Environment: Classical Foundations, Contemporary In-sights. pp. 252–273. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Brangwyn, B. & Hopkins, R. 2008. Transition Initiatives Primer: Becoming a Transition Town, City, District, Village, Com-munity, or Even Island. Devon, UK: Transitions Network. http://www.transitionnetwork.org/sites/default/files/TransitionInitiativesPrimer%283%29.pdf.

Bramley, G., Dempsey, N., Power, S., & Brown, C. 2006. What is “Social Sustainability” and How Do Our Existing Urban Forms Perform in Nurturing It? Planning Research Conference. April 5–7, Bartlett School of Planning, University College London.

Bramley, G. & Power, S. 2009. Urban form and social sustain-ability: the role of density and house type. Environment and Planning B 36(1):30–48.

Brown, O., Hammill, A., & McCleman, R. 2007. Climate change as the “new” security threat: implications for Africa. Interna-tional Affairs 83(6):1141–1154.

Bryant, B. (Ed.). 1995. Environmental Justice: Issues, Policies, and Solutions. Covelo, CA: Island Press.

Bullard, R. 1999. Dismantling environmental racism in the USA. Local Environment 4(1):5–19.

Bullard, R. 2000. Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class and Environ-mental Quality. 3rd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Cahill, M. 1991. The greening of social policy? In N. Manning (Ed.), Social Policy Review 1990–91. New York: Longman.

Cahill, M. 2001. The Environment and Social Policy. London: Routledge.

Carnegie UK. 2009. Climate Change and Resource Scarcity: A Discussion Paper for Non-environmental Civil Society Groups. Fife, UK: Carnegie UK Trust.

Casula Vifell, A. & Soneryd, L. 2012. Organizing matters: how “the social dimension” gets lost in sustainability projects. Sustainable Development 20(1):18–27.

Chan, E. & Lee, K. 2008. Critical factors for improving social sustainability of urban renewal projects. Social Indicators Research 85(2):243–256.



27

Christoff, P. 1996. Ecological modernisation, ecological moderni-ties. Environmental Politics 5(3):476–500.

Colantonio, A. 2007. Social Sustainability: An Exploratory Analy-sis of its Definition, Assessment Methods, Metrics and Tools: Best Practice from Urban Renewal in the EU. Oxford: Ox-ford Brooks University.

Collier, U. 1997. Energy and Environment in the European Union. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Commission of the European Communities (CEC). 2001. A Sus-tainable Europe for a Better World: A European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development. Brussels: CEC.

Commission of the European Communities (CEC). 2004. EU Member State Experiences with Sustainable Development In-dicators. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Commission of the European Communities (CEC). 2009. Main-streaming Sustainable Development in EU Policies: 2009 Review of the European Union Strategy for Sustainable De-velopment. Brussels: CEC.

Combat Poverty Agency (CPA). 2008. Submission to the Commis-sion on Taxation: Proposal for Recycling of Revenue from a Carbon Tax to Combat Fuel Poverty. Dublin: CPA.

Connaughton, B., Quinn, B., & Rees, N. 2008. Rhetoric or reality? Responding to the challenge of sustainable development and new governance patterns in Ireland. In S. Baker & K. Eckerberg (Eds.), In Pursuit of Sustainable Development: New Governance Practices at the Sub-national Level in Eu-rope. pp. 145–169. New York: Routledge.

Connelly, S. 2007. Mapping sustainable development as a con-tested concept. Local Environment 12(3):259–278.

Council of European Union (CEU). 2006. Renewed European Union Sustainable Development Strategy. Brussels: Euro-pean Council.

Cuthill M. 2009. Strengthening the social in sustainable develop-ment: developing a conceptual framework for social sustain-ability in a rapid urban growth region in Australia. Sustain-able Development 18(6):362–373.

Davies, A. 2006. Environmental justice as subtext or omission: examining discourses of anti-incineration campaigning in Ireland. Geoforum 37(5):708–724.

Davies, A. 2009. Does sustainability count? Environmental policy, sustainable development and the governance of grassroots sustainability enterprise in Ireland. Sustainable Development 17(3):174–182.

Dean, H. 2001. Green citizenship. Social Policy and Administra-tion 35(5):490–503.

Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Powers, S., & Brown, C. 2011. The social dimension of sustainable development: defining urban social sustainability. Sustainable Development 19(5):289–300.

Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government. 2005. Sustainable Rural Housing: Guidelines for Planning Authorities. Dublin: Stationery Office. http://www.irish spatialstrategy.ie/Rural%20Planning%20Guidelines%2013505.pdf.

Dixon, T. & Colantonio, A. 2008. Submission to EIB Consultation on the Draft EIB Statement of Environmental and Social Principles and Standards. Oxford: Oxford Institute for Sus-tainable Development.

Dobson, A. 2003a. Social justice and environmental sustainability: ne’er the twain shall meet. In J. Agyeman, R. Bullard, & B. Evans (Eds.), Just Sustainabilities: Development in an Une-qual World. pp. 83–95. London: Earthscan.

Dobson, A. 2003b. Citizenship and the Environment. New York: Oxford University Press.

Dobson, A. 2007. Environmental citizenship: towards sustainable development. Sustainable Development 15(6):276–285.

Dryzek, J. 2005. The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Dis-courses. New York: Oxford University Press.

Dryzek, J. 2008. The ecological crisis of the welfare state. Journal of European Social Policy 18(4):325–344.

Eurostat. 2005. Measuring Progress Towards a More Sustainable Europe: Sustainable Development Indicators in the Euro-pean Union. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Eurostat. 2007. Measuring Progress Towards a More Sustainable Europe: 2007 Monitoring Report of the EU Sustainable De-velopment Strategy. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publi-cations of the European Communities.

European Sustainable Cities and Towns Charter (ESCTC). 1994. The Aalborg Charter. Aalborg, Denmark. http://ec.europa.eu/ environment/urban/pdf/aalborg_charter.pdf.

Faber, D. 1993. Environment Under Fire: Imperialism and the Ecological Crisis in Central America. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Faber, D. (Ed.) 1998. The Struggle for Ecological Democracy: Environmental Justice Movements in the United States. New York: Guildford Press.

Faber, D. & McCarthy, D. 2003. Neo-liberalism, globalization and the struggle for ecological democracy: linking sustainability and environmental justice. In J. Agyeman, R. Bullard, & B. Evans (Eds.), Just Sustainabilities: Development in an Une-qual World. pp. 39–63. London: Earthscan.

Fahey, T. 1995. Role of social indicators. In F. Convery & J. Feehan (Eds.), Assessing Sustainability in Ireland. pp. 33–38. Dublin: The Environmental Institute UCD.

Ferris, J. 1993. Ecological versus social rationality: can there be green social policies? In A. Dobson & P. Loucardie (Eds.), The Politics of Nature. pp. 145–60. London: Routledge.

Fitzpatrick, T. 1998. The implications of ecological thought for social welfare. Critical Social Policy 18(54):5–26.

Fitzpatrick, T. 2001. Making welfare for future generations. Social Policy and Administration 35(5):506–520.

Fitzpatrick, T. & Cahill, M. 2002. Environment and Welfare: To-wards a Green Social Policy. New York: Palgrave Macmil-lan.

Frijns, J., Phoung, P., & Mol, A. 2000. Ecological modernisation theory and industrialising economies: the case of Vietnam. Environmental Politics 9(1):257–292.

Gardiner, S. 2006. A perfect moral storm: climate change, inter-generational ethics and the problem of moral corruption. En-vironmental Values 15(3):397–413.

George, V. & Wilding, P. 1994. Welfare and Ideology. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

George, V. & Wilding, P. 1999. British Society and Social Wel-fare: Towards a Sustainable Society. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Goodland, R. 2002. Sustainability: human, social, economic and environmental. In T. Munn (Ed), Encyclopedia of Global En-vironmental Change. pp. 488–489. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Gough, I., Meadowcroft, J., Dryzek, J., Gerhards, J., Lengfeld, H., Marandya, A., & Ortiz, R. 2008. JESP symposium: climate change and social policy. Journal of European Social Policy 18(4):325–344.

Greenpeace. 2002. Exporting Pollution: Double Standards in UK Energy Exports. London: Greenpeace.

Grist, N. 2008. Positioning climate change in sustainable develop-ment discourse. Journal of International Development 20(6): 783–803.

Hajer, M. 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Eco-logical Modernisation and the Policy Process. New York: Clarendon Press.

Hansen, J. 2006. Can We Still Avoid Dangerous Human-made Climate Change? Presentation February 10, New School University, New York. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2006/ NewSchool_20060210.pdf.

Harvey, D. 1996. Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference. Malden, MA: Blackwell.



28

Hofrichter, R. (Ed.). 1993. Toxic Struggles: The Theory and Prac-tice of Environmental Justice. Philadelphia: New Society Publishers.

Howes, M., McKenzie, M., Gleeson, B., Gray, R., Burns, J., & Daniels, P. 2009. A Preliminary Assessment of the Potential to Adapt Ecological Modernisation to the Australian Context. Brisbane: Griffith University.

Huby, M. 1998. Social Policy and the Environment. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Humphrey, M. 2002. The ideologies of green welfare. In T. Fitzpatrick & M. Cahill (Eds.), Environment and Welfare: Towards a Green Social Policy. pp. 43–60. New York: Pal-grave McMillan.

Irvine, S. & Ponton, A. 1988. A Green Manifesto: Policies for a Green Future. London: MacDonald.

International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 1980. World Conservation Strategy. New York: United Nations.

Jordan, A. 2008. The governance of sustainable development: taking stock and looking forward. Environment and Planning C 26(1):17–33.

Jordan, A. & Lenschow, A. 2008. Integrating the environment for sustainable development: an introduction. In A. Jordan & A. Lenschow (Eds.), Innovation in Environmental Policy? Inte-grating the Environment for Sustainability. pp. 3–23. North-ampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Jordan, A., Wurzel, R., Zito, A., & Brückner, L. 2003. Policy innovation or muddling through? New environmental policy instruments in the UK. Environmental Politics 12(1):179–200.

Jörissen, J., Kopfmüller, J., Brandl, V., & Paetau, M. 1999. An Integrated Concept for Efficient Development. Karlsruhe: FZ Karlsruhe Research Reports.

Karlsson, R. 2009. Individual Guilt or Collective Progressive Action? Challenging the Strategic Potential of Environmen-tal Citizenship Theory. International Studies Association. February 15–18, New York.

Keohane, K. 1998. Reflexive modernisation or systematically distorted communications: an analysis of an environmental protection hearing. Irish Journal of Sociology 8(1):71–92.

Lafferty, W. 2002. Adapting Government Practice to the Goals of Sustainable Development: Improving Governance for Sus-tainable Development. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Lafferty, W. & Hovden, E. 2003. Environmental policy integra-tion: towards an analytical framework. Environmental Poli-tics 12(3):1–22.

Langhelle, O. 2000. Why ecological modernisation and sustainable development should not be conflated. Journal of Environ-mental Policy and Planning 2(4):303–322.

Lenschow, A. 1997. Variation in EC environmental policy inte-gration: agency push within complex institutional structures. Journal of European Public Policy 4(1):109–127.

Lenschow, A. (Ed.). 2002. Environmental Policy Integration: Greening Sectoral Policies in Europe. London: Earthscan.

Liberatore, A. 1997. Sustainable development and EU policy making. In S. Baker, M. Kousis, D. Richardson, & S. Young (Eds.), The Politics of Sustainable Development: Theory, Policy and Practice Within the European Union. pp. 107–126. New York: Routledge.

Littig, B. & Griessler, E. 2005. Social sustainability: a catchword between political pragmatism and social theory. International Journal of Sustainable Development 8(1–2):65–79.

Liverman, D. 2009. Conventions of climate change: constructions of danger and the dispossession of the atmosphere. Journal of Historical Geography 35(2):279–296.

Meadowcroft, J. 2005. From welfare state to ecostate. In J. Barry & R. Eckersley (Eds.), The State and the Global Ecological Crisis. pp. 3–24. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Meadowcroft, J. 2008. From welfare state to environmental state. Journal of European Social Policy 18(4):325–344.

Meadowcroft, J. & Lafferty, W. 1996. Democracy and the Envi-ronment: Problems and Prospects. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Miller, D. 1999. Social justice and environmental goods. In A. Dobson (Ed.), Fairness and Futurity: Essays on Environ-mental Sustainability and Social Justice. pp. 151–172. New York: Oxford University Press.

Moffat, I. 1996. Sustainable Development: Principles, Analysis and Policies. New York: Parthenon.

Mol, A. 1999. Ecological modernisation and the environmental transformation of Europe: between national variations and common denominators. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 1(2):167–181.

Mol, A. 2000. The environmental movement in an era of ecologi-cal modernisation. Geoforum 31(1):45–56.

Mol, A. & Spaargaren, G. 2000. Ecological modernisation theory in debate: a review. Environmental Politics 9(1):17–49.

Mol, A. & Spaargaren, G. 2002. Ecological modernisation and the modern state. In A. Mol & F. Buttel (Eds.), The Environmen-tal State Under Pressure. pp. 33–52. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Mol, A. & Spaargaren, G. 2004. Ecological modernisation and consumption: a reply. Society and Natural Resources 17(3):261–265.

Munasinghe, M. 2007. Sustainable Development Triangle. http:// www.eoearth.org/article/Sustainable_development_triangle. December 2, 2012.

Murphy, K., Irwin, A., & O’Mahony, T. 2012. Towards Climate Justice: A Strategy Guide for the Community Sector in Re-sponding to Climate Change. EPA Climate Change Research Programme 2007–2013. Wexford: Environmental Protection Agency.

Nilsson, M., Pallemaerts, M., & Von Homeyer, I. 2009. Interna-tional regimes and environmental policy integration: intro-ducing the special issue. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 9(4):337–350.

Norton, B. 1999. Ecology and opportunity: intergenerational equity and sustainable options. In A. Dobson (Ed.), Fairness and Futurity: Essays on Environmental Sustainability and Social Justice. pp. 118–150. New York: Oxford University Press.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2008a. Key Environmental Indicators. Paris: OECD

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2008b. Measuring Sustainable Development: Re-port on the Joint UNECE/OECD/Eurostat Working Group on Statistics for Sustainable Development. New York: United Nations.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2009. Society at a Glance 2009–OECD Social Indi-cators. http://www.oecd.org/els/social/indicators/SAG. Feb-ruary 14, 2010.

Office of the [UK] Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM). 2005. Bristol Accord: Conclusions of Ministerial Informal on Sustainable Communities in Europe UK Presidency. London: ODPM. http://www.eib.org/attachments/jessica_bristol_accord_sustainable_communities.pdf.

Omann, I. & Spangenberg, J. 2002. Assessing Social Sustain-ability: The Social Dimension of Sustainability in a Socio-Economic Scenario. Seventh Biennial Conference of the In-ternational Society for Ecological Economics. March 6–9, Sousse, Tunisia.

Pearce, D., Markandya, A., & Barbier, E. 1989. Blueprint for a Green Economy. London: Earthscan.

Persson, A. 2004. Environmental Policy Integration: An Introduc-tion. Stockholm: Stockholm Environment Institute.

Puckett, J., Byster, L., Westervelt, S., Gutierrez, R., Davis, S., Hussain, A., & Dutta, M. 2002. Exporting Harm: The High-Tech Trashing of Asia. Seattle/San Jose: Basil Action Net-work/Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition.

Purvis, M. & Grainger, A. 2004. Exploring Sustainable Develop-ment: Geographical Perspectives. London: Earthscan.



29

Putnam, R. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Redclift, M. 1993. Sustainable development: needs, values, rights. Environmental Values 2(1):3–20.

Rees, W. 2008. Human nature, eco-footprints and environmental injustice. Local Environment 13(8):685–701.

Rowley, J. & Holmberg, J. 1995. Stabilizing population: the big-gest challenge. In J. Kirby, P. O’Keefe, & L. Timberlake (Eds.), The Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Development. pp. 115–124. London: Earthscan.

Sanchez, P. 2000. Linking climate change research with food secu-rity and poverty reduction in the tropics. Ecosystems & Envi-ronment 82(1–3):371–383.

Schwartz, P. & Randall, D. 2003. An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Se-curity. San Francisco, CA: Global Business Network. http://www.gbn.com/consulting/article_details.php?id=53.

Schor, J. 2010. Plentitude: The New Economics of True Wealth. New York: Penguin Press.

Scott, S. 2007. Submission on the Report of the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government: Ireland’s Pathway to Kyoto Compliance—A Review of the National Climate Change Strategy. Dublin: Economic and Social Re-search Institute.

Singer, P. 2006. Ethics and climate change: a commentary on MacCracken, Toman and Gardiner. Environmental Values 15 (3):415–422.

Spaargaren, G. 2000. Ecological modernisation theory and domes-tic consumption. Journal of Environmental Policy and Plan-ning 2(4):323–325.

Spaargaren, G. 2003. Sustainable consumption: a theoretical and environmental policy perspective. Society and Natural Re-sources 16(8):687–701.

Spaargaren, G. 2006. The Ecological Modernisation of Social Practices at the Consumption Junction. Sustainable Con-sumption and Society International Working Conference. June 2–3, Madison, Wisconsin.

Spangenberg, J. 2007. Towards an Integrated Concept of Sustain-ability. Sustainable Development Planning Conference. No-vember 30, Goethe Institute, Riga.

Spaargaren, G. & Mol, A. 2008. Greening global consumption: redefining politics and authority. Global Environmental Change 18(3):350–359.

Spaargaren, G. & van Vliet, B. 2000. Lifestyles, consumption and the environment: the ecological modernisation of domestic consumption. Environmental Politics 9(1):50–76.

Stern, N. 2006. Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change, Executive Summary. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Thin, N. 2002. Social Progress and Sustainable Development. London: ITDG Publishing.

Thin, N., Lockhart, C., & Yaron, G. 2002. Conceptualising So-cially Sustainable Development. London: Department for In-ternational Development and World Bank.

Trainer, F. 1998. The significance of the limits to growth for the discussion of social policy. International Journal of Sociol-ogy and Social Policy 18(11–12):21–46.

Toke, D., Bruekers, S., & Wolsink, M. 2008. Wind power deploy-ment outcomes: how can we account for the differences? Re-newable and Sustainable Energy Review 12(4):1129–1147.

Turkington, R. & Sangster, K. 2006. From housing to social mix: housing’s contribution to social sustainability. Town and Country Planning 75(6):184–185.

Tremmel, J. (Ed.). 2006. Handbook of Intergenerational Justice. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

United Nations Commission for Sustainable Development (UNCSD). 1996. Indicators for Sustainable Development, Framework and Methodology. http://esl.jrc.it/envind/un_ meths/UN_ME_c.htm. January 29, 2012.

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). 1992. Documents of the Rio Conference on Envi-ronment and Development. New York: United Nations.

United Nations Department of Social and Economic Affairs (UNDESA) 2001. Indicators of Sustainable Development: Framework and Methodologies. New York: United Nations.

United Nations Department of Social and Economic Affairs (UNDESA) 2007. Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies. New York: United Nations.

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). 1998. The Aarhus Convention. http://ec.europa.eu/ environment/aarhus/. January 29, 2012.

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 2004. United Nations Decade for Sustainable Development 2005–2014 Draft International Implementation Scheme. Paris: UNESCO.

United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). 1972. The Stock-holm Conference on the Human Environment. http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=97. January 29, 2012.

United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). 2007. Sudan: Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment. Nairobi: UNEP.

Vavik, T. & Keitsch, M. 2010. Exploring relationships between universal design and social sustainable development: some methodological aspects to the debate on the sciences of sus-tainability. Sustainable Development 18(5):295–305.

Weber, C., Peters, G., Guan, D., & Hubacek, K. 2008. The contri-bution of Chinese exports to climate change. Energy Policy 36(9):3572–3577.

Wissenburg, M. 1999. An extension of the Rawlsian savings prin-ciple of liberal theories of justice in general. In A. Dobson (Ed.), Fairness and Futurity: Essays on Environmental Sus-tainability and Social Justice. pp. 173–198. New York: Ox-ford University Press.

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). 1987. Our Common Future. New York: Oxford University Press.

World Meteorological Organisation (WMO). 2009. Greenhouse Gas Bulletin: The State of Greenhouse Gases in the Atmos-phere Using Global Observations Through 2008. Geneva: WMO.

World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). 2002. Doc-uments from the World Summit on Sustainable Develop-ment. http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI _PD/English/POI_PD.htm. January 29, 2012.

Wright, J. & Kurian, J. 2009. Ecological modernization versus sustainable development: the case of genetic modification regulation in New Zealand. Sustainable Development 18(6): 398–412.


2012 Psarikidou & Szerszynski Winter 2012 | Volume 8 | Issue 1

30

ARTICLE

Growing the social: alternative agrofood networks and social sustainability in the urban ethical foodscape Katerina Psarikidou & Bronislaw Szerszynski Department of Sociology, ESRC Centre for the Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics, Lancaster University, Bowland North, Lancaster LA1 4YT United Kingdom (email: [email protected]; [email protected]) Agrofood practices have been an obvious domain in which to implement sustainability. Yet, despite the fact that food carries a dense set of social meanings and functions, sustainability’s social dimension has been relatively neglected in studies of sustainable food initiatives. In this article, we draw on research carried out for the European project “Fa-cilitating Alternative Agro-food Networks” (FAAN), and describe various ways in which alternative agrofood networks in the city of Manchester manifest aspects of social sustainability and the “moral economy,” including relations of soli-darity and justice with proximate and distant others, concern for land and for the global environment, social inclusion of the disadvantaged, and the reskilling of everyday life. However, we also argue for a different way of conceiving social sustainability, which involves not simply adding another “pillar” to the dominating dyad of the economic and the environmental, but subjecting the whole notion of sustainability to a sociomaterial turn—one that questions the onto-logical separation of economy, environment, and society. We show how this approach involves conceiving the urban “ethical foodscape” as a “moral taskscape” in which people dwell and move, interacting with soil, food, and each other through situated practices involving skill and judgment. KEYWORDS: sustainable development, urban agriculture, food, metropolitan areas, social values, sustainable agriculture Introduction

Since the Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987) brought to prominence the notion of sustainable de-velopment, agrofood practices have been an obvious, if challenging, domain for implementing sustain-ability. The “semantic plasticity” of the concept has allowed it to be adopted by diverse actors, from community supported agriculture initiatives to multi-national corporations (Kloppenburg et al. 2000). However, most of these attempts and practices aim, at best, to balance the economic and environmental dimensions of sustainability, and only to do so as conceived in a narrow way. Thus, their goal might, for example, be an agriculture that does not deplete finite resources or disrupt natural biological pro-cesses, while at the same time offering competitive advantage.

In this way, despite the fact that food carries a dense set of social meanings and functions, the social dimension of sustainability has been relatively ne-glected in the mainstream understanding of sustain-able food initiatives. This neglect has not helped to counter the dominance of industrialized agrofood system and governance patterns, which have impeded social sustainability goals by providing few opportu-nities for meaningful public involvement in food production and policy making and by exacerbating

health inequalities as measured by geography and social class.

Against this background, diverse organizations and actors from different backgrounds and interests in the agrofood sector have advanced, frequently in a prefigurative way, their own visions of an alternative sustainable agrofood model. Alternative agrofood networks (AAFNs) is a broad term used to describe initiatives that embody alternatives to the conven-tional industrialized, global agrofood system (Murdoch et al. 2000; Renting et al. 2003). Concepts such as relocalization, respatialization, resocializa-tion, and reconnection have described the different qualities of the possible alternative agrofood para-digm that such networks might prefigure (Renting et al. 2003). Yet, AAFNs appear to enact alternatives not only to unsustainable agrofood practices, but also to the dominant understanding of sustainable agro-food practices. They thus further demonstrate sus-tainability’s interpretive flexibility, by offering a dif-ferent approach to sustainable agrofood practices, one that avoids narrow, desocialized understandings of ecological and economic value (Feenstra, 2002).

A number of studies have examined the sustain-ability potential of AAFNs, such as those involved in organic and local food (e.g., Marsden et al. 1999; Ilbery & Maye, 2005; Iles, 2005; Pretty et al. 2005; Seyfang, 2006). However, this work tends to focus on

Psarikidou & Szerszynski: Alternative Agro-Food Networks


31

the potential of AAFNs for ecological sustainability, for example, by measuring “food miles,” carbon in-puts, and so forth, while others criticize the inade-quacy of the AAFNs to “take care of the social as-pects of sustainability” (Allen et al. 1991), to move beyond power asymmetries and socioeconomic ine-qualities, and to integrate social justice and broad-based equity considerations (Allen et al. 1991; Allen & Wilson, 2008; Brown & Getz, 2008; Getz et al. 2008). Moreover, most of the studies prioritize producer-led rural agrofood networks and the social issues that primarily affect rural actors and residents. In so doing, the work neglects ways in which sustain-able agrofood networks go beyond rural settings to affect and involve urban populations and metropoli-tan regions where the growing commodification and globalization of the dominant agrofood system is increasingly responsible for producing a deskilling and alienation in relation to food production and preparation, or even food insecurity (Koc et al. 1999; Wrigley, 2002).

In this article, we draw on research carried out for the European Facilitating Alternative Agro-food Networks Project (EU FAAN Project) and identify ways in which AAFNs can help to deliver social, as well as economic and ecological, sustainability. Our analysis is primarily based in an urban setting and highlights the social dimensions of AAFNs beyond farm-level practices. We look into the ways that AAFNs constitute new “ethical foodscapes,” built around the practicalities and routines of everyday urban life, which transform food into not only a ma-terial component of the food chain, but also “an ex-pression of cumulative moral sentiment” (Little et al. 2010).

Our research relies on semistructured interviews with key actors in the alternative agrofood sector in Manchester, supplemented by ethnographic observa-tion, publicly available documents, press releases, and Internet sources on food relocalization and agro-food initiatives in the city. We look at a diversity of municipal, charitable, and grassroots initiatives, in-cluding small-scale retailers and producers, workers’ cooperatives, market gardens, mobile grocers, food and health programs, community garden projects, organic agriculture, and permaculture schemes. We show how alternative food systems not only carry economic and environmental benefits, but can also meet many of the criteria that have been enumerated for social sustainability. Our discussion uses the po-litical and economic discourse of the “moral econ-omy” to further understand and investigate the social sustainability potential of agrofood practices (Sayer, 2000). But we also argue that understanding social sustainability as a lived reality involves not simply adding another, social pillar to the familiar dominat-

ing dyad of the ecological and the economic, but re-quires subjecting the whole notion of sustainability to a sociomaterial turn that takes us beyond an ontologi-cal separation of economy, environment, and society.

Sustainability, Social Sustainability and Agrofood Practices

The Brundtland Commission’s report, Our

Common Future, challenged the traditional under-standing of development by insisting on the need to take account of the effects of economic development on the ability of society and nature to reproduce themselves. Sustainability has been criticized as vague and underspecified, but nevertheless has pro-vided a discursive terrain for the formulation of im-aginaries that connect previously separated spheres of human activity. The dominant way of conceiving the multidimensional nature of sustainability has in-volved describing it as consisting of three independ-ent, but necessary, “pillars”: environmental, eco-nomic, and social. This depiction of sustainability received an institutional endorsement at the World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen in 1995, and was more recently underlined by the United Nations 2005 World Summit, whose Outcome Document referred to the “three components of sus-tainable development—economic development, so-cial development and environmental protection—as interdependent and mutually reinforcing pillars” (United Nations, 2005).

However, social sustainability has generally been seen as the weakest of the three pillars—the one which is hardest to implement and easiest to neglect. In the academic literature, it has been conceptualized in diverse ways, underlining the theoretical difficul-ties in analytically comprehending, framing, and de-fining the term in a way applicable to wider sustain-ability projects and agendas. Ballet et al. (2003) de-fine it as “the improvement of the capabilities of well-being (economic, social or environmental) for all, through the aspiration of equity on the one hand…and the transmission across the generations on the other hand.” Social justice, with a special refer-ence to environmental justice, is central to Agyeman & Evans’ (2004) use of the term “just sustainability” to describe the importance of intra- and inter-generational equity in democratic participatory pro-cesses. Magis & Shinn (2009) suggest that integral to “the social dimension of sustainability” are the four principles of human well-being, equity, democratic government, and democratic civil society. Particu-larly in an urban context, social sustainability has been conceived as requiring the development of sus-tainable community (Dempsey et al. 2011), involving concepts and principles such as social capital, social



32

cohesion, and social inclusion. Boström (2010) fol-lows Agyeman & Evans (2004) in arguing that all the above descriptions of social sustainability can broadly be summarized under the two dimensions of the substantive and the procedural: the social goals of sustainable development such as health, equity, and social cohesion, and the means to achieve those goals, such as participation, empowerment, and ac-countability. However, the lack of agreement about the nature of social sustainability as a separate pillar has hampered its translation into policy and imple-mentation (Littig & Griessler, 2005; Davidson, 2009). Sustainable development has thus mainly been perceived as an environmental issue, one that in-volves the integration of environmental concerns into economic decision making (Lehtonen, 2004).

The conceptual openness of sustainability as a principle is also evident in attempts to apply it to agriculture (Kloppenburg et al. 2000). Francis (1988) describes sustainable agriculture as a “management strategy” whose goal is to reduce input costs, mini-mize environmental damage, and provide production and profit over time. In a similar vein, Smit & Smithers (1993) define the concept as referring to the use of resources to produce food and fiber in such a way that the natural resource base is not damaged, and that the basic needs of producers and consumers can be met over the long term. Others emphasize the importance of social goods by applying the three-pillar model to their definitions of sustainable agri-culture. John Ikerd (1993) insists that “sustainable agriculture must be ecologically sound, economically viable, and socially responsible,” while for Feenstra (1997), “sustainable agriculture refers to a system that integrates environmental health, economic prof-itability and social and economic equity.” However, as Allen et al. (1991) comment, most of the time, sustainable agriculture initiatives succeed in chal-lenging only “some but not all the assumptions that underlie agriculture’s non-sustainable aspects, gener-ally neglecting questions of social justice” (see also Altieri, 1988).

Taking a slightly different approach, Gordon Douglass (1984) identified three different conceptu-alizations of sustainability in agriculture, namely resource sufficiency, ecological sustainability, and social sustainability. While seeming to map onto the idea of the three pillars, Douglass’s typology identi-fies not different dimensions of sustainability but different schools or philosophies. In his description, Douglass underlines the narrow technocratic framing of the first two models of sustainability, since the initial one is primarily concerned with sustained yield and long-term benefits to agricultural producers and the second with the need not to violate or disrupt vital

biological and ecological processes (see also Allen et al. 1991).

Douglass’s preferred third philosophy of sustain-ability, which he variously describes as community, holistic, or social, presents social sustainability not as a new pillar to be added to the economic and the ecological, but as a whole new paradigm within which to think about the linking of sustainability to the ecological, the economic, and the social. He identifies two important dimensions of social sustain-ability, which correspond with Agyeman & Evans’ (2004) notions of the substantive and procedural as-pects of social sustainability respectively. The first includes justice or fairness in the relationships be-tween community members, food sufficiency, inter- and intragenerational equity, and protection of the rights of future generations to derive benefits from resources (Yunlong & Smit, 1994). The second in-volves participation in decision making as part of a greater democratization of agrofood sociopolitical processes.

Like Douglass, we argue for a conceptualization of social sustainability not as a separate set of re-quirements but as a different way of thinking about sustainability as a whole—one that does not relegate social questions to a separate sphere. In our case, however, we want to argue that the very conception of the social as a third “pillar” or “leg” of sustain-ability performs a problematic conceptual split be-tween the social, the economic, and the environmen-tal, one that encourages narrow and reductionist un-derstandings of both ecology and economics.

Toward a Sociomaterial Analysis of Sustainability

In this article, we argue that the very conception of the social as a third “pillar” or “leg” of sustain-ability is problematic, and leads to narrow, desocial-ized conceptions of nature and the economy. For ex-ample, treating environmental issues as belonging to a separate ontological realm from the social—the former to be defined by the natural sciences, the latter by the social sciences—leads to neglect of the cru-cial, yet often hidden, political work involved in de-fining what belongs to our common world (Latour, 2004). This engenders a situation where, as Davidson (2009) points out, sustainability discourse is largely dominated by an idea of nature that emphasizes “equilibrium” and “stability,” which can in turn en-courage a politics predicated on ideas of balance and stasis rather than a radical openness to new possibili-ties (see also Marcuse, 1998). It also obscures the ways in which environmental problems and their definitions are entangled with problems of social structure, such as social injustice, exclusion, and



33

gender inequality, and in ways that make problematic any attempt clearly to separate them (Becker et al. 1999).

Similarly, the separation between the economic and the social encourages the perpetuation of the “economism” and “productivism” of modern eco-nomic rationality (Lehtonen, 2004), so that what is “sustained” is typically what Karl Polanyi (1957) identified as the social disembeddedness of economic relations from social relations, and the inequalities of power and affluence that follow (Marcuse, 1998). It can encourage a “capitalocentric” view of the econ-omy, where capitalism is presented as a unified sys-tem capable of colonizing the entire social space and of subsuming economic forms and practices that could otherwise be scattered over a diverse economic landscape. In other words, the separation of the eco-nomic and the social can encourage the shrinkage of the economy into a singular space dominated by cap-italist relations of production and excessively formal and monetized forms of provisioning and exchange (Gibson-Graham, 1996; 2006). Along these lines, the actual practice of sustainable development can also reinforce a narrow “sustainability” imaginary, one which erases crucial aspects of its social dimensions and serves to reinforce capitalism’s hegemonic dominance.

We thus argue that the difficulty in conceptual-izing and implementing social sustainability origi-nates in part from its very identification as a separate pillar. Instead, we suggest that an understanding of social sustainability requires not the notion of a third pillar, but a sociomaterial turn in the whole way that we think about sustainability. Such a turn would be social in the sense of attending to social relations, practices, cultural meanings, and normative judg-ments, but also material in terms of recognizing that social life is conducted by embodied beings in con-stant exchange with their physical environment. Thus, rather than understanding the social as some-thing that needs to be traded off against the economy or the environment, our approach sees both as always already entangled in the social. We draw on Sarah Whatmore’s (2002) idea of “hybrid geography,” which she uses to resist the ontological separation of nature and society. Following Bruno Latour (1993), Whatmore uses “hybridity” to signify not the bring-ing together of two or more things that existed in a pure form prior to their combination, but the recogni-tion of the heterogeneous entanglements between social life and matter. So, rather than regarding sus-tainability as being produced by joining together three ontological domains, we explore sustainability in alternative urban food networks as a heterogeneous set of sociomaterial practices, against the background

of which the three independent “pillars” are artificial abstractions.

To do so, we use the idea of the “ethical food-scape,” a term suggested by Goodman et al. (2010), “as a way of conceptualizing and engaging critically with the processes, politics, spaces, and places of the praxis of ethical relationalities embedded and pro-duced in and through the provisioning of food.” Cul-tural geographers have long argued that the provi-sioning of food in the city is amenable to spatial analysis (e.g., Bell & Valentine, 1997); the notion of the ethical foodscape extends this analysis by at-tending to the normative dimensions of spatially situ-ated practices and to relations of local and distant care.

The particular way that we use this term gives it a more sociomaterial interpretation by drawing on the notion of the “taskscape” developed by the anthro-pologist Tim Ingold to describe a spatial arrangement of practical operations conducted by skilled agents in an environment. For Ingold (2000), “[e]very task takes its meaning from its position in an ensemble of tasks, performed in series or in parallel, and usually by many people working together,” and such tasks are typically arranged spatially, like features in a landscape. Each taskscape also has its own temporal-ity, its own pattern of rhythms and flows as it is pro-gressively built up within “the current of sociality” (Ingold, 2000). In our analysis, the ethical foodscape of urban local food networks is also a “moral taskscape” in which their members dwell and move, interacting with soil, food, and each other.

This way of thinking about social sustainability involves not adding a separate set of social issues, but expanding how we think about both economy and nature in order to recognize their inseparability from the social. It implies that the economy has to be con-ceived in a broader sense than that recognized by neoclassical economics, as including a range of for-mal and informal economic activities involving re-production, production, distribution, exchange, and consumption (Sayer, 2004), and as extending beyond the cash economy into a wider set of sociomaterial processes including labor, work, material flow, ener-getic exchange, and value creation. And it means conceptualizing the environment not just in narrowly technical terms of cause and effect, but in a way that recognizes the inherent multiplicity of human rela-tions—semiotic, material, and affectual—with non-human nature. The next section illustrates this move through an analysis of AAFNs in Manchester.



34

Social Sustainability and AAFNs in Manchester The Background

Over the last couple of decades, UK food pro-ducers and consumers have shown increasing interest in generating or supporting alternatives to conven-tional agrofood chains. Stimulus for this development came from food safety issues—the 1996 “mad cow” scandal, the late 1990s controversy over genetically modified food, and the 2001 foot-and-mouth epi-demic—which enhanced public anxiety and demands for more trustworthy food sources. With expanding urban populations in many parts of the world, a growing concern about food insecurity, poverty, and malnutrition has also stimulated alternative agrofood strategies in and around many other cities (FAO, 2007). In relatively affluent settings like the UK, growing concern about the environmental impacts of industrial agriculture and the global trade in food-stuffs has helped to stimulate interest in alternative systems of food production and distribution. AAFNs have, moreover, benefited from a cultural reaction in parts of society against the way that the conventional food system excises the direct experience and under-standing of food origin, quality, and preparation—a manifestation of modernity’s wider tendency toward the deskilling of everyday life and the “sequestration of experience” in relation to external nature (Giddens, 1991).

Our analysis, based on research carried out in 2008–2009, focuses on the city of Manchester. Ac-cording to national statistics from 2009, Manchester is one of the UK’s largest cities, with a population of 483,800 people. It is a metropolitan borough of Greater Manchester, currently the third most popu-lous county of England with 2.6 million people. His-torically, Manchester grew rapidly during the nine-teenth century due to the expansion of the textile industry, and related manufacturing and trade. This traditional economic dependence on industrialization, as well as the wet weather conditions and the hilly topography, has significantly slowed agricultural development in the region.

More recently, the gradual postwar decline in in-dustrial activity and consequent depopulation of Manchester have significantly changed its economic landscape; the city council’s economic strategy has shifted toward finance, the knowledge economy, and the creative industries, although many areas of the city still have not recovered from the loss of manu-facturing employment. As for the agrofood sector, very few residents of Manchester are currently em-ployed in agriculture; food retailing prevails as the most important part of the food chain in the Man-chester economy, and many residents are also em-ployed by large food-manufacturing companies

(Manchester Food Futures, 2007). But many of Man-chester’s specific challenges relate directly or indi-rectly to the contemporary agrofood system, and as we shall see, a number of initiatives have emerged that in different ways use food as a focus in their responses to these urban challenges.

The Network

In Manchester, the threat to the viability and well-being of local communities and economies posed by factors such as poverty, unequal access to goods and services, social exclusion, and health in-equalities has prompted the emergence of a loose network of alternative food initiatives operating in a diverse range of spaces across the city. The network under investigation consists of urban food producers and retailers, cooperatives and family businesses, citizen-led initiatives, and charitable and nonprofit organizations, which variously use or support alter-native methods of production such as organic culti-vation and permaculture, and/or alternative methods of distribution. These initiatives enact their members’ aspirations for a more environmentally sustainable agrofood system to mitigate climate change, peak oil, food miles, and food insecurity. But they also collec-tively perform the space of the city in different ways, through moralized and embodied interactions with food, with the land, and with humans both proximate and distant.

Manchester Food Futures (MFF) is a local au-thority strategic partnership with a central role in coordinating and supporting the sustainable agrofood initiatives under discussion. Following its community strategy of “making Manchester more sustainable” by 2015, MFF is providing and supporting opportunities for residents and local organizations to get involved in projects, training, activities, and events pertaining to sustainable food. A wider network of local food initiatives directly or indirectly involved with MFF has coalesced around the project of creating a more relocalized food system in Manchester. In this article we focus on a selection of these projects:

• The Herbie Van, a mobile greengrocery set up by

the independent charity Manchester Environ-mental Resource Centre (MERCi) and funded by MFF that provides affordable, fresh produce in areas of Manchester with low levels of social and physical mobility or access to fresh food, as well as to local schools, sheltered housing, churches, health clinics, and residents groups (MERCi, 2012; Subject One/MB, 2009).

• The Healthy Eating Local Food Partnership (HeLF), a social enterprise initiated by the com-munity voluntary sector and funded by MFF that engages mental-health service users, young peo-



35

ple, and the community in healthy local food growing, cooking, and retailing activities and thus provides work-based learning opportunities and “moving-on” services, which help people to join mainstream society (Subject Two/RP, 2008).

• Valuing Older People (VOP), a local partnership initiative launched in 2003 by the Manchester City Council, National Health Service (NHS) Manchester, and community and voluntary or-ganizations for targeting and engaging Man-chester’s elder population in sustainable food activities.

• Unicorn Grocery, a workers’ cooperative that sells local, organic, and fair-trade food and do-nates 5% of its turnover to projects consistent with its principles.

• The Glebelands Market Garden, a small co-operative run by former Unicorn workers that provides fresh, local produce to local businesses such as Unicorn and Dig Food.

• Dig Food, a family-based organic noncertified box scheme specializing in good-quality, locally-sourced organic produce. Beyond its work for an alternative supply sys-

tem, MFF has also been active in supporting a num-ber of community food-growing projects, many of which are directly aimed at realizing social benefits. For this reason, they developed Growing Manchester, a program currently supporting fifteen food-growing projects. In these projects, citizen-led initiatives have been an essential part of the network. For example:

• The Manchester Permaculture Network, a grass-

roots initiative set up by local community mem-bers interested in principles of permaculture that supports several community food-growing pro-grams.

• Action for Sustainable Living, a charitable or-ganization, and the Sustainable Neighborhoods Action Group, a pool of individuals and network groups in the community, both promoting sus-tainable living including local food and food growing (Subject Three/HSK, 2008; Subject Four/MT, 2009).

• The Association for Manchester Allotments Societies (AMAS), which supports the city’s lo-cal allotment societies—which in turn allocate allotments of land to individuals for the growing of food—and its horticultural societies.

The Moral Taskscape of Local Food in Manchester

The network sketched above constitutes a micro-cosm of Manchester’s ethical foodscape; in this sec-tion we bring out a few key characteristics of this foodscape, largely using examples drawn from the initiatives discussed. First, the ethical foodscape con-sists of a diverse range of spaces with very different social characteristics, such as shops, cafes and restau-rants, farmers markets, allotments, guerrilla-gardened public spaces, community gardens, therapeutic land-scapes, home-based food-buying coops, gardens, and window boxes. These function as “utopic spaces,” spaces that have “social centrality” for certain social groups and in which ideas of the good society are put into practice (Hetherington, 1998). The ethical food-scape, as we suggested above, is thus also a moral taskscape—not simply an arrangement of space but also an array of practices, of performances involving skill and judgment. This configuration is held to-gether through complex movements of food, people, knowledge, and ideas between these utopic spaces. However, as well as movements, the foodscape is also crisscrossed by a wide range of other kinds of interconnection, as practices close the felt distance between local producers, small-scale retailers, and consumers, and between sites of production and con-sumption. Some spaces are also sites for more pas-sionate and sensuous engagement with food and soil (Degen et al. 2010); some initiatives, such as Herbie, HeLF, and VOP, expand Manchester’s “ethical food-scape” beyond the natural habitats of affluent con-sumers, engaging with people from disadvantaged or isolated sections of the population in housing estates, cafés, hospital day centers, community gardens, and allotments (Subject Two/RP, 2008).

Second, as well as its distinctive spatiality, the ethical foodscape has its own temporalities. New developments in urban studies approach the contem-porary city as a space constituted through the coex-istence of multiple publics, cultures, and histories (Sandercock, 2003). As well as a material infrastruc-ture, cities also have a temporal infrastructure, a fab-ric made of flows and rhythms of different scales, as people, matter, energy, and signs move around the city (Amin & Thrift, 2002). Such rhythms cohere the wider city as a living entity, and equally they hold together the ethical foodscape as people engage in temporally and spatially specific practices in relation to food as part of the city’s social metabolism (Fischer-Kowlaski & Haberl, 2007). The foodscape pulses to a complex overlay of rhythms at daily, weekly, annual, or other timescales, and is grounded in the internal temporalities of work, free time, do-mestic provisioning, biological growth, and seasonal change.



36

Third, in the ethical foodscape the economy is re-embedded in the social. Even in retail spaces, customers typically get involved in a diversity of relations and practices that go beyond the narrow understanding of the economic. They thus contribute to the reconfiguration of the marketplace as a diverse economic space embedded in multiple social rela-tions and interactions. In a sense, the marketplace is returned to the idea of the Greek agora, the situated market, which is simultaneously a space for diverse forms of sociality—personal relations, the reproduc-tion of community, the exchange of knowledge and opinion—and for political action. More widely, so-cial relations across Manchester’s ethical foodscape are characterized by high levels of social cooperation, solidarity, and trust, and often have characteristics of a “gift” economy, in which goods or services are regularly given without expectation of reward. Vol-untary labor is a common feature across the ethical foodscape, ranging from “WWOOFers”1 working as volunteers on organic farms or smallholdings, to mental health service users working on allotments and in kitchens and restaurants. In narrow economic terms, the dependency of many AAFNs on voluntary work renders them economically unsustainable, since their income does not cover the cost of the necessary labor. However, viewed as part of an economy that is re-embedded in social life, these initiatives achieve a different kind of sustainability due to their role in the reproduction of social life itself (Gibson-Graham, 2006).

Fourth, the practices of the ethical foodscape produce diverse forms of “value,” above and beyond narrow economic measures (Graeber, 2001). They do not simply reproduce social relations, but also exhibit a normative surplus in their relation to the desire for a just and sustainable food system. This is evident in the interactions between workers, with many initia-tives organized through democratic forms of common ownership and management, and high levels of soli-darity and cooperation between initiatives. It is also manifest in the relationships between producers and consumers, with personalized exchange relations between the retailers and consumers, and commodi-ties often sold at nonmarket “just prices” to disad-vantaged populations (as in Thompson, 1971). Ideas of justice are also embedded in the purchasing prac-tices of individuals and organizations—which bal-ance concern to support local producers and reduce “food miles” and also to engage in fair trade with the global South (Morgan, 2010)—and in the role that many initiatives play in the inclusion of “unem-

1 WWOOF (World Wide Opportunities on Organic Farms) is an organization that gives individuals the opportunity to volunteer on organic farms and smallholdings.

ployed” or “economically inactive” parts of the pop-ulation (Gibson-Graham, 2006). Both producers and consumers in the AAFNs are also engaged in pro-ducing and reproducing sign value by attaching ethi-cal meanings and narratives to the objects, spaces, and practices of the ethical foodscape (Goodman, 2004).

Fifth, the practices of the ethical foodscape re-verse the tendency in high modernity toward de-skilling and alienation in relation to food practices and other areas of everyday life (Giddens, 1990). As an aspect of their practical “dwelling” in the moral taskscape around food, producers and consumers engage in an array of practical operations and tasks. They draw on, extend, and share their knowledge about the practicalities, ethics, and politics of agro-food production, distribution, and consumption in resistance to the knowledge-expropriating mecha-nisms of the conventional food system. In many cases (e.g., Herbie, HeLF, Unicorn, community food-growing projects), consumers develop growing and cooking skills as an outcome of everyday encounters with nature; they discuss personal experiences and exchange knowledge about species and varieties of plants, fruits and vegetables, and techniques of food preparation. In this way, they uncover lost knowledge and skills, which can best be understood as “not an attribute of an individual body in isolation but of the whole system of relations” constituted by their pres-ence in these environments (Ingold, 2000). These skills not only express the concern to construct and control one’s own body that is so characteristic of late modernity, but also enact a “life politics” that involves an ethic of solidarity and care in relation to proximal and distant human and nonhuman others (Giddens, 1991).

Conclusion

The study of urban AFFNs, we suggest, can pro-

vide useful clues about how to think about sustain-ability in a social way. The first step in this argument is the claim that AAFNs exhibit social sustainability to a significant extent, and we have tried to show that this is the case in Manchester’s ethical foodscape. The alternative agrofood initiatives that we focused on manifested various combinations of the following: relations of solidarity and justice with proximate and distant others, regard for land and for the global envi-ronment, concern for social inclusion, interest in the well-being of the disadvantaged, and the reskilling of everyday life—which encourage us to speak in the language of the “moral economy.” Of course, it is important not to overstate the extent to which “actu-ally existing” AAFNs can deliver all aspects of social sustainability as described in the literature discussed



37

above. These initiatives are often dominated by the new middle class, and serve little more than a niche market. The new networks are still relatively weak and suffer from a policy bias toward the conventional agrofood system. The AAFNs also have their own socioeconomic inequalities and problematic power relations, especially in rural areas and the developing world, with examples of unequal distribution and inequitable access to quality food, poor working con-ditions for farm laborers, and exclusion from decision-making processes (see Allen et al. 1991; Allen & Wilson, 2008; Brown & Getz, 2008; Getz et al. 2008). However, as we have tried to show, urban AAFNs do have a potential to deliver social sustain-ability in many different ways, in settings that are often very challenging.

We have also argued that the social sustainability of AFFNs becomes most clear when it is not under-stood as a separate, third pillar. We proposed a socio-material turn in the study of sustainability, one that understands “the economic” as embedded in social relations, and “the social” as including relations be-tween humans and the material world, and that dis-solves any hard boundaries between the economic, the environmental, and the social. Such a move, we suggest, implies that understanding the social char-acter of sustainability does not involve isolating a distinct aspect, a domain of disembodied social rela-tions and norms, but instead requires us to approach sustainability as a whole in a different way—as a lived, embodied form of life, with its own spatial organization and temporal rhythms. Applied to the study of AFFNs in Manchester, this approach reveals a heterogeneous set of sociomaterial practices com-bining diverse skills and moral judgments around contemporary agrofood processes, organized in spa-tially situated performances across the urban ethical foodscape, and involving a complex set of move-ments of food, people, knowledge, and ideas across the city.

This kind of approach, we would suggest, has wider implications for the study of social sustainabil-ity. It implies that sustainability should be conceived in relation to a far more diverse economic landscape (Gibson-Graham, 1996; 2006), where the meanings of practices of production, exchange, and consump-tion are not exhausted by the formal language of eco-nomics, and where other economies are possible, embedded in a wider range of social relations and wider conceptions of value than those of the market (Polanyi, 1957; Laclau, 1990). To put it another way, we have to place sustainability back into the “current of sociality,” so that we can appreciate the way that sustainability initiatives, such as urban AFFNs, both sustain the social and are sustained by it. Similarly, our approach implies that thinking about the envi-

ronment has to be opened up to the wide range of ideas and practices through which nature, spaces, and landscapes are experienced, used, and understood (Macnaghten & Urry, 1998; Franklin, 2001; Szerszynski, 2005), and to start to think of society as a living, metabolic phenomenon, one that involves the exchange of energy and matter between humans and their environment. Then, sustainability would be revealed as nothing other than the self-reproductive power of the social itself, properly conceived.

Acknowledgement This article draws on work done as part of the research project Facilitating Alternative Agro-Food Networks: Stakeholder Perspectives on Research Needs (FAAN), which was funded by the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under grant agreement #217280. The UK case studies were carried out by Helen Wallace and Becky Price from GeneWatch UK, Les Levidow from the Open University, and the current authors. For more information, see http://www.faanweb.eu. We are grateful to the rest of the UK FAAN team for per-mission to use findings from the Manchester case study, to all our FAAN associates for stimulating discussions about local food networks, and to the three anonymous referees for useful and constructive feedback.

References Agyeman, J. & Evans, B. 2004. Just sustainability: the emerging

discourse of environmental justice in Britain? The Geo-graphical Journal 170(2):155–164.

Allen, P., Van Dusen, D., Lundy, J., & Gliessman, S. 1991. Inte-grating social, environmental, and economic issues in sus-tainable agriculture. American Journal of Alternative Agri-culture 6(1):34–39.

Allen, P. & Wilson, A. 2008. Agri-food inequalities: globalization and localization. Development 51(4):534–540.

Altieri, M. 1988. Beyond agroecology: making sustainable agri-culture part of a political agenda. American Journal of Alter-native Agriculture 3(4):142–143.

Amin, A. & Thrift, N. 2002. Cities: Re-imagining the Urban. Cambridge: Polity.

Ballet, J., Dubois, J.-L., & Mahieu, F.-R. 2003. Le Développement Socialement Durable: Un Moyen D’intégrer Capacités et Durabilité. [Socially Sustainable Development: A Means of Integrating Capabilities and Sustainability]. Paper Presented at the Third Conference on the Capability Approach. Sep-tember 6–9, University of Pavia, Italy (in French).

Becker, E., Jahn, T., & Stiess, I. 1999. Exploring uncommon ground: sustainability and the social sciences. In E. Becker & T. Jahn (Eds.), Sustainability and the Social Sciences: A Cross-Disciplinary Approach Integrating Environmental Considerations into Theoretical Reorientation. pp. 1–22. At-lantic Highlands, NJ: Zed Books.

Bell, D. & Valentine, G. 1997. Consuming Geographies: We Are Where We Eat. New York: Routledge.

Boström, M. 2010. A Missing Pillar? A Literature Review on the Concept of Social Sustainability. Paper resented at the Inter-national Symposium on Environmental Sociology and Sus-tainable Development. July 10–11, Göteborg, Sweden.



38

Brown, S. & Getz, C. 2008. Towards domestic fair trade? Farm labor, food localism, and the “family scale” farm. GeoJour-nal 73(1):1–22.

Davidson, M. 2009. Social sustainability: a potential for politics? Local Environment 14(7):607–619.

Degen, M., Hinchliffe, S., Whatmore, S., & Kearnes, M. 2010. The urban green: passionate involvements with urban natures. In M. Miles & M. Degen (Eds.), Culture & Agency: Contempo-rary Culture and Urban Change. pp. 58–75. Plymouth: Uni-versity of Plymouth Press.


Douglass, G. 1984. The meanings of agricultural sustainability. In G. Douglass (Ed.), Agricultural Sustainability in a Changing World Order. pp. 3–29. Boulder: Westview Press.

Feenstra, G. 1997. What is Sustainable Agriculture? http://www. sarep.ucdavis.edu/concept.htm. January 10, 2012.

Feenstra, G. 2002 Creating space for sustainable food systems: lessons from the field. Agriculture and Human Values 19(2):99–106.

Fischer-Kowalski, M. & H. Haberl (Eds.). 2007. Socioecological Transitions and Global Change: Trajectories of Social Me-tabolism and Land Use. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2007. Profitability and Sustainability of Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture. Agricultural Management, Marketing and Finance Occasional Paper. Rome, Italy: FAO. ftp://ftp.fao. org/docrep/fao/010/a1471e/a1471e00.pdf.

Francis, C. 1988. Research and extension agenda for sustainable agriculture. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 3(2–3):123–126.

Franklin, A. 2001. Nature and Social Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Getz, C., Brown, S., & Shreck, A. 2008. Class politics and agri-cultural exceptionalism in California’s organic agriculture movement. Politics & Society 36(4):478–507.

Gibson-Graham, J. 1996. The End of Capitalism (as We Knew It): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Gibson-Graham, J. 2006. A Postcapitalist Politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Giddens, A. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Giddens, A. 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Goodman, M. 2004. Reading fair trade: political ecological imagi-nary and moral economy of fair trade foods. Political Geog-raphy 23(7):891–915.

Goodman, M., Maye, D., & Holloway, L. 2010. Ethical food-scapes? Premises, promises, and possibilities. Environment and Planning A 42(8):1782–1796.

Graeber, D. 2001. Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value. New York: Palgrave.

Hetherington, K. 1998. Expressions of Identity: Space, Perfor-mance, Politics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ikerd, J. 1993. Two related but distinctly different concepts: or-ganic farming and sustainable agriculture. Small Farm Today 10(1):30–31.

Ilbery, B. & Maye, D. 2005. Food supply chains and sustainability: evidence from specialist food producers in Scottish/English borders. Land Use Policy 22(4):331–344.

Iles, A. 2005. Learning in sustainable agriculture: food miles and missing objects. Environmental Values 14(2):63–183.

Ingold, T. 2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. New York: Routledge.

Kloppenburg, J., Lezberg, S., De Master, K., Stevenson, G., & Hendrickson, J. 2000. Tasting food, tasting sustainability: de-

fining the attributes of an alternative food system with com-petent, ordinary people. Human Organization 59(2):177–186.

Koc, M., MacRae, R., Mougeot, L., & Welsh, J. 1999. For Hun-ger-Proof Cities: Sustainable Urban Food Systems. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.

Latour, B. 1993. We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Latour, B. 2004. Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Laclau, E. 1990. New Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time. London: Verso.



Little, R., Maye, D., & Ilbery, B. 2010. Collective purchase: mov-ing local and organic foods beyond the niche market. Envi-ronment and Planning A 42(8):1797–1813.

Macnaghten, P. & Urry, J. 1998. Contested Natures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


Manchester Food Futures. 2007. Foodfutures: A Food Strategy for Manchester. Manchester: Food Futures Partnership. http://www.foodfutures.info/site/images/stories/food%20futures%20strategy%202007.pdf.

Marcuse, P. 1998. Sustainability is not enough. Environment and Urbanization 10(2):103–111.

Marsden, T., Murdoch, J., & Morgan, K. 1999. Sustainable agri-culture, food supply chains and regional development: edito-rial introduction. International Planning Studies 4(3):295–301.

MERCi. 2012. About Us. Manchester Environmental Resource Centre Initiative. http://www.merci.org.uk/drupal/node/2520. January 10, 2012.

Morgan K. 2010. Local and green, global and fair: the ethical foodscape and the politics of care. Environment and Planning A 42(8):1852–1867.

Murdoch, J., Marsden, T., & Banks, J. 2000. Quality, nature and embeddedness: some theoretical considerations in the context of the food sector. Economic Geography 76(2):107–125.

Polanyi, K. 1957 The Great Transformation: The Social and Eco-nomic Origins of Our Time. Boston: Beacon Press.

Pretty, J., Ball, A., Lang, T., & Morison, J. 2005. Farm costs and food miles: an assessment of the full cost of the weekly UK food basket. Food Policy 30(1):1–19.

Renting, H., Marsden, T., & Banks, J. 2003. Understanding alter-native food networks: exploring the role of short food supply chains in rural development. Environment and Planning A 35(3):393–411.

Sandercock, L. 2003. Cosmopolis II: Mongrel Cities in the 21st Century. London: Continuum.

Sayer, A. 2000. Moral economy and political economy. Studies in Political Economy 61:79–104.

Sayer, A. 2004. Moral Economy. Lancaster: Lancaster University. http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/sociology/papers/sayer-moral-economy.pdf.

Seyfang, G. 2006. Ecological citizenship and sustainable con-sumption: examining local organic food networks. Journal of Rural Studies 22(4):383–395.

Smit, B. & Smithers, J. 1993. Sustainable agriculture: interpreta-tions, analyses and prospects. Canadian Journal of Regional Science 16(3):499–524.

Subject Four/MT. 2009. Personal Communication. MERCi, Man-chester. January 16.



39

Subject One/MB. 2009. Personal Communication. MERCi, Man-chester. January 16.

Subject Three/HSK. 2008. Personal Communication. KRO, Man-chester. September 2.

Subject Two/RP. 2008. Personal Communication. HARP, Zion CHRC, Manchester. August 19.

Szerszynski, B. 2005. Nature, Technology and the Sacred. Oxford: Blackwell.

Thompson, E. 1971. The moral economy of the English crowd in the 18th century. Past and Present 50(1):76–136.

United Nations. 2005. 2005 World Summit Outcome. A/RES/60/1. New York: United Nations.

Whatmore, S. 2002. Hybrid Geographies: Natures Cultures Spaces. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). 1987. Our Common Future. New York: Oxford University Press.

Wrigley, N. 2002. ‘Food deserts’ in British cities: policy context and research priorities. Urban Studies 39(11):2029–2040.

Yunlong, C. & Smit, B. 1994. Sustainability in agriculture: a gen-eral review. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 49(3):299–307.


2012 Hiedanpää et al. Winter 2012 | Volume 8 | Issue 1

40

ARTICLE

Making sense of the social: human-nonhuman constellations and the wicked road to sustainability Juha Hiedanpää1, Ari Jokinen2, & Pekka Jokinen3 1 Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute, Itäinen Pitkäkatu 3, Turku FI-20520 Finland (email: [email protected]) 2 School of Management, University of Tampere, Tampere FI-33014 Finland (email: [email protected]) 3 Department of Geographical and Historical Studies, University of Eastern Finland/Finnish Environment Institute, PO Box 111,

Joensuu 80101 Finland (email: [email protected]) Social questions become especially tangible in the context of human-nonhuman interrelations. This article focuses on coexistential practices in the context of management, protection, and production and it clarifies how the social in par-ticular empirical cases is enacted. The work is based on three empirical case studies. We explore the conflicts in for-estry and urban planning caused by the Siberian flying squirrel; the increased presence of the grey wolf; and the par-adox of the domestic pig—a clever animal that is treated harshly by factory-farming practices. As our cases indicate, the social is not a group of people living in a certain setting according to certain norms and traditions. The social is a contingent, activated constellation of interagentivities that emerges together with a shared concern that particular customs and habits are not serving the purpose they are expected to serve. The cases challenge efforts to adopt a human-centered view of the social as the basis for developing the concept of sustainability. They also indicate that there is no one social sustainability, but rather many articulations of the concept. KEYWORDS: human-environment relationship, environmental sociology, conflict resolution, animal welfare, wildlife management, case studies Introduction

The notion of sustainable development is usually divided into the economic, environmental, and social pillars, implying that a practice cannot be fully sus-tainable until all these three dimensions are fulfilled (Littig & Grieβler, 2005; Casula Vifell & Soneryd, 2010). Social sustainability covers broad societal issues, such as democracy, social justice, welfare, and cultural identity. It is often defined through the un-derlying questions of what sustainable societal goals are and whether they are socially acceptable or not. Further, from the communal viewpoint, social sus-tainability has been defined as the ability of society itself, or its manifestation as a local community, to sustain and reproduce itself at an acceptable level (Dempsey et al. 2011).

The question concerning the social becomes es-pecially tangible in the context of human-nonhuman interrelations.1 Humans and nonhumans encounter each other in complex ways in certain environments and everyday practices. Animals are the most promi-nent nonhumans. During the twentieth century, the

1 On basic societal understandings of human-nonhuman interrela-tions, see, for instance, Knight, 2000; Philo & Wilber, 2000; Franklin & White, 2001; Alger & Alger, 2003; Buller & Morris, 2003; Tovey, 2003; and Shapiro & DeMello, 2010.

relationship between humans and animals underwent a profound set of transformations (Macnaghten, 2004). The move has been from the categorical dis-tinction between humans and animals toward new forms of empathy and codwelling. This move covers cats, dogs, horses, and other pets, but also, and per-haps in more radical ways, particular cases of wild animals and production animals. Currently, social scientific studies aim to address the animal question even though animals still remain largely invisible in social science texts (Barron 2003; Tovey, 2003; Hobson, 2007). As Hobson-West (2007) has noted, boundary-drawing as an activity of making sense of the world goes far beyond the human-animal dichot-omy. It can be found in institutional rules that allow certain activities and prohibit others, in dichotomies such as nature/culture and, say, binaries of good and bad taste. However, a partial deconstruction of the cultural boundary between human and animal may be seen as a part of the broader postmodern (re)blurring of dichotomies.

Hobson (2007) has pointed out that most often when animals do become visible in social scientific studies, it is as objects in a struggle for resources. Yet, research that conceptualizes animals as part of specific political configurations—as subjects, not objects—enables a broader conceptualization of how the “political” is constituted in human-animal rela-

Hiedanpää et al.: Making Sense of the Social


41

tions. In fact, animals are already subjects of, and subject to, social and political practices, since they intersect human daily lives, for instance, as food, pets, amusement, game, wildlife, and helpers, and thus constitute a pivotal part of socialities and politi-cal economies (Hobson, 2007). Animals should thus be brought into theorizations of how specific political spaces are constructed, relying not on contentious ideas of humanness and rights, but simply through an appreciation that agency is a dynamic but contin-gently stable relation between an organism and its environment (Hobson, 2007; see also Light, 2004; Hobson-West, 2007; Johnston, 2008).

The view that our encounters with animals are intrinsically social poses the question of how we should live with them. People are accustomed to seeking normative recipes for these encounters. Yet, normative rules or basic categories of human-animal encounters are not enough. They reveal some of the diversity and new choices of living together, but they do not make explicit enough that the nonhuman world has no fixed ontological properties. To explore the social from the ontological point of view, we continue pragmatic reasoning regarding animals as constituents of social and political life and their rela-tive agency in emerging social and political spaces. The purpose of our article is to explore how the so-cial in particular empirical cases is enacted. Our ap-proach is normative in the ethical sense as we study the interactions through which the social and its functioning—sustainable or not—are created, main-tained, and altered. The main question is: How is the social in human-nonhuman interrelations constituted?

We present three empirical case studies from Finland that illustrate the interest in human-nonhuman coexistence and development. These cases analyze the conflicts in forestry and urban planning caused by the Siberian flying squirrel; the increased presence of the grey wolf; and the paradox of the domestic pig—a clever animal that is treated harshly by factory-farming practices. In all cases, the empiri-cal data and analyses are qualitative by nature. In the cases of the flying squirrel and the wolf, the empiri-cal material has been gathered by participant obser-vation and thematic interviews, whereas the case study on swine welfare is based on newspaper data.2 2 Material in the case of the wolf is derived from 21 thematic inter-views with stakeholders conducted during 2009–2010, seven field interviews with local residents living around wolf attack areas in 2009, and formal documents of the Infringement Proceedings between the European Commission and the Finnish government on Finnish wolf policy in 2005–2007. The case of the flying squirrel (see Haila et al. 2007; Jokinen et al. 2009) is based on a long-term interdisciplinary research project in the Tampere city region (300,000 inhabitants) carried out between 2004 and 2010 using the action research approach and multisource data gathered from plan-ning documents, decision-making material, media material, inter-

The Social in the Context of Human-Nonhuman Interrelations What is the Social?

We explore the social from the viewpoint of so-cioecological systems. We build our ontological con-ception of such systems on ecological and cognitive views. The key feature of the social according to the ecological conception becomes clear in an excerpt from the dictionary of the Stockholm Resilience Centre (2010). Social-ecological systems are:

[L]inked systems of people and nature. The term emphasizes that humans must be seen as a part of, not apart from, nature—that the delineation between social and ecological systems is artificial and arbitrary. Scholars have also used concepts like “coupled human-environment systems,” “ecosocial systems,” and “socioecological systems” to illustrate the interplay between social and ecological systems.

The Resilience Centre (e.g., Berkes & Folke,

2000; Berkes et al. 2003; Folke, 2006) holds that humans (authorities or environmental managers) must understand humans as part of nature. This ob-servation suggests that it may well be that humans are not part of nature or, at least, they are not part of it the same way as the rest of nature is. Nevertheless, humans have an obligation to act as if they were part of nature. We see that even though the relationship between the ecological and the social is explicitly ethical, the understanding about the functioning of social-ecological systems is primarily grounded in ecology and secondarily in the social. It is a task of science—systems theory and modeling—to unfold the gap or the interplay between social and ecological systems for the sake of providing better tools for sustainable environmental and resource policy and management (e.g., Berkes & Folke, 2000; Folke, 2006; Ernstson et al. 2008; Galaz et al. 2008).

The cognitive view of the social-ecological ex-pands the above conception. For example, Hukkinen (2008; 2010) uses the theory of embodied cognition to explain how humans and their environments are interconnected. For Hukkinen (2008), social-ecological systems are always constituted by the un-derlying ecosystem and the resources derived from it according to needs guided and controlled by the fea-tures of the social system, such as resource users and views, dialogue workshops and seminars, and ethnographic obser-vation of conservation and knowledge practices. The case of the pig is predicated on news and articles in Helsingin Sanomat be-tween December 2007 and December 2009. The primary analysis is based on 46 news reports and articles.



42

their traditions, rules of the game, and physical infra-structure. This view of social-ecological systems, which builds on the work of Ostrom (1990), Lakoff & Johnson (1999), and Fauconnier & Turner (2002), is multifaceted and expands the understanding of the social compared to the ecological model. Hukkinen (2008) identifies two sets of the social: while one is local, lived, and traditional, constituting community life, the other is public, bureaucratic, and calculated. Hukkinen (2008) further suggests that social sustain-ability calls for a new kind of understanding about the interplay of the two dimensions of the social and the production of knowledge within particular social-ecological systems.

We continue in the same general field of re-search, but take a stronger position and argue that there are no gaps or interplays between the social and the ecological because there are no such separate systems in the first place. According to our ontologi-cal view, customs and habits constitute not only the social of the socioecological but the socioecological itself. For this concept, we lean on John Dewey (1988), who states this point succinctly: “But to a larger extent customs persist because individuals form their personal habits under conditions set by prior customs.” He continues, “Habits incorporate an environment within themselves. They are adjust-ments of the environment, not merely to it” (emphasis in the original). This environment as a fabric of cus-toms habitually and deliberately undergone and en-acted by human and nonhuman animals is what we call the social. Human and nonhuman animals de-velop and change habits in continuous organism-environment transactions. In particularly problematic situations, these adjustments tie humans and nonhu-mans together (see, e.g., McKenna, 2004; Johnson, 2010).

Ingold (1997) has elaborated this further, using the term “interagentivity” to describe the sphere of the social, asking whether there is “some region be-yond the edge of nature, in which human beings live distinctively social lives.” He calls such a position an illusion. Through habits and customs, humans have continuous social interaction with the rest of nature. If there is life in nature, there are also human-nonhuman interactions. The human-nonhuman social life is not only interaction but covers a vast array of reciprocal relationships and different forms of life. Cultural variations of gardening and keeping domes-tic animals are well-known examples. Both humans and nonhumans can create and maintain social rela-tions, and the differences between them in this regard are not absolute but relative. As Ingold (1997) claims, whatever we do to others is embedded in the context of our relationships with them. Life is being

engaged in relations with others, and the process of growth produces new forms of life. This pragmatically oriented socioecological view helps us to understand that the social is not a separate realm beyond the individual, the public, and envi-ronmental settings, but that the social emerges and disappears contingently in dynamic habit-custom-law transactions. Therefore, research must focus on how people (individuals and groups) habitually and delib-erately live with and encounter animals in their envi-ronments, and on what kind of productive and man-agerial practices are created when humans and non-humans interact. The proper unit of analysis is then shared bodies of practical knowledge and embodied understanding that constitute particular customs and habits (i.e., social practices) (e.g., Wallace, 2009). Law (2004) and Law & Urry (2004) have extended this view with their version of ontological politics. Their important addition is that the social sciences are interactive: sciences in general, but social sci-ences in particular, do not examine the social that is out there, but rather participate in its constitution. Three Case Studies on Human-Nonhuman Interrelations Siberian Flying Squirrels in Forestry and Urban Planning

Since its origin in the 1980s, the notion of biodi-versity has described the multitude of biospheric life. In political discourse, biodiversity is often used as a concept that tries to catch the contextual conditions of human life and its dependence on living nature, thus implicitly including the vitally important human-nonhuman relationships. Intensive efforts of biodi-versity conservation make these relationships visible and create new relationships resulting from specific practices of conservation. One of the most compre-hensive efforts of biodiversity preservation is the European Union’s (EU) Habitats Directive of 1992 - a conservation system with many similarities to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 in the United States. The Habitats Directive has given rise to severe imple-mentation problems all over Europe both on local and national levels. This is because translating the general-level normative principle of conservation into practical governance procedures is a highly compli-cated matter (Haila et al. 2007; see also Durant et al. 2004; Jokinen et al. 2009). The Directive interferes with short-term economic interests, local cultural values, as well as understandings of ecological sus-tainability. Consequently, the conflicts triggered by the Directive are unpredictable and vary from case to case. It is hard to anticipate what kind of sociocul-tural consequences conservation decisions will have (Hiedanpää, 2002; Haila et al. 2007).



43

Conservation conflicts with the Siberian flying squirrel (Pteromys volans) began in Finland in the late 1990s after it was included among the most strictly protected species of the Habitats Directive. The Directive prohibits deterioration and destruction of any of the flying squirrel’s breeding sites or resting places, with the aim of reaching the normative goal formulated as “favorable conservation status.” Land-use conflicts have been problematic for years, but particularly so in growing urban areas where flying squirrels have cancelled development projects and slowed down planning. While having an extremely high conservation status resulting from the dimin-ishing population trend due to forestry activities, the flying squirrel is fairly common in many areas in southern and central Finland (Hanski, 2006). The animal is nocturnal and only a few people have seen it in the forest. Flying squirrels can be detected only on the basis of their droppings in spring time. They can be found under big trees in mature spruce-dominated forests. In urban areas, flying squirrels inhabit parks, forested recreation areas, and even private gardens as part of their home range, as long as the habitat as a whole is large enough. As flying squirrels are entangled with many human activities in complicated ways (Jokinen et al. 2007), the case pro-vides an excellent opportunity to study how the human-nonhuman aspect of the social becomes visi-ble through conservation efforts. The social emerges as interagentivities (Ingold, 1997) in which humans and flying squirrels become inherent constituents of new practices and constantly determine each other’s positions in new ways.

First, flying squirrels dwell in the same forests used by people. Their response to landscape changes indicates adaptation to forest management, but the problem in conservation is the quality and size of habitats in commercial and urban forests. Young flying squirrels searching for an empty habitat settle only in mature forests close to final felling, which today entails “squirrel rotation” in forest manage-ment, meaning that professionals and forest owners cannot avoid the possibility of squirrel presence but must be conscious of it. The invisibility of the flying squirrel—actually its simultaneous presence and absence—has been problematic for professionals and has raised conflicts in forest management. Illegal cuttings in flying squirrel habitats have triggered police interrogations, but guidelines by the responsi-ble ministries have diminished the conflicts.

Second, the old image of the flying squirrel as an animal of remote wilderness areas has faded. The flying squirrel has become a player in urban devel-opment and a nightmare for planners. Due to their movements across urban landscapes, flying squirrels have intermingled with the whole planning process,

from master planning and building projects to the management of green areas, including lay-expert tensions in planning and civic mobilization against building projects. The presence of the flying squirrel may lead to significant economic consequences both for public and private building projects. Public confi-dence in institutions has diminished due to govern-ance problems; and planners, organizations of land owners, forestry lobbyists, and leading politicians have requested that the flying squirrel be removed from the Habitats Directive, but without success.

Third, the Directive created an urgent need in ur-ban planning to inventory flying squirrels. There was no such profession as flying squirrel surveyor, but some skillful citizens emerged from the forest to take the job. They were amateur ecologists with long ex-perience observing hawks and owls, and, as a by-product, flying squirrels.

Finally, putting nest boxes for birds in the forest has been a common Finnish activity for at least a century, originating in an early national awakening of nature conservation in the late nineteenth century. This civic virtue has now been contested because flying squirrels have inhabited nest boxes in areas under development, making nest boxes mediators between developers and civil society. Also, flying squirrel droppings have become mediating artifacts, because the animal itself is not generally visible.

As a result of strict conservation, the flying squirrel has been embedded very broadly and tightly in the practices of land use and forest management, and also in the everyday life of citizens. As the de-scriptions above show, the human-squirrel relation-ship was not in fact completely new—flying squirrels have lived together with humans for a long period of time. The point is that strict conservation rulings made the human-nonhuman relations apparent and reorganized them into new practices among urban dwellers, amateur ecologists, planners, nature sur-veyors, and forestry experts. This has happened under conditions where top-down policy implementation works together with local policy formulation. New human-squirrel ecologies with particular influence on the socioecological system were born as a result of the reorganization. Human-squirrel interaction also has improvisational dimensions, which is an im-portant feature of the social. For instance, many indi-vidual flying squirrels have adopted urban environ-ments, nest boxes, and even buildings for nesting places. In conservation the tension remains: there are anxieties about restrictions resulting from conserva-tion but also about the survival of the flying squirrel population.



44

Wolf Attacks in Southwestern Finland The grey wolf (Canis lupus) is strictly protected

by the EU’s Habitats Directive. Since Finland joined the EU, the Finnish wolf population has increased and spread from the eastern to the western part of the country.3 However, the process of recovery has been so slow that the European Commission initiated first infringement proceedings in 2001 and then called the case to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in 2005. The Commission claimed that: (1) the wolf’s conser-vation status in Finland was not favorable; (2) Fin-land had not honored the principle of strict protec-tion; and (3) Finland had not adequately explored feasible alternatives for wolf predation to reduce losses to livestock. Following an investigation into the allegations, the ECJ rendered its judgment in June 2007. Finland was found to be at fault on the second charge, but not on the other first or third. The ECJ ordered the government of Finland to rectify its fail-ure to offer strict protection to wolves. In practice, the ECJ judged that the issuance of the killing li-censes must be based on robust, Directive-based rea-sons.

Already at the beginning of the infringement proceedings, Finland sought to situate the wolf in the context of Finnish society and culture, particularly with respect to livelihoods and public safety in the country’s rural regions. The government’s position was that the people of Finland have a contentious relationship with the wolf, since the species repre-sents a historic threat to perceptions of safety in rural parts of the country. The Finnish government argued that the Commission is obligated to acknowledge the pertinence of social, economic, and cultural aspects of this particular biodiversity challenge and let Fin-land practice its wolf policy in a way suited to na-tional conditions and needs. The Commission as-serted that it is “normal for wolves to avoid people” and that Article 3 of the Habitats Directive—calling attention to the importance of “social, economic, and cultural aspects to biodiversity”—could not be used to justify derogation from strict protection (Hiedanpää & Bromley, 2011).4

In August 2008, wolves attacked sheep on four pastures in the town of Köyliö in southwestern Fin-land and caused the death of 65 animals. Rumors spread that also the communities of neighboring southern Pyhäjärvi region were surrounded by around 25 wolves. Local hunters organized a census, which verified the number. The official estimates provided 3 There are several critical studies of Finnish wolf policy. See, for example, Bisi et al. (2007) and Ratamäki (2008). 4 Finland referred to Article 2§3 of the Habitats Directive. The Commission referred to an ECJ ruling (C-247/85 Commission vs. Belgium), according to which, Article 2§3 of the Habitats Di-rective could not override an obligation to strict protection.

by the Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute (FGFRI) were lower, but strict numbers could not be provided. Concerned, insecure, and afraid, people adjusted their habits, walking less in the forests and keeping their dogs indoors overnight. Sheep farmers did not use dangerous grazing fields, key pastures were electrically fenced, and children were driven to school by taxis. Four characteristics show the ad-justments in the face of the sudden reappearance of wolves: (1) people were surprised and afraid; (2) the presence of the wolves was bodily experienced, that is, it affected everyday activities; (3) the effects of the wolf presence were felt collectively: surprise, fear, and consequent adjustments were shared with community members; and (4) in a time of adjust-ments, primary emotions (of surprise and fear) joined with social emotions (of, say, anger and frustration) and contributed to an emotional landscape hostile to wolves.

From the communal perspective, it is interesting that in 2009 only one or two wolf sightings occurred, while in the previous year, continuous observations were made. There were no wolf attacks on sheep or other domestic animals. The wolves were gone. Ac-cording to FGFRI, there were no biological reasons for their disappearance: the roe deer and moose pop-ulations were sufficiently dense and there were no signs of lethal diseases. Apparently, wolves were illegally poached. It seems that local people and communities in Köyliö and its surrounding areas “fixed” the “wolf problem.” Communities showed vigor and resilience, that is, social sustainability.5 But this social sustainability was not the ecologically helpful kind that the Commission or Finnish national authorities promote.

Consequently, the Commission initiated an in-formal discussion on illegal hunting with Finnish authorities in late 2009. The Commission interpreted the situation as the case of ill-fitted enforcement of the Habitats Directive. Finland agreed and acted ac-cordingly. It continued tightening the institutional setup of large carnivore protection. This process had been ongoing since Finland’s accession to the EU in 1995, but especially after the EJC judgment. As a response to the immediate wolf situation, Finland centralized decision making concerning the dero-gation from strict protection to the Finnish Wildlife Agency in March, 2011. The purpose was to separate wildlife politics from authoritative decision making. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has initiated two other legal adjustments: to increase the nominal value of large carnivores and to introduce a new criminal category, “severe hunting crime.” The latter

5The same acts of resilience seemed to take place elsewhere in Finland (Anon., 2009).



45

came into force in April, 2011. According to the re-newed law, the telemonitoring of suspects by the police is allowed, and a conviction leads to a prison term of four months to four years. One of the pur-poses of the adjustments is to communicate to the Commission that the Finnish government takes de-clining wolf numbers seriously.

From the perspective of rural communities, will people really find these regulatory measures reasona-ble as a way to come to terms with the wolf pres-ence? With regard to the reactions in Köyliö, the workability of the plans put forth by the EU and the Finnish government concerning how to mitigate the wolf-related socioecological problems seems highly questionable, especially from the point of view of the social. Do these measures alleviate the concerns? Do they return the feeling of security, or help people to live with the wolf presence? Perhaps not. These measures focus on mechanical causes behind the wolf decline and not on purposes and emotions particular to cherished habits and customs. The measures taken will probably also widen the gap between the social and the public, working contrary to intentions. The Politicization of Swine Welfare

Finnish farm-animal production has recently un-dergone profound structural changes. During 1995-2008, the number of animal farms was halved, with the number of pig farms falling from 6,250 to 2,300, but the number of pigs (and the production of pork) have not decreased (Tike, 2009). Rather, the average unit size has expanded rapidly as Finland has turned increasingly to industrial-scale pig farming. Under these circumstances, Finnish consumers are becom-ing more distanced from meat production and their personal relations to farming are unavoidably be-coming reduced (Jokinen et al. 2011).

The drastic change in animal farming brings up the issue of the welfare of farm animals. In basic terms, animal welfare is a normative principle related to what animals need to have a good life. Attempts to improve animal welfare have commonly centered on three broad objectives: to ensure good physical health and functioning of animals; to minimize unpleasant affective states, such as pain and fear, and allow ani-mals normal pleasures; and to let animals develop and live in ways that are natural for the species (Fraser, 2008). However, in public discussion animal welfare is a contested concept loaded with disagree-ments, for instance, on the moral value of animals and on the justification of animal farming.

In November, 2007 and again in December, 2009, a Finnish animal rights organization, Oikeutta Eläimille (Rights for Animals), publicized films shot secretly in pig farms across the country. The films reported, for instance, on dirty pigsties, sick and in-

jured animals, and dead animals in the sties. In 2007, the Finnish Minister of Agriculture and Forestry and the Farmers’ Union denied the existence of any ani-mal welfare problems. Instead, they claimed that the pictures were not from Finnish farms at all (i.e., the activists’ campaign was labeled a con). The Minister further declared that if any problems did exist, the situation would immediately be improved. Two years later, video clips taken secretly by the same organi-zation indicated again the mistreatment of pigs. This time the problems were not denied and, for instance, the Farmers’ Union, condemned animal welfare vio-lations. Yet, both times, the agricultural policy play-ers argued that animal welfare problems are related only to individual farms, not to the food system or the industrial mode of animal farming.

Contrary to what the central agricultural policy players may have expected, the action of the animal rights organization spurred public debate on animal welfare. The films revealed serious weaknesses in the operational conditions of Finnish pig farms, and the public seemed no longer convinced that animal wel-fare was adequately addressed. In official terms, the maneuvers resulted in police enquiries; the farmers were suspected of violating the animal welfare legis-lation and the animal rights activists were suspected of intrusions into farmers’ homes (as the pig-rearing facilities are considered part of the family farm). Some cases also led to the consideration of charges. The public debate also had policy consequences. For instance, the state introduced new forms of agricul-tural subsidies, such as animal welfare payments and financial support for farm investments promoting animal welfare.

Superficially, the politicization of swine welfare seems a veterinary and an economic issue. However, when examined more closely, it also appears, for several reasons, to be a social issue. In public discus-sion, the agricultural policy players explained the violations of the animal welfare legislation by the heavy workload in farming and the bureaucratic practices of agricultural policy which are exhausting farmers. The mistreatment of pigs was also justified by the strenuous competition and weak profitability associated with current farming practices. Pigs were thus labeled as the victims of the global market and the agricultural treadmill. Further, it was noted that farmers lack adequate social support networks to help them manage the economic pressure that they face. Interestingly, this lack of assistance is actually a con-sequence of the industrialization of animal farming: the business is increasingly hidden away in large factory farms that operate with a smaller and smaller workforce. Consumers, rural inhabitants, and even fellow farmers, are becoming distanced from animal farming, which means that the countryside is steadily



46

becoming disconnected from agricultural production. The case of Finnish swine suggests that farm animal welfare is tightly bound to the welfare of farmers. This seems to corroborate Hobson’s (2007) view that (animal) political spaces are constructed through re-lational agency. How is the Social Constituted in these Cases?

As our cases indicate, the social is not a group of people living in certain settings according to prede-termined norms and traditions. The social is a contin-gent, activated constellation of interagentivities that emerges together with a shared concern that particu-lar customs and habits are not serving their expected purposes. In our cases, expectations are disturbed by concerns over the habits and livelihoods of the flying squirrel, wolf, and pig. Ontologically, the social is mediated and mediating. But what is this social, and, more importantly, what does it do and why?

First, the social as a contingent, activated, and emergent constellation of interagentivities shows that understanding human-nonhuman temporalities and their emergent nature is essential in defining social sustainability. We argue that without recognizing the critical temporalities in a given socioecological sys-tem, it is not possible to understand the social. The temporal features of our various case studies are very different. The current reappearance of wolves in southwestern Finland reveals that for a hundred years wolves were nonexistent there due to hunting. Their reappearance has activated the cultural memory of the wolf’s presence. Sentiments associated with old agrarian lifestyles have been brought forth; people are aware of the stories that wolves allegedly kill sheep, and reportedly threaten human babies. It seems that the disturbed agricultural customs trigger stories and sentiments, even though productive prac-tices are now very different from the earlier era. The governmental bodies are blind to the underlying cus-toms and the socioecological fabric that sustain ex-pectations and give reasons for action. This causes social restlessness despite the impressive efforts of developing adaptive wolf management.

A kind of temporal dislocation helps us recog-nize the social in pig farming. As the structural change of Finnish agriculture has been extremely rapid, the prevailing public image of domestic food production does not necessarily correspond to reality. The idyllic image of family farming is not up-to-date, since factory farming is distancing itself both from consumers and local communities. The family farm is a social and cultural institution believed to be sus-tainable: the farm is the farmer’s home, not a factory. Contrary to reality, people seem willing to ignore the production side of farming in favor of the idyll

(Boogaard et al. 2010). We call this process a cultural gap. To understand how images of animal farming—and the gap between the picture of rural idyll and the reality of factory farming—are constructed, it is im-portant to consider the embeddedness of people’s experience and the social context in which their be-liefs and expectations are formed. Most people today have little personal knowledge or experience of farming and are therefore regarded as lay persons: the customs and habits they live by are very different from what had traditionally been the case. Yet, ani-mal farming is a strong example of such sociotech-nical controversies where public debate would be highly instructive.

Flying squirrel conservation is an exemplar of socioecological potentials. Much more adaptive ac-tivities were ongoing during the implementation than could be expected on the basis of the formal rules of conservation. A complex constellation of actors and interactions were at play, and this emerging social activation cannot be explained by cultural memory or cultural gap. Instead, there were latent skills, capaci-ties, and practices of living with flying squirrels, and these had been developed gradually among amateur ecologists since the 1960s. Such readiness among forestry and planning professionals did not develop until several years after the legal rules of conserva-tion had come into force, and even then it was not well internalized. However, the professionals’ expe-rience and practical working habits in local environ-ments helped them adopt the new practices. The case indicates that the judicial implementation of nature conservation does not work properly without a reor-ganization of the social among local actors and their environments. Reorganization happens within socio-ecological systems and customary livelihoods therein, and local residents may be a critical resource.

Second, and related to our first point concerning temporalities, when the social is activated and under reorganization, it affects social order by making cer-tain socioecological properties visible and hiding others. In the case of swine welfare, for instance, the activists tried to make the problems in animal farm-ing apparent to the public. The films shot secretly in the pig farms clearly showed malpractices that indi-cated problems in broader practices of meat produc-tion and gave swine a critical public existence. In contrast, even though the activists aimed at polarizing the population’s attitudes, public confidence in the system of Finnish food production and agrarian rou-tines has remained surprisingly strong so far (e.g., Jokinen et al. 2011).

In the wolf case, the wolf activated the commu-nity. Almost all human constituents of the social, it seems, became active in trying to make the presence of the wolf visible by, for instance, revealing some



47

critical features of its life patterns and habits. Hunters counted the number of wolves from the tracks, local people reported wolf sightings, sheep farmers built stronger fences, local newspapers wrote extensively about the wolf, civil servants and authorities across multiple scales of governance were alarmed and con-cerned, and, also, wolf researchers appeared in com-munities and tried either to put radio collars on the animals or interview local people. The presence of the wolf became almost like a carnival and spectacle. The wolf became visible for part of the community as people reacted to its presence in various ways. Local wolf activists (nature conservationists) tried to under-state or tone down the discussion concerning the sig-nificance of the increasing presence of the wolf.

The emergence of new forms of human-squirrel life eroded the whole idea of nature conservation. The conventional practice of conservation until then was to delineate areas for plants and animals to keep them outside human disturbance. This does not work with flying squirrels. Here, the essence of conserva-tion is that flying squirrels are entangled in human activities. The burning question for several years was how to conserve an animal constantly living in the close vicinity of humans and intermingling with all productive practices related to modification of the forest. The Prime Minister of Finland then claimed that the EU was on the wrong track since there are flying squirrels behind the Russian border, thus questioning the national responsibility for conserva-tion. On one hand, the current conservation standard followed in forestry fits the squirrel presence and makes public representations of the sites. On the other hand, it is known that forest-machine drivers make spontaneous overnight observations of flying squirrels against the light when working, but nobody knows how dutifully they save the sites from cutting. These examples show that the social is constituted by very diverse human-squirrel ecologies, discourses, and encounters, and therefore only part of it is pub-licly shared and visible at a time.

Third, the social also works to produce and re-produce boundaries between an organism and its environment. This characteristic of the social has several manifestations. Basically, it is about how positions, agencies, and powers are created, shifted, assigned, and removed. It goes beyond the above-mentioned historical sensitivity by bringing items into discourse or foreclosing them from it. For in-stance, the special feature of the wolf’s presence is that the wolf comes very close. The wolf penetrates the sphere of the private: it comes for the dog or sheep, makes children feel anxious on their way to school, and makes people fear it. It is not only a matter of feeling. The wolf, in fact, is superior to rural people. The wolf’s habits are protected while

the habits of the people are not. The life of the wolf is secured by law, and unlike some legal prohibitions, this one is tightly enforced. Hence, the wolf does not respect human privacy, but rural people must respect the privacy of the wolf. Many people consider these EU-compelled relations unfair. As such, the presence of the wolf is grudgingly accepted but people believe that wolves should stay where they naturally belong, in wilderness. Rural people feel that their basic rights have been violated and, therefore, it seems, the social operates against this particular feature of communal environment, the wolf.

In a similar way, serious conflicts about the privileging of flying squirrel conservation over eco-nomically significant private and public development projects have given rise to rumors of flying squirrels being spotted here and there, somebody planting squirrel droppings in sites under development, or some dubious profiteers bagging droppings to sell to those who need. These are not only anecdotes in the customary sense but an important part of collective sense-making in a situation where authorities, profes-sionals, and citizens do not know how to proceed. Sense-making is needed for collective awareness, preparedness, and action, and it is the social which makes it possible. In the case of swine, the animal activists, more or less purposefully, redefined the boundary between the private and public space. Yet, the strong cultural support for family farming entirely maintains farming in the private space, which, once again, can be seen as a partial failure in making con-sumers more attentive to meat production and animal rights. Conclusion

Social sustainability is often defined as a wide-ranging multidimensional concept. Our case studies have sought to provide new perspectives to coex-istential practices in the context of management, protection, and production. The cases challenge ef-forts to adopt a human-centered view of the social as the basis for developing the concept of sustainability. The one-sidedly human view of the social is unreal-istic and unfair, and it tends to lead to atemporal definitions of social sustainability in contested politi-cal processes. Even though the examples that we pre-sent indicated perpetuity, cultural continuity, nostal-gia, and cultural or political inertia in the social sphere, they were also dominated by rapid changes and reorganization of the social, suggesting the im-portance of resilience and capacities to adopt changes.

These cases have also emphasized the embodied nature of the social and how the social gains commu-nicative significance and force when under disturb-



48

ance. The societal change—diverging customs and practices—has challenged the traditional human-animal bonds even though politicians seem to dwell on the nostalgia of agrarian practical virtues in le-gitimating industrial animal farming, principles of wolf management, or cohabitating the forests with flying squirrels. As our cases indicate, there is no one social sustainability, but many—at least as many as there are significant contesting customs in relation to the disturbance practices and images to which the contestation gives rise. What follows is a potent question: how should we define sustainability from the social perspective if there are no ethically sus-tainable human-nonhuman relations left?

If the social contingently emerges with disturbed socioecological settings, or environments, as Dewey would put it, and if disturbances of various kinds are perpetual, then the challenge of social sustainability is how human-nonhuman constellations allow and enable disturbed customs and habits to revive and renew themselves. Our flying squirrel entanglements, wolf packs, and swine activists are like nomadic movements that activate the social. This contingent constellation calls for agonistic respect for one an-other in the changing context of interagentivity. Acknowledgement We would like to thank three anonymous referees and the editors for their helpful comments and suggestions. We also thank the Academy of Finland for financial support for the projects Of Wolf, Moose and Man: Ecosystem Services, Institutions, and Creative Governance (#122255); Protec-tion of Nature, Politics of Nature: Setting Priorities through Public Deliberation in the Era of Comprehensive Conservation (#122306); and Politicised Animals: The Consumer and Farm Animals (#128122) that enabled us to gather the material for this research. References Alger, J. & Alger, S. 2003. Drawing the line between humans and

animals: an examination of introductory sociology textbooks. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 23(3):69–93.

Anon. 2009. Suurpetojen laiton tappaminen: ei kenenkään etu (Illegal killing of large carnivores: of nobody’s interest). http://mmm.multiedition.fi/sarvi/sarvet/4_2009/fi/1.php. Au-gust 12, 2010 (in Finnish).

Barron, C. (Ed.). 2003. A strong distinction between humans and non-humans is no longer required for research purposes: a debate between Bruno Latour and Steve Fuller. History of the Human Sciences 16(2):77–99.

Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (Eds.). 2003. Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complex-ity and Change. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Berkes, F. & Folke, C. (Eds.). 2000. Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bisi, J., Kurki. S., Svensberg, M., & Liukkonen, T. 2007. Human dimensions on wolf (Canis lupus) conflicts in Finland. Euro-pean Journal of Wildlife Research 53(4):304–314.

Boogaard B., Bock, B., Oosting, S., & Krogh, E. 2010. Visiting a farm: an exploratory study of the social construction of ani-mal farming in Norway and the Netherlands based on sensory perception. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 17(1):24–50.

Buller, H. & Morris, C. 2003. Farm animal welfare: a new reper-toire of nature-society relations or modernism re-embedded? Sociologia Ruralis 43(3):216–237.

Casula Vifell, Å. & Soneryd, L. 2010. Organizing matters: how “the social dimension” gets lost in sustainability projects. Sustainable Development Published Online April 20.


Dewey, J. 1988 [1922]. The Middle Works of John Dewey, Volume 14. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Durant, R., Fiorino, D., & O’Leary, R. (Eds.). 2004. Environmen-tal Governance Reconsidered. Challenges, Choices and Op-portunities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Ernstson, H., Sörlin, S., & Elmqvist, T. 2008. Social movements and ecosystem services–the role of social network structure in protecting and managing urban green areas in Stockholm. Ecology and Society 13(2):39.

Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. 2002. The Way We Think: Concep-tual Blending and the Mind's Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.

Folke, C. 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change 16(3):253–267.

Franklin, A. & White, R. 2001. Animals and modernity: changing human-animal relations, 1949–98. Journal of Sociology 37(3):219–238.

Fraser, D. 2008. Understanding Animal Welfare: The Science in its Cultural Context. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

Galaz, V., Olsson, P., Hahn, T., Folke, C., & Svedin, U. 2008. The problem of fit among biophysical systems, environmental and resource regimes, and broader governance systems: in-sights and emerging challenges. In O. Young, L. King, & H. Schröder (Eds.), Institutions and Environmental Change: Principal Findings, Applications, and Research Frontiers. pp. 147–182. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Haila, Y., Kousis, M., Jokinen, A., Nygren, N., & Psarikidou, K. 2007. Building Trust through Public Participation: Learning from Conflicts over the Implementation of the Habitats Di-rective. PAGANINI Work-package 4. Participatory Govern-ance and Institutional Innovation. http://www.univie.ac.at/ LSG/paganini/finals_pdf/WP4_FinalReport.pdf.

Hanski, I. 2006. Liito-oravan Pteromys volans Suomen kannan koon arviointi (Estimation of the Finnish Population of the Siberian Flying Squirrel). Loppuraportti, Helsinki: Ympäristöministeriö (in Finnish).

Hiedanpää, J. 2002. European-wide conservation vs. local well-being: the reception of Natura 2000 reserve network in Kar-via, SW-Finland. Landscape and Urban Planning 61(2–4):113–123.

Hiedanpää, J. & Bromley, D. 2011. The harmonization game: reason and rules in European wolf policy. Environmental Policy and Governance 21:99–111.

Hobson, K. 2007. Political animals? On animals as subjects in an enlarged political geography. Political Geography 26(3): 250–267.

Hobson-West, P. 2007. Beasts and boundaries: an introduction to animals in sociology, science and society. Qualitative Sociol-ogy Review 3(1):23–41.



49

Hukkinen, J. 2008. Sustainability Networks: Cognitive Tools for Expert Collaboration in Social-Ecological Systems. New York: Routledge.

Hukkinen, J. 2010. Fit in the Body: Matching Embodied Cognition with Socio-Ecological Systems. Albrecht Daniel Thaer Kol-loquium. November 18–19, Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, Berlin, Germany.

Information Centre of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (Tike). 2009. Yearbook of Farm Statistics 2009. Helsinki: Of-ficial Statistics of Finland. http://www.maataloustilastot.fi/ sites/default/files/maatilatilastollinen_vuosikirja_2009.pdf.

Ingold, T. 1997. Life beyond the edge of nature? Or, the mirage of society. In J. Greenwood (Ed.), The Mark of the Social. pp. 231–252. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Johnson, M. 2010. Cognitive science and Dewey’s theory of mind, thought, and language. In M. Cochran (Ed.), Cambridge Companion to Dewey. pp. 123–165. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Johnston, C. 2008. Beyond the clearing: towards a dwelt animal geography. Progress in Human Geography 32(5):633–649.

Jokinen A., Haila, Y., & Nygren, N. 2009. Liito-oravan suojelu poliittisena prosessina ja yhteistoimintahankkeena Tam-pereen kaupunkiseudulla. (Co-operative conservation of the Siberian flying squirrel as a political process in the Tampere City Region, SW Finland) Ympäristöoikeuden ja -politiikan vuosikirja 3:7–68 (in Finnish).

Jokinen, A., Nygren, N., Haila, Y., & Schrader, M. 2007. Yhteise-loa liito-oravan kanssa. Liito-oravan suojelun ja kasvavan kaupunkiseudun maankäytön tarpeiden yhteensovittaminen. (Living Together with the Flying Squirrel: Integrating the Protection of the Flying Squirrel with Land-Use Needs in an Expanding City Region) Suomen ympäristö 20/2007. Tam-pere: Pirkanmaan ympäristökeskus. http://www.ymparisto.fi/ download.asp?contentid=68031&lan=fi (in Finnish).

Jokinen, P., Kupsala, S., & Vinnari, M. 2011. Consumer trust in animal-farming practices: exploring the high trust of Finnish consumers. International Journal of Consumer Studies Pub-lished Online February 18.

Knight, J. (Ed.). 2000. Natural Enemies: People-Wildlife Conflicts in Anthropological Perspective. New York: Routledge.

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.

Law, J. 2004. After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. New York: Routledge.

Law, J. & Urry, J. 2004. Enacting the social. Economy and Society 33(3):390–410.

Light, A. 2004. Methodological pragmatism, animal welfare and hunting. In E. McKenna & A. Light (Eds.), Animal Pragma-tism: Rethinking Human-Nonhuman Relationships. pp. 119–139. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Littig, B. & Grießler, E. 2005. Social sustainability: a catchword between political pragmatism and social theory. International Journal of Sustainable Development 8(1–2):65–79.

Macnaghten, P. 2004. Animals in their nature: a case study on public attitudes to animals, genetic modification and “na-ture.” Sociology 38(3):533–551.

McKenna, E. 2004. Pragmatism and the production of livestock. In E. McKenna & A. Light (Eds.), Animal Pragmatism: Re-thinking Human-Nonhuman Relationships. pp. 160–175. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of In-stitutions for Collective Action. New York: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Philo, C. & Wilbert, C. 2000. Animal Spaces, Beastly Places: New Geographies of Human-Animal Relations. New York: Routledge.

Ratamäki, O. 2008. Finland’s wolf policy and new governance. Journal of Environment & Development 17(3):316–339.

Shapiro, K. & DeMello, M. 2010. The state of human-animal studies. Society and Animals 18(3):307–318.

Stockholm Resilience Centre. 2010. Resilience Dictionary. http:// www.stockholmresilience.org/research/whatisresilience/resiliencedictionary.4.aeea46911a3127427980004355.html. August 31, 2010.

Tovey, H. 2003. Theorising nature and society in sociology: the invisibility of animals. Sociologia Ruralis 43(3):196–215.

Wallace, J. 2009. Norms and Practices. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

https://solecris.uta.fi/crisyp/disp/6_/fi/cr_suorite/edi/edi/fet?id=4076808&verkko=1&cro=2930373738192032263022343834273334242721232118233622232528292838273822292738393739283727351836321717







2012 Casula Vifell & Thedvall Winter 2012 | Volume 8 | Issue 1

50

ARTICLE

Organizing for social sustainability: governance through bureaucratization in meta-organizations Åsa Casula Vifell1 & Renita Thedvall2 1 Department of Political Science, Stockholm University and Institute of Contemporary History, Södertörn University, Huddinge 14189 Sweden (email: [email protected]) 2 Stockholm Centre for Organizational Research (Score), Stockholm University, Stockholm 10691 Sweden (email: [email protected]) The difficulties nation states face when attempting to use traditional legal means to cope with transnational phenom-ena such as environmental degradation, international labor conditions, and global trade have created an opportunity for the emergence of new types of regulations. These rules are often issued by organizations that produce voluntary measures such as standards and action plans to influence the behavior of individuals and institutions. These are in many cases meta-organizations that have other organizations rather than individuals as members. They are im-portant links in the process of creating and diffusing dominant definitions in the “ideoscape” of influential policy con-cepts such as sustainable development. This article explores how two meta-organizations, Fairtrade International (FLO) and Organic Forum, shape the concepts of fair trade and organic food by providing ideas and content to the ideoscape of sustainable development. We argue that this process takes place by governance through bureaucrati-zation in which fair trade and organic food become formalized, precisely defined, and made visible. This in turn de-termines how—or even if—the social dimension of sustainability can be made into policy. Furthermore, we find ex-planations in these processes as to why the social dimension of sustainability tends to be the most underdeveloped. We conclude that bureaucratization is also a form of politics, although not one that is as easily recognizable as an open power struggle. KEYWORDS: sustainable development, globalization, standardization, organizations, food industry, bureaucracy, social conditions Introduction

The difficulties nation states face when attempt-

ing to use traditional legal means to cope with trans-national phenomena such as environmental degrada-tion, international labor conditions, and global trade have created opportunities for new types of regula-tions (Brunsson & Jacobsson, 2000). Most often, organizations issue these measures as voluntary or soft rules such as standards, action plans, rankings, and indicators to influence the behavior of individu-als and institutions. These organizations are often meta-organizations that have other organizations rather than individuals as members (Ahrne & Brunsson, 2008). Even though they do not have much formal authority over their members, meta-organizations are crucial for understanding the mech-anisms through which globalization occurs (Ahrne & Brunsson, 2008). Among other things, they play an active role in giving meaning to powerful concepts that shape organizations’ (as well as individuals’) reality and activities (Meyer et al. 1997).

One such concept is sustainable development and its three dimensions: economic, ecological, and social. Of these three facets, the social dimension is

often the most difficult to incorporate into actual projects and policies (Dillard et al. 2009; Casula Vifell & Soneryd, 2010). The social dimension gen-erally includes human welfare, quality of life, social justice, social cohesion, cultural diversity, democratic rights, gender issues, workers’ rights, broad partici-pation, social capital development, and individual capabilities (Boström, 2010). An explanation for the difficulties might be found in the way that the con-cept is filled with meaning and disseminated.

It is therefore vital to study meta-organizations because they are important links in the process of producing powerful definitions in the “ideoscape” of sustainable development, in particular social sustain-ability (Appadurai, 1996). The notion of an ideoscape suggests that ideas and policies transcend national borders. Traditionally, political and ideological boundaries have been confined to nation states and intergovernmental organizations such as the United Nations (UN) and the European Union (EU). In the new landscape, competing political and ideological communities become more important. Many of the actors involved in shaping the ideoscape of sustain-able development are meta-organizations that per-form meta-governance, which we understand as gov-

Casula Vifell & Thedvall: Organizing for Social Sustainability


51

ernance of self-regulatory networks (Sørensen & Torfing, 2007). Such a perspective recognizes that some actors are more powerful in defining and con-trolling the ideoscape.

Studies of meta-governance have investigated the role of state actors as meta-governors (O’Toole, 2008). Our approach to the study of meta-organizations and meta-governance is somewhat dif-ferent—as are the particular consequences that follow from it. As states are not the only ones trying to gov-ern networks, we argue that meta-organizations carry out particular types of meta-governance practices that we call “governance through bureaucratization.” Even though the content of a certain policies might be soft (in the sense of not being legally binding), meta-organizations are able to exercise authority over their members by effectively forcing them to comply with certain established processes. Some actors are also better at coping with certain types of informal procedures than others (Bryer, 2010). Temporal dis-ciplining and process governance have been identi-fied as important tools for controlling the activities of participating organizations (Jacobsson, 2004). Hav-ing them perform the same type of tasks at a specific time and establishing common deadlines are two examples of governance through bureaucratization.

We argue that such governance in meta-organizations affects strong policy concepts such as social sustainability. Governance through bureau-cratization is an often neglected area of policy re-search, which tends to focus on open negotiations and bargaining between actors (see Johansson & Tallberg, 2010). In this article, we examine how two meta-organizations, Fairtrade International (FLO)1 and Organic Forum (Ekologiskt Forum), a Swedish platform organization for organic food production, shape the social dimension of sustainability, infusing the concept with ideas and content via governance through bureaucratization.2 FLO and Organic Forum

1 Formerly known as the Fairtrade Labelling Organisations International (FLO). 2 The data have been collected through participant observation, interviews, and document studies. We have followed FLO’s work in determining its standards and criteria for fair trade since 2006 through interviews and document studies. In the case of Organic Forum, we studied the development of its Action Plan 2010 for increased organic production and consumption in 2008–2009. In the FLO case, eleven interviews were conducted with members of the FLO Board of Directors and the FLO Standards Committee. Interviews have also been carried out with Rättvisemärkt (the Swedish representative in FLO) in Sweden as well as FLO’s certification organization, FLO-Cert. The changes of the standards and the organization of FLO have also been investigated through extensive document studies. In the Organic Forum case, ten interviews were conducted with members of the steering group as well as with representatives from other organizations taking part in the process. Participant observations were carried out during presentation of the finalized plan and during hearings and activities

work on policies that are closely linked with sustain-able development. FLO develops policies that estab-lish fair trade as a way to create sustainable market interactions (see, for example, Young & Utting, 2005) while Organic Forum works on policies that promote organic food as a means to achieve more sustainable production and consumption. The two cases focus on topics highly relevant for understand-ing how the social dimension of sustainability is de-fined and subsequently used by other organizations. Our empirical analysis contributes to an understand-ing of how meta-organizations influence the defini-tion of social sustainability.

We speak of bureaucratization in the Weberian sense: policy processes are guided by formal rules, clearly defined policies, and decision-making hierar-chies, and produce archived, written documents (Weber, 1958). Furthermore, a central feature of bu-reaucratization is that it generates predictability in decision making within organizations (Ahrne, 1989). We divide governance through bureaucratization into three analytical dimensions. First, we have formali-zation, when an increasing number of organizational procedures—for example meetings—become rou-tinized and scripted by formal structures. Second, precision involves ongoing efforts to clarify and re-fine the definition of a particular concept. Finally, visibility entails making the policy apparent through published action plans and standards. It is thus possi-ble to argue that governance through bureaucratiza-tion pushes the idea of social sustainability through a filter of procedures that package it accordingly into different categories (cf., Handelman, 2004).

Before turning to the analytical section of this article, we describe the organizations that we investi-gated. FLO is a meta-organization that was born out of the fair-trade movement which has been active since the 1940s. However, it was not until 1988 that the first fair-trade label, Max Havelaar, was devel-oped in the Netherlands.3 In the intervening two dec-ades, a number of fair-trade labels were established. Many of these organizations began to cooperate, an arrangement ultimately formalized as FLO in 1997 (see, e.g., Renard, 2003; Raynolds et al. 2007; Reinecke, 2008; Thedvall, 2010). In 2002, FLO de-veloped its own label that most national labeling ini-tiatives now use. Standards have been developed to which products must adhere to keep the FLO label. The process of organizing FLO’s work and develop-ing the standard defines and makes the notion of fair trade more precise. FLO’s ambition is to take into

organized by Organic Forum related to implementing the plan. In total, four participant observations were conducted during such activities, which usually lasted 2–4 hours. 3 For a historical overview, see Raynolds et al. (2007).



52

account all the dimensions of sustainable develop-ment, with a focus on social sustainability.

Organic Forum is, as most meta-organizations, national. Established in 2002, it functions as a meet-ing place for actors interested in developing organic production. In addition, it brings together organiza-tions interested in shaping Sweden’s position in the EU concerning these issues. The organization is partly financed by the Swedish Board of Agriculture (Jordbruksverket) and housed within the Royal Swe-dish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry (Kungliga Skogs- och Lantbruksakademien–KSLA). Organic food production has steadily increased in Sweden over the last two decades, but supply shortages were still seen as a persistent problem. To increase pro-duction and consumption of organic food, Organic Forum enlisted stakeholders to help develop an action plan. The participating organizations were producers and consumers, labeling organizations, environmen-talists, and public authorities (Ekologiskt Forum, 2007). The action plan aimed to increase overall pro-duction by 25% and for 20% of cultivated land to be farmed sustainably by 2010. The targets were politi-cal goals determined by the Swedish government and parliament (Jordbruksdepartementet, 2006). Governance through Bureaucratization in FLO and Organic Forum Formalization of the Process

The formalization of activities leads to the adop-tion of certain types of structures, procedures, and working methods, while others become inappropriate (Røvik, 2000). Formalization is understood as the establishment of hierarchical decision-making struc-tures and institutionalized rules, as well as speciali-zation and division of labor so as to create predicta-bility—a central bureaucratic value (Simon, 1957). We view required participation in the actual formali-zation of activities, such as establishing committees that meet regularly and in developing document tem-plates, as a governance tool. This is an example of governance through bureaucratization, which in this case consists of processes and structures that gently force the participating organizations to develop inter-nal policies and ideas that match the goals of the meta-organization.

There are ongoing efforts within FLO to divide and categorize the various units and departments, as well as their associated tasks and roles. During its fourteen years of existence, the organization’s governance structure has expanded both vertically and horizontally. The membership has changed dra-matically, from including only the national labeling

organizations to encompassing fair-trade producers.4 FLO’s growth has resulted in the need to define spe-cialized tasks, including the creation of several com-mittees that assist the board of directors. The FLO website lists the Standards Committee, the Nomina-tion Committee, and the Finance Committee in its organizational chart. The board is now also assisted by a Governance Committee that deals with terms of reference, voting procedures, and so forth and an Audit Committee that monitors the organization’s fi-nances. Furthermore, a specific group known as the Leadership Team was established in 2009/2010 to handle future opportunities and problems in promot-ing fair trade.

The process of developing the FLO standards has subsequently been formalized, in turn affecting the division of tasks among the participants. Another example given by one member in the Standards Committee is that the group used to be more involved in the details of standard setting, but has recently begun to delegate an increasing share of this work to the standards unit (which itself has grown in size). Furthermore, in 2004, the organization was divided into FLO e.V and FLO-Cert. This split was partly prompted by the fact that FLO-Cert received ISO 65 accreditation (from the International Standards Or-ganization) and this status does not allow the standard-setting activities to be carried out by certi-fying organizations. Accordingly, FLO-Cert is an independent profit-making organization that certifies producers and traders according to the FLO e.V standards.

These changes have resulted in increased for-malization in the processes of defining, as well as determining, which companies and what products can 4 Labeling Initiatives full members (as of March 2012): Fairtrade Austria, Max Havelaar Belgium, Fairtrade Canada, Fairtrade mar-ket Denmark, Fairtrade Estonia, Fairtrade Finland, Max Havelaar France, Fairtrade Deutschland Germany, Fairtrade Mark Ireland, FairtradeTransFair Italy, Fairtrade Label Japan, Fairtrade Latvia, Fairtrade Lithuania, FairtradeLetzebuerg Luxembourg, Stichting Max Havelaar Netherlands, Fairtrade Australia & New Zealand, Fairtrade Max Havelaar Norway, Fairtrade Label South Africa, Asociaciónpara el Sello de Comercio Justo Spain, Fairtrade Swe-den, Max HavelaarStiftung Switzerland, Fairtrade Foundation UK, Fairtrade Canada USA.

Fairtrade Marketing Organizations are the Czech Fair Trade As-sociation Czech Republic, Europe Korea Foundation Korea. Asso-ciate members are Comercio Justo Mexico.

Producer Networks are organizations that Fairtrade Certified Producer Organizations may join and which FLO recognizes as the representative body of farmers, workers, and others belonging to Fairtrade Certified Producer Organizations. There are currently three producer networks on three continents (Africa, Asia, and South America) where Fairtrade Certified Producers Organizations are located: FairtradeAfrica founded in 2004, Coordinadora Latinoamericana y del Caribe de Comercio Justo (CLAC) founded in 1996, and the Network of Asian Producers (NAP) founded in 2005 (see http://www.fairtrade.net).



53

use the fair-trade label. The more formal forums and decision-making hierarchies that the definition of fair trade passes through, the less room for maneuver there is for the various actors to interpret the concept in accordance with their own interests (see also Thedvall, 2006). In the formalization process, com-promises and agreements occur that are difficult to overlook and defy. Governance through bureaucrati-zation affects what fair trade, and in turn what the ideoscape of sustainable development, might include.

The action plan for increased organic food pro-duction and consumption was developed as a tempo-rary project which, as is often the case, took place within the framework of a more permanent organiza-tion, Organic Forum (Sahlin-Andersson & Söderholm, 2002). This proved important in how the project was formalized in terms of developing spe-cialized tasks.

First, according to the Organic Forum leadership, organizations included in the steering and the synthe-sis groups were found in their preexisting network of actors.5 These tended to be organizations dealing primarily with agriculture and nature conservation, notably the Organic Farmers, the Federation of Swe-dish Farmers, KRAV (the national labeling organiza-tion for organic food products), and the Swedish So-ciety for Nature Conservation. This configuration of organizations was mainly concerned with the eco-logical and economic dimensions of sustainability and issues pertaining to social sustainability were excluded from the plan at the outset although nothing in the mandate required this particular orientation (Jordbruksdepartementet, 2006). Other issues that could have been included in the action plan but were left unaddressed were ecological aquaculture and organic fish products. These items were clearly re-lated to organic food production and consumption, but Organic Forum mainly included organizations that worked specifically on organic farming rather than food products in general.

Second, the format for developing the action plan purposefully entailed the establishment of short deadlines and this meant that members of already established networks were recruited to serve within

5 The organizations represented in the first steering group were the Swedish Association for Daily Commodities (Svensk Dagligvaruhandel), the Swedish Board of Agriculture, the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture/Swedish University for Agricultural Sciences (CUL/SLU), the Federation of Swedish Farmers, the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, the Organic Farmers (Ekologiska Lantburkarna), KRAV, KSLA, and the Swedish Cooperative Union (COOP/KF). The final steering group that presented the action plan consisted of representatives from the City of Göteborg (Göteborgs Stad), Milko, the Swedish Board of Agriculture, the Swedish Cooperative Union (KF), the Federation of Swedish Farmers, and the consultant firm Goodpoint (which spearheaded the project).

the formal governing bodies. Furthermore, because the first steering group was unable to complete its task due to divergent opinions about the content of the plan, a new steering group, with even narrower representation, was subsequently appointed by the first steering group. Several interviewees from this group stated that they expected the discussions to become easier if those actors guided by strong man-dates and ideologically biased arguments were ex-cluded. That the group was reorganized to meet the deadline illustrates the importance of governance through bureaucratization. As the first steering group appointed to deal with the plan failed to reach agree-ment, the original deadline was breached and a re-quest for an extension was submitted to, and granted by, the Ministry of Agriculture. However, this delay meant that once the draft plan was complete, there was no time to circulate it for comments from inter-ested parties.

The formalization process meant that actors dealing with social aspects of organic food were nei-ther represented in the steering groups nor invited to take part in the hearings, as no such organizations belonged to the Organic Forum network. Since the plan was not circulated after it was finalized, no other mechanisms existed to bring social issues to the table. The formalization took on specific traits due to the particular model of collective action (e.g., deadlines, steering groups, synthesis groups) that was adopted. The process of governance through bureaucratization limited the representation of stakeholders, and thereby potentially also the plan’s policy impact, as not all concerned with organic food were inclined to assume responsibility for implementation. Precision of Scope

Precision entails the process of defining the scope of fair trade and organic food. Processes of precision are central features of bureaucracies as they aim to organize activities in a rational and stable manner (Weber, 1958; Barnett & Finnemore, 2004; Handelman, 2004). Governance through bureaucrati-zation takes the form of classifying individuals, things, and ideas into categories, which shape the objects of policy making by providing definitions of what is desirable, possible, and thinkable in the ide-oscape of sustainable development. They affect the way that policies are formulated and, in turn, what can be seen as fair trade and organic food. The fol-lowing section shows how the scope of fair trade and organic food has become more precisely defined and restricted through the creation and definition of spe-cific categories, such as research and development or nondiscrimination. This process determined the ac-ceptable meanings of social sustainability. It is visi-ble in our two cases, FLO and Organic Forum.



54

FLO aims to promote sustainable development by improving working and trading conditions for disadvantaged producers, according to the FLO web-site, in this case producers in the global south (FLO, 2008). To meet this vision, the organization has de-veloped a fair-trade label that is governed by a set of standards. Standards are in themselves bureaucratic because they have to be defined to form objective and stable categories that can be used in a variety of con-texts. Built into the bureaucratic processes is the on-going, but ultimately unattainable, pursuit of the “best” and most rational standards. Such circum-stances create a need to continually improve the ex-isting standards, and this is what has happened in the case of FLO. Even though on the surface they appear to have remained the same since the larger categories have been relatively stable, the FLO standards have been in constant flux as their definitions and struc-tures have been redrafted to be more precise.

As an example (see also Thedvall, 2010), the previous version of the Generic Fairtrade Standards for Small Producer Organizations (valid from De-cember 17, 2007) and the current version (valid from August 15, 2009) both have the following rubrics under the heading “Social Development”: Fairtrade adds Development Potential, Members are Small Producers, Democracy, Participation and Transpar-ency, and finally Nondiscrimination. While similar to the previous version, however, the current standards are much more detailed. One example is the mini-mum requirements for Democracy, Participation, and Transparency (see Appendix). The previous version stated:

An organizational structure is in place which enables effective control by the members. There is a General Assembly with direct or delegated voting rights for all members as the supreme decision-taking body, and an elected Board. The staff answers to the Gen-eral Assembly via the Board. The organiza-tion holds a General Assembly at least once a year. The Annual report and accounts are presented to and approved by the General Assembly. Administration is in place. While the previous document describes the gov-

erning bodies and respective responsibilities in gen-eral, the newer standards are more detailed in outlin-ing how tasks should be carried out and by whom. The current page-long version specifies, for example, that the meetings of the General Assembly must be properly minuted and signed by the president of the board, that at least one person is responsible for man-aging the organizational administration and bookkeeping and that the organization needs to have

a bank account. Another example is nondiscrimina-tion. The previous version states:

The organization does not discriminate against members or restrict new membership on the basis of race, colour, sex, sexual ori-entation, disability, marital status, age, reli-gion, political opinion, language, property, nationality, ethnicity or social origin. Fur-thermore, there must be no discrimination regarding participation, voting rights, the right to be elected, access to markets, or ac-cess to training, technical support or any other benefit of membership. The current version elaborates by defining dis-

crimination: Discrimination is making an unfair distinc-tion in the treatment of one person over an-other on grounds that are not related to abil-ity or merit. Where particular forms of dis-crimination exist within an economic sector or geographical region, the organization is expected to show progress towards remov-ing them. Who may become a member of an organization, and the process for joining, must be made explicit in the constitution and/or the statutes. These may not include restrictions that discriminate against partic-ular social groups on the grounds listed in the standard.

As part of governance through bureaucratization,

FLO begins to prioritize the wordings and definitions in the standards to make its intentions more precise and less open to interpretation. In the case of FLO, this process defines the scope of fair trade within the ideoscape of sustainable development, in the process determining what social sustainability might entail. In these examples, social sustainability is democracy, participation and transparency, and nondiscrimina-tion, but the scope of these ideas has been restricted by adding more precise definitions of what, for ex-ample, discrimination means. By governance through bureaucratization, the standards, on one hand, expand what may be standardized while, on the other hand, they make the standards more precise for determining what may be governed.

In the case of Organic Forum, the aforemen-tioned formalization process affected the precision of scope since actors representing social issues were absent from the governing bodies and could not help set the agenda. The consequence was that the preci-sion centered on already agreed upon definitions. This process was reinforced by formal deadlines that



55

limited time for reflection and more extensive discus-sions on the meaning of particular concepts.

The Swedish government and parliament issued the formal mandate for the action plan, but the formulations were vague and left considerable room for interpretation. The plan explicitly identified sustainable development and sustainable resource management as primary goals, but defined neither the concept as a whole nor its various dimensions (Jordbruksdepartementet, 2006).

For example, the synthesis groups were tasked with different topics related to the plan and asked to produce reports for the steering group. Joint knowledge production is often described as an im-portant part of meta-governance and as affecting the content of interaction within a network (Ehrmann & Stinson, 1999; Klijn & Edelenbos, 2008). Joint knowledge production is an important locus for the definition of concepts and interpretation of data, and may accordingly become decisive for shaping the ideoscape of sustainable development. The synthesis groups covered six areas: primary production, knowledge and competence building, industry sec-tors, private consumption, large-scale households and restaurants, and commerce and markets. While eco-logical and economic issues were well represented in these groups, none of them dealt directly with the social aspects of sustainability. For instance, knowledge and competence building focused on dis-seminating national resource- management research, training in compliance with norms of organic agri-culture, and so forth, but not with issues concerning research on the social aspects of converting to or-ganic farming. Several groups drifted from their original mandates, but this was in the end considered a positive development as it revealed issues that the steering group had not initially seen as important. However, no group moved outside the boundaries of the ecological and economic dimensions, of including more topics on the agenda or widening the definitions of organic food.

The scope of the plan was furthermore shaped by previous organic food plans. In 1994, the Swedish Parliament decided to aim to increase organic pro-duction by 10% by 2000, and a subsequent plan con-centrated on the period to 2005. These plans were clearly focused on ecological and economic dimen-sions of organic agricultural production and con-sumption and the new plan maintained the same scope (Jordbruksverket, 1996; 1999; 2001; Jordbruksdepartementet, 2006). In summary, the pro-cess of making the plan more precise had the effect of narrowing its original mandate.

Visibility of Policy Output Visibility of policy output is the third dimension

of governance through bureaucratization that shapes the ideoscape of sustainable development. We under-stand this as part of Weber’s (1958) notion of the importance of the written document as a record of decisions in terms of increasing stability and predict-ability. In this case, the published fair-trade standards and the action plan for organic food are outputs that make policy decisions visible and possible to circu-late. When policies become visible, actors are con-strained and enabled in their understanding and usage of, in this case, the concepts of fair trade and organic food. Hence, it becomes difficult to develop policies without referring to the ones published as standards and action plans. This dimension is especially im-portant in meta-organizations using soft governance, since part of their influence is decided via “regulation by publication” (Snyder, 1994).

In the case of FLO, the standards are published and distributed through its website and FLO-Cert. Standard setting makes producers, traders, and retail-ers aware of what criteria they need to fulfill to use the fair-trade label. As part of the process of making certain standards more visible, related documents need to clearly express the meaning and intent of the label. The visibility of the process consequently be-comes an important mechanism for requiring mem-bers to comply with the meta-organization’s goals. In the process of making policy visible through standard setting, all sorts of complementary documents—explanatory texts, policies, training manuals, standard operating procedures, and so forth—are written to facilitate interpretation of the standards as intended by the meta-organization. On the FLO website, the number of such documents about the organization and the concept of fair trade has grown significantly over time.

FLO has also sought to increase its visibility as an organization. This has included documenting its operating procedures by recording its terms of refer-ence, nomination procedures, and certification-mark manuals. FLO additionally launched a new approach, “Making the Difference: The New Global Strategy for Fairtrade” in 2009 to explain what it considers to be fair trade. The organization has set up a new ver-sion of the website to increase its international and transnational visibility. FLO publishes its standards for a number of products online, the more recent be-ing soybeans and pulses in February 2009 and gold in March 2010. Moreover, the scope of the nuts and oil seeds standard has expanded to cover almonds through an easy entrance scheme that reduces the waiting time for producers seeking fair-trade certifi-cation. Similar measures have been implemented for the fresh vegetables standard that includes sweet po-



56

tatoes. In summary, FLO’s concept of fair trade—what it does and does not encompass—becomes offi-cial in the process of making it visible through docu-ments and the website. FLO stakes its claim in the ideoscape of sustainable development by putting forth its version of social sustainability that example includes, for example, notions of democracy, partici-pation, transparency, and nondiscrimination.

In the case of Organic Forum, the visible output of the process consisted of the printed action plan, evaluations, newsletters, and best-practice presenta-tions that were circulated among the stakeholders, government agencies, and beyond. This diffusion reinforced the narrowed conception of sustainability, as no definitions or action items relating to social sustainability were visible in these documents. Hence, it was difficult for organizations approaching organic food from a social perspective to find any-thing that either supported their activities or that they could augment. The way in which the action plan was made public directed the focus toward the aspects of organic food that had previously been defined and formalized.

The action plan document took the form of a re-port printed in color and distributed to the participant organizations and was also submitted to the Swedish Minister for Agriculture. Furthermore, Organic Fo-rum published information on the plan both during and after the project on its website. A newsletter from an assigned evaluator was also available on the web-site. These measures were regarded as an important part of raising awareness of the plan and pushing members to comply as the newsletters presented ac-tivities and statistics of the issues raised. Compari-sons highlighting both positive and negative exam-ples were also made across different sectors such as meat, milk, and bread production. However, no ex-amples concerning the social aspects, such as how to bridge the divide between organic and traditional farming or how to foster better dialogue between these fields were presented.

In addition to Organic Forum’s promotional ac-tivities, some of the project participants posted the plan on their own websites. Other organizations dealing with organic farming also regularly reported on Organic Forum’s activities related to the plan. These organizations dealt mainly with organic agri-culture, once again showing that visibility reinforces the narrowed scope and definition of organic produc-tion. The accepted understanding only included agri-cultural products and focused solely on the economic and ecological dimensions. As other actors became aware of the plan and its subsequent effects, they participanted in determining the scope of subsequent projects that addressed similar topics. This further

reinforced and promoted the accepted definitions of sustainability. Conclusion: Bureaucratization of Social Sustainability

This article has explored how two meta-organizations, FLO and Organic Forum, have shaped the concepts of fair trade and organic food, thereby providing ideas and content to the ideoscape of sus-tainable development. We have shown how govern-ance through bureaucratization has accomplished this objective. The meaning of fair trade and organic food has been pushed through a filter of formalization, precision, and visibility that has determined how—or even if—the social dimension of sustainable devel-opment could be turned into policy.

What then did social sustainability come to mean in the context of fair trade and organic food? In the case of FLO, the notion of fair trade is devoted to sustainable development with a focus on issues seen as belonging to the social dimension. These include, for example, workers’ rights, broad participation, and democratic rights. However, FLO’s version of social sustainability is of a particular character. Dependent on the organization’s goal of supporting producers and workers in the global south, it is built on the idea of concentrating on producer organizations that have to meet particular requirements with respect to democracy, participation, transparency, and nondis-crimination. The social dimension, then, is connected to a particular geographic area, which in turn deter-mines which products can be fair traded. These prod-ucts have to be produced and managed in specific ways. In the case of Organic Forum and its action plan, the social dimension is never openly addressed or even articulated. This dimension of sustainable development has been crowded out, leaving little room to address the social aspects of organic food production and consumption—despite that fact that the formal goals of the meta-organization and its ac-tion plan target sustainable development in general, including the social dimension.

We have introduced governance through bureau-cratization to identify and explain a number of differ-ent ways in which the social dimension is shaped. First, by formalizing fair trade and organic food into standards and action plans governed by specific steering groups and committees, the bureaucratiza-tion process determines how decisions are made. Furthermore, it affects who is able to participate in the development of the policy at hand. Some actors may be left out depending on the particular way in which the process is formalized.

Second, the precision with which standards and action plans are articulated also plays a role in shap-



57

ing the meaning of the social dimension. This hap-pens through categorization and the ongoing search for the “best” definition of the standard or the content of the action plan.

Finally, the notions of fair trade and organic food became visible through the publication and the distri-bution of documents and other texts. These texts pre-sented particular visions of the social dimension that are included in the ideoscape of sustainable develop-ment.

Following this line of argument, a comparison between the two cases leads to the conclusion that meta-organizations that do not explicitly focus on the social dimension early on in their proceedings will be less likely to include such aspects as their activities become bureaucratized over time. FLO explicitly addresses the social dimension while Organic Forum focuses on sustainable development in general.

A more overarching issue concerns how the scope of the social dimension is filled with meaning and comes to be understood. We see that governance through bureaucratization moves the process of de-fining social sustainability from the political arena to the bureaucratic realm thereby obscuring power struggles and the political aspects of such negotiation (see also Miller & Rose, 1990). The bureaucratic processes take on a life of their own as standards and action plans become more precise, formal, and visible through goal setting and evaluation in the quest to find the “best” criteria. Meta-organizations have the power—in the form of bureaucratization—to deter-mine what social sustainability might mean. As is-sues of representation and participation are very rarely acknowledged in technical bureaucratic pro-cesses, the democratic aspects of governance through bureaucratization need to be further investigated. This would enhance our understanding of the legiti-macy of the regulatory practices carried out by meta-organizations and how the social dimension has been neglected. References Ahrne, G. 1989. Byråkratin Och Statens Inre Gränser [Bureau-

cracy and the Inner Borders of the State]. Stockholm: Rabén & Sjögren (in Swedish).

Ahrne, G. & Brunsson, N. 2008. Meta-organizations. Northamp-ton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Appadurai, A. 1996. Modernity at Large. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Barnett, M. & Finnemore, M. 2004. Rules for the World: Interna-tional Organizations in Global Politics. Ithaca: Cornell Uni-versity Press.

Boström, M. 2010. The Challenges in Achieving the “Social” Di-mension of Sustainable Development: The Case of the Forest Stewardship Council. Score Working Paper 2011:1. Stock-holm: Stockholm Center for Organizational Research.

http://www.score.su.se/polopoly_fs/1.26403.1320939791!/FSCsocialsustainability.pdf.

Brunsson, N. & Jacobsson, B. 2000. A World of Standards. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bryer, A. 2010. Beyond bureaucracies? The struggles for social responsibility in the Argentine workers’ cooperatives. Cri-tique of Anthropology 30(1):41–61.

Casula Vifell, Å. & Soneryd, L. 2010. Organizing matters: how the “social dimension” gets lost in sustainability projects. Sus-tainable Development 20(1):18–27.

Dillard, J., Dujon, V., & King, M. 2009. Understanding the Social Dimension of Sustainability. New York: Taylor and Francis.

Ehrman, J. & Stinson, B. 1999. Joint fact finding and the use of technical experts. In L. Susskind, S. McKearnan, & J. Thoman-Larmer (Eds.), The Consensus Building Handbook. pp. 375–399. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ekologiskt Forum. 2007. Aktionsplan 2010: För en Ökad Ekologisk Konsumtion och Produktion [Action Plan 2010: For Increased Organic Consumption and Production]. Stockholm: KSLA. http://www.cul.slu.se/Aktionsplan2010/ Aktionsplan.pdf (in Swedish).

Fairtrade International. (FLO). 2008. Constitution of the Associa-tion. Bonn: FLO. http://www.fairtrade.net/fileadmin/user_ upload/content/2009/about_us/documents/flo-constitution-june-2011-english.pdf.

Fairtrade International. (FLO). 2009. Generic Fairtrade Standards for Small Producers’ Organizations. Bonn: FLO. http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/Child_labor/04-10_EN_Gen eric_Fairtrade_Standards_SPO_Aug_09_EN_amended_version_04-10.pdf.

Handelman, D. 2004. Nationalism and the Israeli State: Bureau-cratic Logic in Public Events. New York: Berg.

Jacobsson, K. 2004. Soft regulation and the subtle transformation of states. Journal of European Social Policy 14(4):355–370.

Johansson, K. & Tallberg, J. 2010. Explaining chief executive empowerment: European Union summitry and domestic in-stitutional change. West European Politics 33(2):208–236.

Jordbruksdepartementet. 2006. Ekologisk Produktion och Kon-sumtion: Mål och Inriktning Till 2010 [Organic Production and Consumption: The Objectives and Focus to 2010]. Regeringens Skrivelse 2005/06:88. Stockholm: Swedish Ministry of Agriculture (in Swedish).

Jordbruksverket. 1996. Ekologisk Produktion: Aktionsplan 2000 [Organic Production: Action Plan 2000]. Jönköping: Swe-dish Board of Agriculture (in Swedish).

Jordbruksverket. 1999. Svenskt Ekologiskt Jordbruk Inför 2000–Talet: En Uppföljning av Aktionsplanen [Swedish Organic Agriculture for the New Millennium: An Evaluation of the Action Plan]. Jönköping: Swedish Board of Agriculture (in Swedish).

Jordbruksverket. 2001. Ekologiska Jordbruksprodukter och Livsmedel–Aktionsplan 2005 [Organic Agricultural Production and Food Production–Action Plan 2005]. Jönköping: Swedish Board of Agriculture (in Swedish).

Klijn, E. & Edelenbos, J. 2008. Network management as meta-governance. In E. Sørensen & J. Torfing (Eds.), Theories of Democratic Network Governance. pp. 199–214. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Meyer, J., Boli, J., Thomas, G., & Ramirez, F. 1997. World society and the nation state. American Journal of Sociology 103(1): 144–81.

Miller, P. & Rose, N. 1990. Governing economic life. Economy and Society 19(1):1–31.

O’Toole, L. 2008. Governing outputs and outcomes of governance networks. In J. Torfing & E. Sørensen (Eds.), Theories of Democratic Network Governance. pp. 215–232. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Raynolds, L., Murray, D., & Wilkinson, J. 2007. Fair Trade: The Challenges of Transforming Globalisation. New York: Routledge.



58

Reinecke, J. 2008. Standard Setting for the “Certification Revolu-tion”: The Production of Ethical Certainty. 24th European Group for Organisation Studies Colloquium. July 10–12, Amsterdam.

Renard, M. 2003. Fair trade: quality, market and conventions. Journal of Rural Studies 19(1):87–96.

Røvik, K. 2000. Moderna Organisationer [Modern Organiza-tions]. Stockholm: Liber (in Swedish).

Sahlin-Andersson, K. & Söderholm, A. 2002. Beyond Project Management: New Perspectives on the Temporary-Permanent Dilemma. Malmö: Liber.

Snyder, F. 1994. Soft law and institutional practice in the European Community. In S. Martin (Ed.), The Construction of Europe, Essays in the Honour of Emile Noël. pp. 197–226. Boston: Kluwer.

Sørensen, E. & J. Torfing (Eds.). 2007. Theories of Democratic Network Governance. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Thedvall, R. 2006. Eurocrats at Work: Negotiating Transparency in Post-national Employment Policy. Stockholm Studies in Social Anthropology No. 56. Reykjavík: University of Ice-land Press.

Thedvall, R. 2010. The Role of Bureaucratisation in Organising “Fair” Markets: The Case of the Fairtrade Labelling Or-ganizations International (FLO). Score Working Paper 2010:11. Stockholm: Stockholm Center for Organizational Research. http://www.score.su.se/english/publications/score-reports.

Weber, M. 1958[1946]. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Young, W. & Utting, K, 2005. Fair trade, business and sustainable development. Sustainable Development 13(3):139–208.

Appendix: Democracy, Participation, and Transparency Minimum Requirements 1.3.1 Minimum requirements 1.3.1.1 An organizational structure is in place which enables effective control by the members. There is a General Assembly

with direct or delegated voting rights for all members as the supreme decision-taking body, and an elected Board. The staff answers to the General Assembly via the Board.

Fairtrade wants to work with organizations that see themselves as a tool for supporting the social and economic development of small producers. The way in which an organization works can be a key factor in supporting development. Members must be enabled to participate in free, fair and transparent Board elections and to become involved in discussions about major decisions.

Where the organization considers it appropriate, an elected delegate system can be put in place.

The certification body will check whether the organization abides by its own stated rules and regulations (constitution, by-laws and internal policies, including the election processes).

1.3.1.2 The organization holds a General Assembly at least once a year.

The General Assembly is the supreme decision-making body of the organization. It is intended to enable all members to hold the organization’s Board and staff accountable for their activities, and to participate in defining the future strategies and activities of the organization.

For the General Assembly to function effectively, it must meet at least once a year.

The meetings must be properly minuted, signed by the President of the Board and at least one other member, and recorded. The minutes must contain a list of participants.

The organization must communicate the plans for the General Assembly in such a way as to reach all the members in time.

1.3.1.3 The organization’s annual report, budgets and accounts must be presented to and approved by the General Assembly.

This is a requirement common in most legal regulations for organizations of this kind.

For members to be able to hold the organization’s Board and staff accountable, the presentation and approval of the annual report and the accounts during the General Assembly are essential.

1.3.1.4 Administration is in place.

Participating in Fairtrade requires that the organization has an adequate administration.

There is at least one person (or committee) in the organization responsible for managing the organizational administration and book-keeping.

The organization also needs to have a bank account with usually more than one signatory.

The official records and documentation of the organization must be maintained in a central place and be accessible to all members.

Source: FLO, 2009


2012 Klintman Winter 2012 | Volume 8 | Issue 1

59

ARTICLE

Issues of scale in the global accreditation of sustainable tourism schemes: toward harmonized re-embeddedness? Mikael Klintman Research Policy Institute, Lund University, PO Box 117, Lund SE-22100 Sweden (email: [email protected]) In efforts to find synergies or, conversely, tradeoffs between the environmental and social pillars of sustainable devel-opment policies, geographical scale is often an important issue. This article critically analyzes issues of scale, such as local-global or North-South, to establish and improve international standards of ecologically sound products and pro-cesses. The article combines works on scale theory in geography with sociological work on disembeddedness and re-embeddedness. The approach is based on analyses of documents about standardization within the sustainable tour-ism sector. More specifically, the article analyzes efforts related to the Sustainable Tourism Stewardship Council (STSC). It holds that reducing issues to inherent qualities of local versus global—or to North versus South—runs the risk of obscuring urgent social, economic, and environmental sustainability problems concerning water, sanitation, preservation of cultural heritage, and so forth within countries in the South. Finally, the article presents certain practical policy recommendations for addressing the struggles associated with movement toward harmonized re-embeddedness. KEYWORDS: tourism, international standards, developing countries, geographical distribution, economic sectors, social conditions, environmental policy Introduction

Consistent with the wider trend of ecostandards, product labelling, and green political consumerism (Boström & Klintman, 2008), sustainable tourism programs have grown exponentially since the early 1990s. The international Mohonk Agreement defined sustainable tourism as “tourism that seeks to mini-mise ecological and socio-cultural impacts while providing economic benefits to local communities and host countries” (Mohonk Agreement, 2000).1

In 2004, there were more than 60 standardization and verification programs related to sustainable tour-ism (Skinner et al. 2004). As in many other sectors—food, electricity, textiles, and so forth—sustainable tourism schemes have been, and still partly are, in a phase where small, destination-specific units set up local or regional criteria. According to the World Tourism Organization, an average of 50 tourism firms were certified per program in 2002 (UNWTO, 2002). In terms of employers and employees, this number is very small (compared to ecoschemes in other sectors) since 98% of firms in tourism are

1 Sustainable tourism can be distinguished (although with over-laps) from the more specific concept of “ecotourism,” the latter referring to “sustainable tourism with a natural area focus, which benefits the environment and communities visited, and fosters environmental and cultural understanding, appreciation and aware-ness” (Mohonk Agreement, 2000).

“micro-business” (Taylor, 1998). Yet, in comparison to other sectors (cf., Boström & Klintman, 2006), sustainable tourism has ambitions to move from di-verse and complex schemes to international stand-ards. Several—sometimes parallel or overlapping—global standardization programs have been carried out.2

In sustainable tourism—similar to sustainability programs within several other sectors such as forestry and fishery—a key set of tasks is often discussed in terms of geographical scale. In the spirit of Agenda 21, it has almost become a household phrase that the local and the global should be married, integrated, crossfertilized, or the like. This extensive use of phrases and concepts surrounding the local and global when problematizing several sectors makes it

2 For instance, the Global Code of Ethics for Tourism (GCET) is a set of principles aimed at guiding stakeholders in tourism devel-opment. The Code was developed through a resolution of the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) General Assembly meeting in Istanbul in 1997. Another initiative was taken by the largest and oldest organization involved in ecotour-ism, The International Ecotourism Society (TIES), which is active in 90 countries. However, it has not developed standards or crite-ria, but is instead active in giving courses and educating the tour-ism industry in ecological improvements. At the European Union level, finally, there is the Voluntary Initiative for Sustainability in Tourism (VISIT), an association established in 2004 within the context of a European Union project on the ecolabelling of tourism firms, based on an alliance initiated in 2001 between a dozen leading tourism ecolabels.

Klintman: Global Accreditation of Sustainable Tourism


60

important to examine critically what is assumed and implied in statements about the local and the global in voluntary policies. Using the case of sustainable tourism criteria and accreditation, this article criti-cally analyzes the framings of sustainability issues as scale-related (such as “local-global” or “North-South”), involved in processes intended to establish and improve international ecostandards that could be awarded to ecologically sound products and pro-cesses. What concerns can be found beneath the fo-cus on scales, concerns that perhaps refer to chal-lenges beyond scales? The use of a framing perspec-tive in the analysis is in line with the definition of framing as a way in which various alliances, organi-zations, and actors simplify an uncertain and complex reality, partly to make it understandable and partly to advance an agenda (e.g., Fischer, 2003; Klintman, 2006).

The empirical point of departure for the analysis is a particular effort in policies surrounding sustain-able tourism, namely the development of the Sustain-able Tourism Stewardship Council (STSC).3 Through the Council, a broad range of sustainable tourism stakeholders are working to integrate a large number of sustainable tourism labels into one universal sys-tem of accreditation. The STSC is a proposed um-brella organization that would set universal minimum standards for certification programs and accredit those that meet them. The core mission of STSC is:

[T]o enhance the sustainability of tourism operations by ensuring better environmental and social performance, and improved eco-nomic benefits to local communities and to certified businesses worldwide (Rainforest Alliance, 2009). This article places efforts to develop a council

for the ecoaccreditation of tourism within the context of several certification schemes, all of which, in one way or another, are connected to STCS.

3 The empirical data in this article have been collected from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and public agencies in-volved in accreditation and certification of sustainable tourism schemes; the Sustainable Tourism Stewardship Council (STSC) has been in particular focus. Moreover, this article has used data from closely related and analytically comparable discussions sur-rounding other sustainable tourism schemes (that are, or may be-come, subject to accreditation under STSC). The document data have been collected from websites, reports, stakeholder comments on standards drafts, and press releases. The goal of the data collec-tion has not been to make statistical generalizations, but to assem-ble a wide range of examples of discussions and points of view that illustrate challenges and dilemmas of creating sustainability stand-ards where environmental, social, and economic pillars are all taken into account. Data have been gathered until the point of saturation, that is, the point where statements and discussions were repeated.

Using a perspective within scale theory (see Born & Purcell, 2006), this article conceives of scales not as given but as strategic, driven by social actors, based on special interests (e.g., economic, political, cultural). With this point of departure, the analysis is intended to show how a number of social and eco-nomic challenges, which are not necessarily tied to geographical scale, are still presented simplistically as founded on local-global tensions, in programs geared toward sustainable development.

Importantly for dealing with tasks of sustain-ability, one may—underneath these scale-oriented framings—find several tensions and problems (sur-rounding economic inequality, limitations to public participation, neglect of cultural and environmental values) beyond the local-global dualism. These are issues that instead need to be confronted in terms of “disembeddedness,” and are not necessarily geo-graphic in nature. Theorietical Framework

The eagerness among some stakeholders to de-velop “internationally harmonized” ecostandards within various consumer-related sectors is fully in line with the market-liberal, “eco-pragmatic meta-frame” of many ecological standardization schemes (Klintman & Boström, 2004). In addition to the envi-ronmental and social benefits that actors within standardization bodies associate with such harmoni-zation, there are, obviously, very strong (some would say overriding) market motives behind these pro-cesses, as international standards facilitate trade and make companies (and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)) visible and more legitimate in the eyes of green political consumers (Crane, 2005). As Table 1 shows, the development of trust is key here. One distinction can be made between internal trust, refer-ring to the view within the organization, and external trust, which is relevant to users and other stakehold-ers (cf., Provan & Kenis, 2008).

This article claims that at the core of the obsta-cles to and opportunities for broad trust in several environmental and “fair-trade” standardization schemes—as well as in a global accreditation system—is the issue of how problems are framed as scale-based. In certain streams of scale theory (see, e.g., Zimmerer, 2006), scale (particularly with respect to the local and the global) is often erroneously dis-cussed (in academia as well as among policy practi-tioners) as inherent, and, even more erroneously, as inherently “good” or “bad.” Through the lens of scale theory, Born & Purcell (2006) argue convincingly against what they call “the local trap,” namely per-ceptions and explanations implying the overriding and objective function of physical scale in develop-



61

ment issues of various kinds, for instance in food and agriculture. They instead maintain that scales are socially produced, and that the relationships between scales—for instance, the local and the global—are not independent of inherent qualities. Instead, scales are strategic, driven by social actors with their own special interests, be it political, economic, or cultural. This article seeks to go one step further by analyzing how tension between local and global scales explains a multitude of challenges in programs geared to sus-tainable development. Many dimensions of scale-related framings have not been mapped out thus far and analyzed in depth. Subjective framings are typi-cally created from challenges as (geographically) scale-oriented to create cultural resonance for one’s own “global view” (Boström & Tamm Hallström, 2010).

The above-mentioned framing perspective on scale theory can be combined fruitfully with socio-logical work on disembeddedness and re-embeddedness. Social theorist Anthony Giddens (1990) refers to social disembedding as “the lifting out of social relations from local contexts of interac-tion and their restructuring across indefinite spans of time-space.” On one hand, this process entails a sepa-ration of physical space from ecologically and so-cially based place. Giddens (1990) defines re-embedding (or just embedding), on the other hand, as “the reappropriation or recasting of disembedded social relations so as to pin them down (however partially or transitorily) to local conditions of time and place.”

Tourism can be understood as usually having traits of social disembedding, in that it introduces foreign visitors to traditionally sheltered areas, which many commentators argue has the downside of threatening the ability of local communities to protect their socioeconomic situation and cultural heritage. With the explicit aim of reducing negative social, economic, and environmental impacts, NGOs have introduced a range of sustainable tourism labels and certificates at the local, regional, national, and inter-national levels. Efforts toward crossnational conver-

gence and internationalization of ecostandards are central here, due to the often global character of tourism. By combining the above-mentioned out-looks of scale theory and social disembeddedness, the following discussion highlights how closeness and distance—not just in a geographical sense but also in a socioeconomic, cultural, and ethnic sense, for in-stance—play a major part in society’s endeavors to develop certificates and standards for ecological and ethical criteria (and their tradeoffs or synergies) of goods and services.

Analysis

To specify the rather broad concepts of disem-beddedness and re-embeddedness, it is useful to con-struct another distinction crucial for understanding trust surrounding sustainability projects, namely be-tween “procedural” and “substantive” disembed-dedness. Procedural aspects pertain to processes for how decisions are made and who can make use of the resultant schemes. In contrast, substantive aspects concern what decisions are made, which criteria are decided upon, and so forth (cf., Klintman & Kronsell, 2010). Applied to disembeddedness, the procedural aspect refers to processes of participation in decision making and in uses that are distant from a particular social context, such as from a local region and com-munity. Importantly, the case of sustainable tourism clearly illustrates the procedural disembeddedness of participation (in decision making) as one task and procedural disembeddedness of use (of the schemes) as another task. Table 1 illustrates this distinction. Substantive disembeddedness, in contrast, refers to the actual criteria—for instance, for reductions of negative environmental impacts of the tourism in-dustry—that have been decided on at a distance from the social and environmental context at stake.

Further on in the analysis, we shall see how three aspects of disembeddedness are involved, aspects that various actors have framed as challenges to a harmo-nized re-embeddedness of sustainable tourism ac-creditation. The analysis starts, however, by demon-

Table 1 Framings of challenges in handling disembeddedness and gaining trust.

Framings of Challenges Internal trust External trust Procedural disembeddedness of participation

How to have “the local community” participate in criteria-setting in ways that the community approves.

How to design stakeholder participation in ways that “the market” and/or international NGOs approve.

Procedural disembeddedness of use How to give “the local community” access to the use of the schemes in that the community approves.

How to give people access to the use of the schemes in ways that “the market” and/or international NGOs approve.

Substantive disembeddedness of criteria

How to develop substantive criteria that “the local community” approves.

How to develop substantive criteria that “the market” and/or international NGOs approve.



62

strating how sustainable tourism is framed as “frag-mented” attempts at re-embeddedness.

Nonharmonized Sustainable Tourism as Fragmented Attempts at Re-embeddedness

Despite regular calls for local participation and engagement (based on the idea of re-embedding so-cial interaction into the local context), there are, in one respect, great concerns about the multitude of national and international sustainable tourism schemes. In addition, there are problems surrounding the subjectivity, and sometimes locally biased arbi-trariness, of sustainable tourism claims. Scholars and practitioners agree that the proliferation of ecolabel-ling schemes in tourism has generated fragmented attempts at re-embeddedness which, in turn, has cre-ated confusion on the part of consumers. This frag-mentation can make it difficult for any program to function effectively (see Boström & Klintman, 2008). Several recent initiatives have been introduced to address these concerns (see below). This reaction is identical to the situation surrounding ecolabelling more generally (Dodds & Joppe, 2005). These con-cerns have led to calls for a globally standardized scheme involving several international actors, from industries to government agencies to NGOs. The World Bank has noted, “If certification [of sustain-able tourism] is to continue and be successful…there is a need for one global body to set and monitor the adoption of industry wide criteria” (Dodds & Joppe, 2005). Moreover, these concerns reflect a certain hope, as expressed by STSC and the Rainforest Alli-ance in their rationales for global accreditation:

The core mission of the STSC is to enhance the sustainability of tourism operations by ensuring better environmental and social performance, and improved economic bene-fits to local communities and to certified businesses worldwide. The STSC aims to do this through the establishment of a global accreditation, standards, training, support and marketing organization, in order to in-crease the number and quality of certified sustainable tourism enterprises in the global marketplace. Why? Because a trustworthy international standards setting and accred-itation system will guarantee independently verified, internationally recognized certainty and transparency for all tourism sector cer-tification programs (Sillence, 2007) (em-phasis added).

###

“There is mass confusion about what is sus-tainable tourism,” said Tensie Whelan, ex-

ecutive director of the Rainforest Alliance, which organized the partnership alongside the United Nations Foundation and various United Nations agencies…This body will help to make this information availa-ble…and ensure that it is indeed reliable (Block, 2008). Whereas there have been many attempts at re-

embedding local concerns, cultures, and interests into tourism (through sustainable tourism schemes), ac-tors within STSC, among other organizations, imply that these schemes have become too political, biased, and sometimes watered down due to an absence of impartial monitoring. Many sustainable tourism schemes, these actors contend, cannot therefore be trusted—externally by tourists or internally by NGOs or by the tourism industry.

Handling Procedural Disembeddedness of Participation

A key component of the social pillar of sustain-able development is the procedural aspect of partici-pation and representation. Who gets to participate in the setting of principles and criteria of the sustain-ability program (Lehtonen, 2004)? One main reason for this procedural emphasis is the concern illustrated by the following question (one that is often either posed or implied): How can sociocultural problems be solved in light of the common Northern point of reference/bias in transnational standard-setting or-ganizations? An influential NGO puts it in this way: “Next meeting needs to have better global represen-tation, from the different continents, etc.” (Tavares, 2008). This call for better representation stems from criticism of international ecoschemes, that the local level is ignored in favor of regulatory processes. The complaint is based on efforts to facilitate local em-powerment. It grew in the 1990s, in connection with Agenda 21, and was aimed at enabling local commu-nities to discuss and make decisions about their needs, as well as to choose how to meet these needs (Chambers, 1998). Applied to sustainable tourism, the path breaking Mohonk Agreement states that “the development of a certification scheme should be a participatory, multistakeholder, and multisectoral process.”4 Moreover, Sirakaya et al. (2001) maintain that this requirement reflects a “consensus among experts that stakeholder participation is integral to the

4 Issued in 2000, the Mohonk Agreement was a “[p]roposal for an International Certification Program for Sustainable Tourism and Ecotourism.” The Agreement is still a point of reference in the development of many ecotourism and sustainable tourism schemes. See http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/tourism/documents/mohonk .pdf.



63

development and application of sustainability indi-cators for monitoring ecotourism impacts.”

The phrase “to empower the local community” is very common in the sustainable tourism context (Cole, 2006). Still, it is very difficult to assess who exactly comprises “the local community.” As the Australian researchers of water and wasteland issues, Schianetz et al. (2007), maintain,

[T]ourism destinations can range in scale from whole countries and states to resorts and small tourism sites. In the context of this review, the chosen scale needs to be mean-ingful and practical for the sustainable man-agement and assessment of tourism and its development. Setting boundaries too large, for instance at country or state level, could be problematic because issues are too di-verse and complex, whereas boundaries that are too narrow (e.g., resorts, hotels, individ-ual tourism sites) do not allow the inclusion of all aspects of, for instance, the necessary engineering infrastructure and the compre-hensive analysis of all. These challenges of scale aside, there are at least

three rationales for the calls for formulation of par-ticipatory and deliberative sustainable tourism stand-ardization schemes. The first rationale is moral, and refers to the rights of those people and communities affected by the ecostandards and the criteria to affect the various stages of the scheme. For example, Blamey (2001) maintains that “Ethically, the re-quirement that local communities benefit from eco-tourism and participate in decision making is ‘the socially responsible, or right, thing to do,’ as it seeks to diminish inequalities between North and South and across class lines within the developing world” (Blamey, 2001).

The second rationale concerns trust in the crite-ria’s substantive quality. This point is instrumental and contends that the criteria can only be successfully implemented if the local communities have been en-gaged, since they are the ones living closest to the sites. Moreover, the local stakeholders often have the best knowledge about the sites in terms of their cul-ture, history, local environment, and so forth—knowledge much needed in developing criteria (Fennell, 2008). Some commentators argue that these actors have the most to gain if the schemes take their local circumstances into account. The instrumental rationale is driven by the assumption that “local communities are most likely to protect or maintain a resource base in a form that is suitable for tourism if they stand to benefit from it” (Blamey, 2001).

Finally, the underlying—and partly overlap-ping—rationale is that small, local players are needed as participants to ensure that the standards have the external trust of the market. To be “modern,” ecostandards must differ from the colonial principles of the North directing and patronizing the South. Consequently, there is a paradoxical tension between foreign and large companies competing with local small and medium enterprises (SMEs). The former needs the latter to become ecocertified in order to se-cure public trust in their own ecocertification/ accreditation.

Despite the apparent consensus about the im-portance of local participation, and although the Mo-honk Agreement contends that such processes should include local communities, tourism businesses, NGOs, community-based organizations, and gov-ernment agencies (Honey, 2002), the deficit of par-ticipatory, multisectoral processes is not merely a problem of a global or Northern bias (in the planning, implementation, and assessment phases). In many other cases of developmental work, the risk has been shown to be so high that local elites, with their strong social and financial means, monopolize the “voice of the local community” (Manyara & Jones, 2007; Simpson, 2008). A further aspect of the North-South dichotomy, according to Buckley (2009), who has conducted extensive studies of environmental impli-cations of sustainable tourism, is that what is sim-plistically reduced to “a Northern bias” also includes positive efforts within the ecological pillar of sustain-able development. As discussed below with regard to the substantive disembeddedness (of environmental criteria), the ecological pillar of sustainable develop-ment requires that international ecoaccreditation bodies help local communities broaden the emphasis of “local” environmental and health-related problems and embrace a more thoroughgoing account of wider environmental problems which do not always coin-cide with the local ones (Buckley, 2009).

Handling Procedural Disembeddedness of Use

Criticism contending that the socioeconomic problems of tourism are due to the disadvantages of small local actors relative to large international cor-porations is not merely an issue of “the international, corporate North” versus “the local South.” Nonethe-less, this is how the tension is often framed, rein-forcing the characterization of the global North as the (self-) interested, profit-oriented private sector and the South as environmentally conscious and con-cerned, dominated by civil society. Critics are wor-ried that transnational corporations placed in devel-oped countries will set the agendas of certification programs, that this may entail a bias toward Northern interests rather than concerns for Southern needs, and



64

toward business interests rather than reduced envi-ronmental harm (Sasidharan & Font, 2001).

Interestingly, in practical ecocertification con-texts, ecostandards are often concerned with the op-posite challenge, namely how to reduce the usual inclinations of local, short-term profit interests in the South to disregard broader environmental considera-tions and to expand assessments of local environ-mental problems and conditions in ways that can be translated into the global, environmental goals de-fined by the North. Fennell (2008) writes, “[W]hile the literature suggests that ecotourism ought to be transparent with income shared among community members, benefits are often realised by only a few members which ultimately forces the majority to engage in other non-sustainable activities.”

Sometimes the local, short-term profit interests in the South are expressed as having indirect conse-quences, such as by entailing the issuance of unre-stricted invitations to foreign investors to exploit nature and local culture: “To date, few developing countries have imposed social or environmental crite-ria to foreign investors, seeing only short-term eco-nomic gains instead of long-term, holistic, sustain-able tourism development” (Dodds & Joppe, 2005).

In such cases, researchers describe the local level as less than trustworthy, whereas researchers and international NGOs describe the global and general level (aside from single, unscrupulous investors) as perceived as objective and trustworthy: “Consumers deserve to know that a [locally defined] nature lodge that calls itself ‘green’ or a mountain trek that claims to be environmentally sensitive truly is” (Sanabria et al. 2003).

What are typically portrayed as issues fully based on this polarity can often, when analyzed in greater depth, be boiled down to concerns about the challenges for SMEs with regard to ecocertification of tourism.5 Sillence (2007) argues that STSC devel-opment plans need further research regarding SMEs because these businesses represent a substantial slice of the tourism industry. In each region, the specific needs SMEs have must be evaluated. This point has been further acknowledged throughout the years at STSC.

At the centre point of the global vision for the STSC are the thousands of administra-tive departments, the hundreds of thousands of Micro/Small and Medium Enterprises

5 Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) can be defined in various ways, one being enterprises with fewer than 250 employees and “less than 45 million USD [in 1998] in annual turnover” (Taylor et al. 1998). This is obviously a very rough definition; the Rainforest Alliance thus recognizes that further distinctions might be needed within this approach (Sanabria et al. 2003).

(SMEs), the global corporations, and the millions of consumers who are in some way aware of—or involved in—making their consumption and production of tourism goods and services more sustainable (Sillence, 2007). As mentioned above, the call for local participa-

tion and empowerment has become routine in stand-ardization discussions of sustainable tourism. Relat-ing this to the academic literature on local involve-ment and participation, Sorensen et al. (2002) iden-tify three types of participation: informational, par-ticipatory planning, and financial. From this perspec-tive, informational participation would be the lowest level of engagement since local people are largely receivers of information that has been generated elsewhere. Sorensen and his colleagues (2002) place participatory planning at the middle level and regard it as a moderate degree of involvement. They inter-pret the third mode, financial participation, as the most powerful and empowering type of participation (Sorensen et al. 2002). This ranking can contrast the harmonized schemes of sustainable tourism that some developers have made. In such cases, the importance of employing “local labor” is among the most com-mon prescriptions for improving social conditions, al-though this is clearly addressed to large firms in the North and based on cultivating external trust of the international tourism market. Bendell & Font (2004) observe that:

[M]any [sustainable tourism] programs in-clude criteria on the creation of local em-ployment, the use of locally sourced and produced materials and food, the involve-ment of local communities, and the support of networks of “green businesses” within a given destination. These criteria are im-portant since local economic empowerment is an aspect of sustainability, even though, on average, between 60 and 90% of the price that tourists pay for their holidays goes to those multinationals. Although reducing local unemployment is im-

portant to stimulating social sustainability, respond-ents to surveys about sustainable tourism criteria often assert—although expressed in different terms—that the emphasis on local employment, rather than on SMEs, helps maintain a structure of procedural disembeddedness of foreign employers and local employees. I draw on Medina (2005), who notes, “Belizean villagers express a preference for self-employment over wage labour, perceiving the latter to benefit the employer more than the worker. This



65

preference suggests that the means through which economic benefits to local communities may be de-fined and measured may be more contentious than anticipated by international experts.” Medina (2005) moreover claims that local concerns about wage labor could plausibly be found “well beyond Belize.” Ac-cordingly, people in local communities may not per-ceive local employment (as employees) as a particu-lar benefit, but as the services and time that the local community offers the tourism industry. In a case study of sustainable tourism in Belize, Medina (2005) claims that “Belizeans also problematised the concept of participation in two different senses: they raised issues regarding how people desire to participate in ecotourism development—as employees or entrepre-neurs.” An excessive belief in the apparent gratitude of local communities for increased employment via sustainable tourism companies may actually hurt the environmental and social goals of sustainable tour-ism: “If…they [local communities] do not count wage labour as a benefit, they are unlikely to support local protected areas. If they do not support protected areas, then both the conservation goals that led to their creation and the tourism that depends upon and supports such protected areas are at risk” (Medina, 2005).

The involvement of small, local businesses (self-employers) in planning and membership might be a more progressive goal, particularly through the im-proved visibility that such schemes can give SMEs. The challenges of small firms with regard to ecocerti-fication have frequently been stressed. In previous debates about ecostandards in tourism, there has been consensus that SMEs are typically unfavorably treated in the schemes (Font, 2007). As a response to the challenges of SMEs’ low representation in the schemes in the South, STSC has discussed providing subsidies, not to the SMEs directly, but to small, re-gional certification programs that would make it eas-ier and more attractive for SMEs to participate: “There is concern that small certification programs from developing countries will need subsidies to par-ticipate in a global accreditation program. A variety of funding mechanisms, including tourism industry and government support and foundation and donor grants, were seen as a viable mechanism to pay for the non-accreditation activities” (Sanabria et al. 2003).

Handling Substantive Disembeddedness: Raising or Lowering the Environmental and Social Criteria?

The issue of the excluded SMEs raises the obvi-ous question of how to increase the participation of local SMEs in planning, participation, and member-ship with regard to international accreditation. An

aspect of this substantive disembeddedness is the levels and thresholds of the standards, that is, in terms of environmental and social criteria. Kate Dodson, Deputy Director of Sustainable Develop-ment for the United Nations Foundation, explains how during development of the Global Partnership for the Sustainable Tourism Criteria (GSTC)6 the tourist companies involved in the partnership com-mented on the criteria developed after thirteen months of consultation.

[T]here was a minimum of 91% approval for each criterion from industry; and 91% of the industry answered they would be willing to adopt the criteria. In terms of outreach to certification programs there has been wide endorsement of the criteria and understand-ing of the need for the criteria, although it will take some time for some existing certi-fication programs to adjust their criteria (Sanabria et al. 2003). It is fair to assume that the spokesperson per-

ceives the target as 100% approval, and that 91% is very close to this mark. Nonetheless, previous studies have raised concerns about whether a maximum level of acceptance among companies is ideal—from an environmental or label-marketing perspective. On one hand, efforts to achieve unanimity run the risk of “green inflation” or the design of watered-down crite-ria (Boström & Klintman, 2008). On the other hand, in the case of accreditation of sustainable tourism, where there is much debate about the absence of local SMEs from the South, it is worth exploring whether this high level of acceptance among an exclusive group of sustainable tourism actors (mainly big for-eign firms) could pave the way for subsequent inclu-sion of aspirant SMEs that have little experience in sustainable tourism.

Researchers and scholars alike argue that setting criteria involves a dilemma between overly strict and unduly loose criteria. Standards can be seen as too binding if only a small portion of the tourism industry 6 The GSTC were jointly developed by a coalition established in 2007 that consisted of 27 organizations. These entities included the United Nations Foundation, the Rainforest Alliance, and the Fed-eration of Tour Operators. STSC describes its relationship with GSTS as follows: “As a stewardship council, the STSC needs a common set of baseline criteria by which to accredit existing sus-tainable tourism certification programs. The GSTC are envisioned to serve that purpose.” The GSTC Partnership and STSC have secured a close relationship and each involved with different areas of sustainable tourism. While the STSC focuses on the more tech-nical aspects of accrediting certification programs, GSTC provides educational and implementation tools that any member of the travel industry—whether certified or not—can use to improve their sustainability practices. See http://www.rainforestalliance. org/tourism.cfm?id=questions.



66

can qualify, despite comprehensive efforts by diligent companies. And, in light of the often-stated im-portance of including local SMEs from the South in these processes, several commentators ask whether, if the criteria are too difficult to reach, the overall cam-paign will exacerbate inequalities between the South and the North. Accordingly, some observers hold that a lowering of standards (at least initially) would fa-cilitate the inclusion of small, local actors in the schemes (cf., Sharpley, 2000).

Within this complex dilemma, the main chal-lenge is to find a common baseline:

• To help certification and other voluntary

programs ensure that their standards meet a broadly accepted baseline.

• To offer governmental, nongovernmental, and private-sector programs a starting point for developing sustainable tourism requirements.

• To serve as basic guidelines for education and training bodies, such as hotel schools and universities (Sanabria et al. 2003). Intriguingly, it is difficult to find concrete and

clear discussions among actors in international ac-creditation about the possibility of having one (slightly stricter) standard for large and/or foreign companies and another one (slightly looser, at least temporarily) for local SMEs. To be sure, there are calls to allow for “variations [in] physical, economic, cultural and social realities” (Font, 2007), although it is not obvious that this includes “sliding scales” of substantive criteria. “Sliding scales” could refer to the degree to which education programs should be carried out, how much the use of the accreditation should cost, or other criteria. The use of dual stand-ards is commonplace in several other sectors in the United States and Europe, such as admissions to schools and universities, where underprivileged groups can be accepted with lower grades. The idea behind such “affirmative action” is that these candi-dates may become role models for subsequent appli-cants, so that the two standards can ultimately be merged. However, there are signs that it is not so much the levels of environmental impact that the SMEs would not be able to meet (in terms of envi-ronmental or social records), but rather the economic means, or business interest, to become involved in the standardization schemes. As one of the actors from The International Ecosystem Society (TIES) states:

The same structural problems of high costs, complexity, and lack of flexibility to reflect local conditions apply with special force to smaller enterprises. The SMEs can’t afford

expensive programs, need simpler designs, and require latitude to adjust to management and physical limitations. The respondents were unanimous in their view that SMEs need comprehensive support if they are not to be disadvantaged by certification pro-grams. Accordingly, governments, NGOs, industry associations and other potential do-nors should be prepared to provide inte-grated packages of financial, technical and marketing assistance to SMEs (Sanders, 2004). Among the TIES and STSC documents are

strong calls to increase the number of companies that meet the international ecostandards toward which these accreditation organizations are aiming. For SMEs to meet these standards would not just have general sustainability-related merits, but also busi-ness advantages. As Font (2007) maintains, “it allows [these companies] in the medium term to reach the economies of scale to produce better training for ap-plicants and marketing of their products.”

Discussion and Conclusion: Challenges to Harmonized Re-embeddedness

As a study of social sustainability challenges, this article has explored scale-related framings in policy discussions about internationally harmonized accreditation of sustainable tourism schemes. The theoretical basis for this exploration was a question-ing of whether scales have inherent qualities of use-fulness or uselessness in sustainability projects. Ten-sions between the local (South) and the global/ geographically distant (North) constitute the primary scale-related theme. Justifications of the need for international accreditation, as put forward by NGOs and businesses, have drawn attention to the problem that nonharmonized sustainable tourism schemes are less likely to be trusted externally, independently verified, and transparent. Moreover, the landscape of sustainable tourism certifications was described as a confusing, global mess. In sociological terms, this criticism reflects a view of nonharmonized sustain-able tourism landscapes as fragmented attempts at re-embeddedness. If conventional tourism can be char-acterized as socially disembedded, the multitude of sustainable tourism schemes may have included crite-ria directed toward re-embeddedness into specific cultures and regions.

Yet, the overall picture, according to the accred-itation actors, is one of fragmentation and sometimes excessive local biases of the ecoschemes. This is interesting, in light of the typical emphasis on in-creasing the local re-embeddedness of ecolabelling



67

schemes, empowering local communities, and so forth. While partly an environmental and social eq-uity matter, the primary problem that arises from the “confusion” described above is a market concern of NGOs and the sustainable tourism industry and this is what prompts the call for “global harmonization” through ecoaccredited tourism. Nevertheless, actors involved in developing the accredited standard (within STSC) emphasize that they face very signifi-cant challenges (Skinner et al. 2004). From this per-spective, the privileged position of the international, Northern-based NGOs, as well as the short-term profit-seeking, large-scale sustainable tourism busi-nesses, was framed as the root of the problem.

However, when analyzed in greater depth, it is possible to identify three interrelated challenges, as indicated in Figure 1, challenges that transcend the North-South polarity in the fixed, normative sense.

First, procedural disembeddedness of participa-tion, or the distance between the accrediting regula-tors and the regulated local communities, is an echo of the common social sustainability call for local empowerment and local participation in the planning of accreditation. However, the vagueness of the scale descriptor “local” becomes very conspicuous. In ad-dition, the risk of a “local elite” designating itself as “the whole of the local community” is also apparent. Furthermore, although sustainability programs often call for local participation in decision making, it is far from obvious that this type of participation provides a viable path toward a socially sustainable ecoaccredi-tation scheme.

Second, the challenge of procedural disembed-dedness of use mainly concerns the common lack of occupational or financial participation of the local communities. To be sure, a typical description of the socioeconomic challenge of tourism is also one of geographical scale—of the international, corporate North versus the local, environmentalist South. In many of the 60-plus ecotourism schemes this situa-tion has led to strong calls for international corpora-tions to employ the local population. However, the

argument in the accreditation discussions moves fur-ther by questioning whether hiring local people is an effective strategy for social sustainability. Instead, fa-cilitating SMEs appears to be more powerful, where the people involved are in a stronger position. Due to a generally acknowledged bias of accreditation pro-cesses toward large industrial interests (in the North as well as the South), this challenge is not easily met.

The overarching goal of international accredita-tion of sustainability programs (or harmonized re-embeddedness) might be perceived as oxymoronic in the case of sustainable tourism. On one hand, re-embedding implies a degree of local adaptation. Harmonization, on the other hand, connotes interna-tional standardization (across local areas and regions, and around the globe). In any case, harmonized re-embeddedness is indeed the ambition. Harmonized disembeddedness of an international accreditation scheme presupposes the maintenance of a common mutual trust between internal and external actors (Boström & Klintman, 2008) by developing trust and motivation both externally (among consumers, tour-ists, and international tourism firms) and internally (among local communities, SMEs and employees). The accreditation actors, as well as the tourism in-dustry, emphasize the goal of including more repre-sentatives from “the local communities” in the plan-ning process, and more members of SMEs in the rel-evant tourism regions.

Finally, it is necessary to address the substantive disembeddedness of criteria. To meet this challenge, tourism actors face several choices concerning levels of criteria:

• To have common baseline criteria with capacity

for stricter local criteria (which could benefit the goal of environmental sustainability).

• To have a common baseline, with capacity for softer local criteria (which could benefit the goal of social sustainability).

• To have a sliding scale of fees for members, which may make membership more inclusive of economically less powerful organizations. This in turn may, or may not, comport with stricter or softer criteria. To avoid setting boundaries of overly strict or

unduly loose criteria is a difficult task. The first of the three strategies outlined above emphasizes the ecological pillar of sustainable development, whereas the second strategy is founded on the social pillar (which would facilitate the engagement of local SMEs). Although the third strategy, reducing the financial burden through a sliding-scale system, making it easier for less prosperous, local SMEs that want to become members, is in one sense based on

Figure 1 Three challenges to harmonized re-embeddedness.



68

the economic pillar, it is probably more relevant to the ecological and social pillars because it invites more actors to be part of the criteria-setting process and actual implementation. Despite the apparent driving priorities in the three strategies above, it is far from obvious to what extent their respective effects would promote advantageous synergies or less desir-able tradeoffs among social, economic, and envi-ronmental outcomes. As Lehtonen (2004) claims, “the key challenges of sustainable development re-side at the interfaces—synergies and trade-offs—between its various dimensions.” However, as schol-ars we need to elaborate extensively on our method-ologies, designing new ways of studying more broadly, particularly by comparing sustainability projects in social and ecological consequence anal-yses. This pursuit entails determining whether each strategy necessarily entails tradeoffs between the social and environmental pillars or if the ends can be made to meet the objective of harmonized re-embed-dedness. References Bendell, J. & Font, X. 2004. Which tourism rules? Green standards

and GATS. Annals of Tourism Research 31(1):139–156. Blamey, R. 2001. Principles of ecotourism. In D. Weaver (Ed.),

The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism. pp. 5–22. New York: CABI.

Block, B. 2008. Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria Announced. http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/008885.html. July 6, 2010.

Born, B. & Purcell, M. 2006. Avoiding the local trap: scale and food systems in planning research. Journal of Planning Edu-cation and Research 26(2):195–207.

Boström, M. & Klintman, M. 2006. State-centered versus nonstate-driven organic food standardization: a comparison of the US and Sweden. Agriculture and Human Values 23(2):163–180.

Boström, M. & Klintman, M. 2008. Eco-Standards, Product La-belling and Green Consumerism. New York: Palgrave Mac-millan.

Boström, M. & Tamm Hallström, K. 2010. NGO power in global social and environmental standard-setting. Global Environ-mental Politics 10(4):36–60.

Buckley, R. 2009. Evaluating the net effects of ecotourism on the environment: a framework, first assessment and future re-search. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 17(6):643–672.

Chambers, R. 1998. Beyond “Whose reality counts?” New meth-ods we now need? Culture and Organization 4(2):279–301.

Cole, S. 2006. Information and empowerment: the keys to achiev-ing sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 14(6):629–644.

Crane, A. 2005. Meeting the ethical gaze: challenges for orienting to the ethical market. In R. Harrison, T. Newholm, & D. Shaw (Eds.), The Ethical Consumer. pp. 219–232. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dodds, R. & Joppe, M. 2005. CSR in the Tourism Industry? The Status of and Potential for Certification, Codes of Conduct and Guidelines. Washington, DC: IFC/World Bank. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEXPCOMNET/Resources/CSR_in_tourism_2005.pdf.

Fennell, D. 2008. Ecotourism and the myth of indigenous steward-ship. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 16(2):129–149.

Fischer, F. 2003. Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices. New York: Oxford University Press.

Font, X. 2007. Ecotourism certification: potential and challenges. In J. Higham (Ed.), Critical Issues in Ecotourism: Under-standing a Complex Tourism Phenomenon. pp. 386–405. Maryland Heights, MO: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Giddens, A. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Honey, M. 2002. Ecotourism and Certification: Setting Standards in Practice. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Klintman, M. 2006. Ambiguous framings of political consumer-ism: means or end, product or process orientation? Interna-tional Journal of Consumer Studies 30(5):427–438.

Klintman, M. & Boström, M. 2004. Framings of science and ide-ology: organic food labelling in the US and Sweden. Envi-ronmental Politics 13(3):612–634.

Klintman, M. & Kronsell, A. 2010. Challenges to legitimacy in food safety governance? The case of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Journal of European Integration 32(3):309–327.


Manyara, G. & Jones, E. 2007. Community-based tourism enter-prises development in Kenya: an exploration of their poten-tial as avenues of poverty reduction. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15(6):628–644.

Medina, L. 2005. Ecotourism and certification: confronting the principles and pragmatics of socially responsible tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 13(3):281–295.

Mohonk Agreement. 2000. Proposal for an International Certifi-cation Program for Sustainable Tourism and Ecotourism. Mohonk Mountain House, New Paltz, NY. http://www. rainforest-alliance.org/tourism/documents/mohonk.pdf.

Provan, K. & Kenis, P. 2008. Modes of network governance: structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18(2):229–252.

Rainforest Alliance. 2009. Partnership for Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria and Sustainable Tourism Stewardship Council Announce Merge to Form Tourism Sustainability Council. http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/newsroom/news/ gstc-stsc-merge. January 22, 2012.

Sanabria, R., Skinner, E., Font, W., Maccarrone-Eaglen, A., Sallows, M., & Frederiksen, M. 2003. Sustainable Tourism Stewardship Council: Raising the Standards and Benefits of Sustainable Tourism and Ecotourism Certification. New York: Rainforest Alliance. http://rmportal.net/library/content/ nric/1702.pdf/at_download/file.

Sanders, E. 2004. What Businesses Seek from Certification and the Range of Incentives that Governments, NGOs, Trade Associ-ations, and Others Could Offer. The Washington, DC: The International Ecotourism Society.

Schianetz, K., Kavanagh, L., & Lockington, D. 2007. Concepts and tools for comprehensive sustainability assessments for tourism destinations: a comparative review. Journal of Sus-tainable Tourism 15(4):369–389.

Sharpley, R. 2000. Tourism and sustainable development: explor-ing the theoretical divide. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 8(1):1–19.

Sasidharan, V. & Font, X. 2001. Pitfalls of ecolabelling. In X. Font & R. Buckley (Eds.), Tourism Ecolabelling: Certification and Promotion of Sustainable Management. pp. 105–120. Wallingford: CABI.

Sillence, G. 2007. Governance Systems, Business and Marketing Plans for Setting up and Running the Sustainable Tourism Stewardship Council (STSC). New York: Rainforest Alli-ance.

Simpson, M. 2008. Community benefit tourism initiatives: a con-ceptual oxymoron? Tourism Management 29(1):1–18.



69

Sirakaya, E., Jamal, T., & Choi, H. 2001. Developing indicators for destination sustainability. In D. Weaver (Ed.), The Ency-clopedia of Ecotourism. pp. 411–432. Wallingford: CABI.

Skinner, E., Font, X., & Sanabria, R. 2004. Does stewardship travel well? Benchmarking accreditation and certification. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Man-agement 11(3):121–132.

Sorensen, H., Kjeld Hansen, L., Hammarlund, K., & Larsen, J. 2002. Experience with and strategies for public involvement in offshore wind projects. International Journal of Environ-ment and Sustainable Development 1(4):327–336.

Tavares, A. 2008. The Future of Certified Sustainable Tourism: A Briefing on the Launch of the Critical Missing Tool, the Sus-tainable Tourism Stewardship Council. World Bank Work-shop. September 17.

Taylor, S., Simpson, J., & Howie, H. 1998. Financing small busi-nesses. In R. Thomas (Ed.), The Management of Small Tour-ism and Hospitality Firms. pp. 58–77. London: Cassell.

United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). 2002. Voluntary Initiatives for Sustainable Tourism. Madrid: UNWTO.

Zimmerer, K. 2006. Cultural ecology: at the interface with political ecology—the new geographies of environmental conserva-tion and globalization. Progress in Human Geography 30(1):63–78.


2012 Cucca & Tacchi Winter 2012 | Volume 8 | Issue 1

70

ARTICLE

Tradeoffs and entanglements among sustainability dimensions: the case of accessibility as a missing pillar of sustainable mobility policies in Italy Roberta Cucca1 & Enrico Maria Tacchi2 1 Diap (Department of Architecture and Planning), Politecnico di Milano, Via Bonardi 3, Milan 20133 Italy (email: [email protected]) 2 Laris (Laboratory for Research and Intervention on Societies), Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Via Trieste 17, Brescia 25121 Italy (email: [email protected]) This article analyzes the tradeoffs between the environmental and social dimensions in sustainable mobility policies. We focus on the Italian context, where car dependency is a particularly prominent feature of the transportation sys-tem. During the past decade, many local administrations have promoted policies to foster more “sustainable mobility” as a way to manage congestion and reduce environmental pollution. However, these initiatives have often missed an important sustainability pillar: improving the accessibility of the most vulnerable to economic and social resources. This issue may have implications for social justice because access to mobility is an important dimension of inequality. A proposed framework identifies some possible tradeoffs related to sustainable mobility policies, concerning medium- to long-range mobility and short-range mobility. The article argues that, paradoxically, policies fostering mobility may lead to environmental pollution (e.g., low cost airlines), and that policies to contain the environmental impacts of mo-bility may harm social justice (e.g., environmental taxation) in the absence of strong promotion of collective transpor-tation. Finally, we analyze possible solutions to reach sustainable accessibility. KEYWORDS: mobility, transportation, travel, public policy, environmental impact, civil rights, public access, pollution control Introduction

Sustainable development clearly requires the in-

tegration of the economic, ecological, and social pil-lars. While scholars and practitioners have mainly approached sustainability from the standpoint of en-vironmental protection and resource management, the social pillar has been a more limited part of the re-search agenda (Dillard et al. 2009), although it is generally recognized that “human well-being, equity, democratic government, and democratic civil society are central constituents of sustainability” (Magis & Shinn, 2009).

The most compelling contributions about sus-tainability are mainly related to the concept of envi-ronmental justice (Leonard, 1989), in terms of both inequalities in access to environmental goods and unequal distribution of environmental risks (Beck, 1986). While democratic inclusion in the governance of sustainability has also received a great deal of at-tention (see, e.g., Hajer, 1995; Glasbergen, 1998; van Tatenhoven, 2003; Pellizzoni, 2010), social inequali-ties, justice, and inclusiveness have rarely been inte-grated into studies of sustainability (with some inter-esting exceptions, e.g., Polese & Stren 2001; Vrankenet et al. 2002; Magis & Shinn, 2009). There

is, however, a broader and independent literature about the overlapping concepts of social cohesion and social exclusion (Pahl, 1991; Hopwoodet et al. 2005; Littig & Griessler, 2005; Dempsey et al. 2011; Ranci, 2011).1

The main aims of this article are to highlight the relevance of an integrated approach to sustainability and to avoid possible tradeoff mechanisms among the different dimensions of this concept in the process of policy design and implementation. For instance, in a paradoxical way, initiatives oriented toward fostering mobility may lead to increases in environmental pol-lution while programs to contain the ecological im-pacts of mobility may undermine social justice and increase inequalities.

1 Colantonio (2008) argues that “chronological analysis of social sustainability themes also shows how traditional themes, such as equity, poverty reduction and livelihood, have increasingly been complemented or replaced by more intangible and less measurable concepts such as identity, sense of place and the benefits of ‘social networks’.”

Cucca & Tacchi: The Missing Pillar in Italy


71

Accessibility as a Wobbly Pillar of Sustainable Mobility

To analyze possible tradeoff dynamics, this arti-cle discusses an even more important issue in the wider debate about sustainability: the challenges of fostering sustainable mobility. There are several rea-sons for growing attention to this issue, but most important is the idea that while mobility in one form or another has been essential throughout human his-tory, in recent years it has undergone strong expan-sion and acceleration—of both people and goods—all around the globe (Urry, 2000). This development has been due to several drivers. First, a significant num-ber of innovative technologies for transporting both people and goods, especially in the field of infor-mation technology and communication have encour-aged greater mobility (Castells, 1996).2 Second, re-cent decades have seen an increase in freedom of movement within many political and territorial con-texts such as Eastern Europe and Asia (Bauman, 1998). Finally, the spread of the free market and the growth of the international financial economy have gradually enveloped almost all of the planet’s main economies, promoting a significant increase in the movement of raw materials, workers, and products (Sheller & Urry, 2006).

These changing scenarios have promoted new mobility dynamics, with important environmental, economic, and social impacts.

First, there is little doubt that mobility has im-portant consequences for environmental protection, in terms of both natural resource consumption (e.g., raw materials, fuel, soil) and air and noise pollution. More specifically, motorized transportation can be divided roughly into four main modalities, of which waterways and railways have a lower environmental impact, while airways and roadways are more harm-ful in terms of both pollution and natural resource utilization (EU, 2009). As far as the environmental dimension of sustainability is concerned, it is clear that the extraordinary growth of the most ecologically problematic forms of transportation is responsible for a preponderant share of the challenges.3

Another important impact concerns economic externalities related to road congestion. The Euro- 2 Although some movements of people have been replaced by online exchanges (Lyons & Kenyon, 2003), other flows are de-pendent on activities generated by information and communication technologies in a process of mutual reinforcement (Moos et al. 2006). 3 In Europe, for example, as far as people mobility is concerned, between 1995 and 2004 passenger movements increased dramati-cally in the air-transport sector (+48.8% passenger/kilometers) and private car mobility (+17.7%), while railway mobility increased at a lower rate (8.6%) and sea transportation decreased (-11.1%) (Eurostat, 2007).

pean Commission’s most recent data, for example, demonstrate that 80% of all personal journeys are by car, and that in the European Union between 1975 and 1995 per capita daily travel distance doubled, with a further doubling forecasted by 2025 (Eurostat, 2007). Road congestion in Europe (EU-27) currently costs €130 billion (US$170 billion) annually and the total external costs of motorized traffic are estimated at €270 billion (US$300 billion) per year, around 4% of Europe’s gross domestic product (GDP) (Eurostat, 2007).4

Finally, with respect to social impact, the growth of mobility is leading to new sources of polarization, largely dependent on the even more evident contrast between “desired” and “hindered” flows of mobility (Bauman, 1998). The first term describes an encour-aged and supported mobility, such as the movements generated by international tourists or business travel-ers: in this case flows are often fast, autonomous, and free. The second concept refers to slow mobility flows, which in most cases are unwanted, and im-peded movements, such as those of migrants around the world. Accordingly, we can assert that mobility problems are the basis of some important processes that build up the contemporary social system of ine-qualities.5

As a consequence, there is a need to reduce the harmful environmental and health effects exacerbated by polluting forms of transportation, as well as to mitigate the economic externalities generated by traf-fic jams. Policy efforts to ensure access to public goods have led to the establishment of institutions and public administrations to encourage measures that foster “sustainable mobility” (EU, 2006). Ac-cording to the European Commission (CEC, 2000), sustainable mobility should provide the following:

• The basic needs of mobility and development of

individuals, companies, and society must be sat-isfied, assuring safety in a way suitable for pre-serving human health and ecosystems, and pro-moting equity within each generation and be-tween generations.

• The transportation systems must be economi-cally accessible and operate efficiently; they should guarantee a variety of different transpor-

4 Road congestion represents an economic cost of uncompensated environmental effects of production and consumption that diminish consumer utility and raise enterprise costs outside the market mechanism (UN, 1997). 5 Among others, Tomlison (1999) emphasizes that most of the world’s population has no social skills or financial means to take advantage of the opportunities offered by mobility in the contem-porary age. In strong disagreement with commentators who want “the whole world in movement,” he says that the paradigmatic experience of global modernity for most people is to stay in one place.



72

tation means to choose and support a competitive economy and regional development.

• Emissions and waste must be restricted within the carrying capacity of the planet, using renew-able resources at the rate of self regeneration, or slower, and using nonrenewable resources at rates lower than or equal to the development of renewable substitutes. In the meantime, land use and noise production should be minimized. The first component of this definition clearly

emphasizes the key issue of accessibility in sustain-able mobility (Litman, 2003).6 It also calls for the elimination of barriers to equal access to education, employment, health services provision, and food shopping, as well as sporting, leisure, and cultural activities (SEU, 2003).7 The segment of the popula-tion most affected by this kind of social vulnerability comprises people without a car at their disposal (SEU, 2003), usually because of low income or inap-propriate age (elderly and young people). Research suggests that women tend to be disproportionately subjected to such circumstances (Hine & Grieco, 2003; Mercado et al. 2011). They are also more likely to be at risk of social exclusion from lack of access to appropriate transportation, a concept defined as “the unique interplay of a number of factors, whose con-sequence is the denial of access, to an individual or group, to the opportunity to participate in the social and political life of the community, resulting not only in diminished material and non-material quality of life, but also in tempered life chances, choices and reduced citizenship” (Kenyon et al. 2002).

Although transit equity should be embedded in the definition of sustainable mobility, in some con-texts it is absent or potentially (and paradoxically) weakened by tradeoff dynamics across the different dimensions of sustainability policies.8 To highlight these potential tradeoffs, we consider the tensions between environmental protection and the social jus-tice dimensions in sustainable mobility policies in Italy.

6 Numerous scholars argue for shifting from policies oriented toward mobility (as ease of movement per se) to policies that foster sustainable accessibility (as ease of reaching destinations) because this focus might promote greater attention to equity impacts (see, e.g., Levine & Garb, 2002). 7 According to the Social Exclusion Unit in the UK, arguably the most important institution working on the links between transpor-tation and social inclusion in Europe, the barriers to accessibility are mainly represented by the availability and physical accessibil-ity of transportation, the cost of transportation, services located in inaccessible places, and personal safety and security. 8 Sustainable planning is another interesting example of possible tradeoffs between the different dimensions of sustainability (Coffman & Umemoto, 2010).

These tradeoffs are explored from a cross-disciplinary perspective (environmental and regional sociology, transportation economics, and urban plan-ning) that integrates literature and statistical data on travel behavior and infrastructure supply, as well as evaluates the potential impacts of policies that have been adopted for both medium- to long-range mobil-ity and short-range mobility. This expansive ap-proach aims at filling a gap in the literature. In fact, studies and documentation on sustainable mobility usually concern cities or major metropolitan areas without taking into account long-distance movements (Ponti, 2010). The customary tendency of focusing on more urbanized areas is understandable because of several important issues that arise from the concen-tration of physical mobility flows in those areas, no-tably the problem of congestion.9 Nevertheless, some relevant effects on the urban context may depend on how long-distance (for example at the national level in Italy) and very long-distance movements (for example at the European level) are organized. The reason we consider both ranges is to highlight how long- and short-distance movements can become entangled, promoting vicious circles that are difficult to interrupt. For both dimensions we will describe the tradeoffs related to the policies that have been im-plemented and possible interventions to promote more sustainable accessibility, where accessibility is understood to be a broader concept than mobility; it is not just the ability to overcome a space, but to reach an opportunity (Vasconcellos, 2001). Long-Range Sustainable Mobility

Although mobility of people and goods for long and very long distances has been an essential feature of human history, in recent years such travel has un-dergone strong development and acceleration (Figure 1).10 In particular, when we consider sustainable mo-

9 The first typology refers to short distances (sometimes possible to traverse on foot or by bicycle) and medium distances (such as commuter flows, usually limited to 50–100 kilometers). The se-cond typology focuses on longer journeys. 10 Sociologist John Urry (2000), for example, argues that “For the present I consider some of the socio-spatial practices involved in travelling, especially as in many cultures travelling appears to be ‘always necessary’ for family life, leisure and friendship, as well as for work and security. The scale of such travelling is awesome. There are over 600 million international passenger arrivals each year (compared with 25 million in 1950); at any one time 300,000 passengers are in flight above the US; a half million new hotel rooms are being built each year worldwide; and there is one car for every 8.6 people worldwide…International travel now accounts for over one-twelfth of world trade. It constitutes by far the largest movement of people across boundaries that has occurred in the history of the world. International and domestic tourism together accounts for 10 per cent of global employment and global GDP. And this affects everywhere.”



73

bility within this range it is necessary to distinguish between goods and people transportation, not only because they are entangled, but because these two modalities have different implications in terms of social justice and inequality. Goods Transportation

Goods transportation worldwide has been in-creasing dramatically with the rise of the globalized economy and also due to innovations in transporta-tion during the last century. While intercontinental flows of goods have been primarily (70%) managed by shipping (UNCTAD, 2010), at least for the Euro-pean countries the most problematic areas in terms of transportation are related to intracontinental and na-tional movements. In Europe, transportation by road remains prevalent, as evidenced by the massive pres-ence on Italian highways of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) coming from all European countries as a result of the International Road Transport Conven-tion.11 Eurostat’s (2007) data indicate that between 1995 and 2005 goods transportation grew from 2,972 to 3,903 billion tons-kilometers. This increase was largely dependent on road and sea transportation, which accounted for 44% and 39%, respectively, of total freight moved in 2005. Conversely, rail volumes are still marginal in Europe (9%), while in Italy rail covers only around 5% of continental goods traffic and 3% of national movements.

As far as the sustainability of goods transporta-tion is concerned, there are different policy perspec-tives. First, efforts have been made to achieve a gen-eral decoupling of economic growth and mobility by promoting local production through the use of subsi-dies or taxation (OECD, 2002; Muller & Sterner,

11 The International Road Transport Convention is also known as the TIR (Transports Internationaux Routiers) Convention negoti-ated in 1975 under the auspices of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.

2006).12 Second, reductions in the environmental impacts of transportation have been pursued by shifting flows of goods from roads to railway net-works or to water through improvements in intermo-dality.13 This policy may be implemented through the empowerment of railways and harbors and discour-aging road traffic.14 Finally, long-range flows of goods have been constrained by applying environ-mental taxation (incorporated into retail prices), es-pecially to goods regarded as nonessential (e.g., alco-hol, tobacco, luxuries) (Muller & Sterner, 2006). However, this latter measure seems to have negative social effects due to the degree that developing countries remain dependent on these kinds of prod-ucts.

In short, with regard to the long-range mobility of goods, two important tradeoff mechanisms emerge between the environmental and the social dimen-sions. On one hand, there may be warrant in won-dering if a small elite has the right to maintain low costs for nonessential goods, dumping the environ-mental impacts of mobility on the community. On the other hand, the potential social impacts of fiscal measures that limit the distribution and availability of certain goods needs to be accounted for.

People Mobility

There is a little doubt that the reduction of goods transportation could leave more space for the mobil-ity of people, an important civic right from many points of view. This civic right concerns freedom of movement, at least in terms of leaving a country or

12 Decoupling is often used in the context of economic production and environmental quality: it refers to the ability of an economy to grow without corresponding increases in environmental pressure. An economy that is able to sustain growth of its gross domestic product without simultaneously worsening environmental condi-tions is said to be decoupled (OECD, 2002). 13 Furthermore, the long length of the Italian coasts offers the opportunity to more effectively exploit the so-called “motorways of the sea” by shifting high traffic volumes to this mode. The pro-cess has already partly occurred, mainly with respect to goods movements. According to Assotrasporti, the Italian Transport Management Agency, cargo shipments at the twelve major Italian ports increased from 253 to 319 tons between 1998 and 2007, a rise of more than 25% (Ispra, 2008). Rail transportation is not growing in Europe because of its generally poor flexibility, which often makes it an uneconomic alternative. Numerous programs, such as the Marco Polo Programme in the EU or the intermodal container terminal on the Pacific coast of Canada, have been de-veloped to try to overcome this problem (Santos et al. 2010). 14 To encourage greater use of rail transportation, some European countries have imposed a quota on the number of tractor-trailer trucks allowed to cross the Alps by road. Such a measure could be usefully extended to several congested and critical areas of the Italian peninsula.

Figure 1 Increasing trends for passenger and goods movements (EU, 2009).



74

moving inside domestically.15 Nations typically con-sidered to be “democratic” may also be distinguished from authoritarian regimes through mobility, since the former have freedom of internal movement (Bauman, 1998) and international mobility (which is, conversely, restricted by most dictatorships) (Sheller & Urry, 2006).

Along with these political considerations, we can add other cultural and social issues. Modern means of transportation, especially by airplane and car, make physical interconnections faster, cheaper, and safer, although they are usually worse in terms of environ-mental impact.16 Combined with the diffusion of con-temporary communications technologies, low cost means of transportation offer opportunities for en-hancing people’s relations at different levels (Castells, 1996; Castells et al. 2007): we can travel very far in a reasonable time and at a low cost (e.g., to attend a university or a language course, to contact new customers, to receive specialized hospital treat-ment, to participate in tourism, or to partake in ap-pealing popular events such as sports, entertainment, and public or family ceremonies). As Poulit (2007) argues, mobility also represents a huge advantage both in terms of choice and freedom, as well as with respect to economic growth and cultural opportuni-ties. For example, the effective social unification of Europe has been largely supported by low-cost air travel. However, tensions between the ecological and social dimensions of sustainability may be very strong. The Italian case is a clear example. With respect to people’s medium- to long-distance mobil-ity, Italians have a particularly high level of automo-bile dependency due to the economic and social his-tory of the postwar period (Paolini, 2005). In terms of cars per capita, Italy scores second in the world ranking, just after the United States. Italy has 63.2 vehicles per 100 inhabitants in comparison to an av-erage for Europe (EU-27) of 46 per 100 people. This extreme situation generates disabling traffic conges-tion and severe air-pollution problems, which are compounded by the national fleet’s high average age and the large percentage of diesel vehicles operating in the country.

The environmental impact of car dependency can to some degree be mitigated by new “green” technol-ogies, such as electric cars or biofuels (Ambiente Italia, 2007). However, this strategy suffers from par-adoxes and tradeoffs between the different dimen-

15 We avoid here a discussion of barriers to the inflow movements of immigrants which occupies the attention of virtually all Western countries. 16 For instance, according to http://www.ecopassenger.org, trains are usually less polluting—carbon dioxide, particulate matter, and nitrous oxides—and energy consuming than airplanes and cars.

sions of sustainability. Contemporary electric vehi-cles face difficult obstacles to increase their share in road transportation, mainly due to high costs, low autonomy, and lack of recharging infrastructure. Ad-ditionally, they do not represent a solution to the problem of traffic congestion. In regard to biofuels, many studies have demonstrated their potential social impacts, especially in developing countries, when large amounts of land customarily used for food crops are converted to the production of fuel crops despite a need to feed the local population (von Braun & Pachauri, 2006; Sawyer, 2008; Carrosio, 2011).

In Italy, at the moment, the most important problem is that a strong emphasis on improving the road network is prominent in national transportation policies (Ambiente Italia, 2007), although it is well known that such prioritization can only lead to an increase in road traffic (Noland, 2007).

In contrast, policies to improve water transporta-tion are quite absent from contemporary policy de-bates, although the Italian coasts offer extensive un-derutilized opportunity for passenger transportation. A reported increase of 23% in passengers between 1998 and 2007 is comprised primarily of very short-range traffic (such as crossing the Strait of Messina between Calabria and Sicily or connecting Naples with the islands of Campania) or cruise-based tour-ism (Ispra, 2008).

Concerning very long distances, air traffic in It-aly has dramatically increased in recent years as a result of the widespread presence of over 60 airports, while the railway system is not competitive on high-speed routes, especially due to very high fares (Ispra, 2008). As a matter of fact, several initiatives have worked in opposition to efforts to shift flows of pas-sengers from aircraft to railways, such as the reacti-vation of flights between Milan and Trieste; they roughly follow the Lisbon-Kiev European Intermodal Corridor,17 along a completely flat region. As the literature explains, the railway seems unable to match the low-cost airline pricing strategies (reducing oper-ating costs and perceived ticket prices, increasing revenues by offering amenities) (Sauter-Servaes & Nash, 2007).

In general, as far as the mobility of people is concerned, we can observe in Italy relatively higher development of those transportation modes with greater environmental impacts, while the relatively “greener” sectors show widespread weakness. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to identify strate-gies to improve long-range sustainable mobility in

17 Council Decision of 29 October 1993 on the creation of a trans-European road network (93/629/EEC).



75

Italy. The only recent encouraging investment has been in implementation of a high-speed railway sys-tem (connecting Turin to Naples, passing through Milan and Rome), plans for which local communities have (ironically) contested for their environmental impact and very high costs. Also contributing to this opposition has been a perception that the project seems mainly devoted to satisfying the needs of the elite travelers (Della Porta & Piazza, 2008). The price of rail transportation is not competitive with air travel and the high cost of developing the necessary rail infrastructure has reduced public funds for mainte-nance of the traditional railway system that commut-ers use on a daily basis (Zanchini et al. 2010). There is a little doubt that promoting sustainable accessibil-ity of people to distant locations will not be possible without strong intervention to make the railway net-work economically sustainable, for instance by adopting the marketing strategies used by the low-cost airlines (Sauter-Servaes & Nash, 2007). At the same time, transportation of goods needs to be de-creased or shifted to water or to railways.

Short- to Medium-Range Sustainable Mobility

Global changes brought about by mobility heav-ily affect local contexts, in terms of both human well-being and environmental quality, and from a per-spective of inequality concerning local resource ac-cess. By focusing the analysis on short- to medium-range mobility, two different territorial dimensions are particularly important for the Italian situation: problems related to urban mobility (Colleoni, 2008), that are discussed in the section below, and chal-lenges associated with moving into “fragile areas” characterized by economic and demographic decline, a lack of public services (e.g., schools, hospitals, lei-sure services) and a shortage of public transportation facilities (Osti, 2004). As outlined in the subsequent section, for Italy it is a relevant issue because ap-proximately 35% of the country’s total land area—supporting 8.5% of the country’s population—is characterized as “fragile” (Cresme, 2000).

Urban Mobility

In Italy, the issue of sustainable mobility in cities is a rather well-developed research and policy topic because of the high concentration of movement within urban boundaries (Asstra-ISFORT, 2005). Based on national data for 2005, approximately nine out of ten trips by motorized transportation modes occur within cities (Asstra-ISFORT, 2005). Cars ac-count for approximately 80% and public transporta-tion represents 12% of urban trips (Asstra-ISFORT, 2005). This modal split has pronounced implications for local sustainability.

From an ecological perspective, the major prob-lem is the periodic violation of European-mandated particulate and gaseous concentration limits, espe-cially in the northern parts of the country. In Milan, for example, air-quality conditions fell below regu-lated levels on more than 100 days during 2009, nearly three times more than the maximum permitted by EU legislation. Even if the correlations between air emissions and human health are complex to assess (Finkelstein et al. 2004), the likely impacts on public health seem clear enough and are particularly severe for elderly people and children (Hoek et al. 2002; Gorman et al. 2003). The same sociodemographic groups are also the principle victims of automobile accidents. In Italy, there were more than 230,000 accidents in 2007 with at least 5,000 fatalities and 325,000 injuries. Approximately 76% of these acci-dents occurred in urban areas, comprising 44% of all fatalities and 73% of all injuries (Table 1). The dis-proportionate percentage of deaths in urban areas is mainly due to accidents involving members of vul-nerable populations (pedestrians and cyclists).

This situation of “unsafety” represents a high barrier to the accessibility of local resources by vul-nerable members of society who often do not have access to cars and may self-segregate from certain public spaces (Beckmann, 2004). Children, the el-derly, and disabled people represent targets particu-larly affected by negative traffic impacts.18 For safety reasons, they are generally kept away from the streets and squares (Appleyard, 1981).

Abandonment of the streets by the most vulnera-ble groups actually started with the progressive ex-pansion of public spaces devoted to vehicle mobility and the decreasing of areas available for socialization (Engwicht, 1993). To develop automobility, many urban public spaces were converted into vehicular thoroughfares or parking facilities and new collective spaces have, in turn, been created in suburban dis-

18 Disabled people comprise another category that is adversely affected by the contemporary mobility system. A necessary condi-tion for their participation in society is that the physical space and the transportation system focus on the removal of barriers and the accessibility of services (Dauhs, 1982). Although in recent years significant progress has been made, at least in terms of planning regulations, physical barriers are often insurmountable or do not allow disabled people to travel autonomously (SEU, 2003).

Table 1 Distribution of casualties by type of road occurring in Italy in 2007 (ISAT, 2007).

Typology of Road % Accidents % Deaths % Injuries

Highway 5.9% 10.3% 7.1% Extra-urban road 17.5% 45.5% 19.6% Urban road 76.6% 44.2% 73.3%



76

tricts (e.g., decentralized administrative offices, gro-cery stores, scientific and technological parks, leisure-time areas), in most cases, unreachable with-out a car and often generating supplementary mobil-ity demands (Viale, 2007). In fact, when this process of decentralization is not well-supported by the pub-lic transportation system, automobiles can expand their influence zone, with all the resulting conse-quences, such as increasing travel speeds and traffic-flow intensity (Moriarty & Reed, 1989).

These issues raise the wider problem of justice with respect to urban mobility, especially in terms of access to social and economic resources. Actually, there is a strong relationship between access to means of transportation and social exclusion of the unem-ployed, the elderly, families with children, young-sters, and low-income people (Cass et al. 2005). Al-though vulnerable social groups often do not perceive themselves as socially excluded, because of a general inability to recognize alternatives outside of their immediate local contexts (Oppenchaim, 2010), re-search widely recognizes it to be a significant factor in accessing higher education and employment op-portunities, and adequate medical care (Boffi et al. 2004; Mercado et al. 2011). It seems that in a society where automobile ownership is taken for granted, not having a car or a driver’s license can limit life chances (Viale, 1996).

To address problems related to congestion and air pollution, some Italian cities such as Milan, Parma, and Reggio Emilia, have recently imple-mented measures that have generated international visibility. Unfortunately, these interventions have not, according to our interpretation, generally demon-strated a satisfactory balance across sustainability dimensions. In particular, policies have focused on reducing environmental impacts and neglected the social aspects of sustainability.

We consider here Milan, a city where transpor-tation policies have been characterized by a strong tradeoff between, on one hand, environmental pro-tection and, on the other hand, equity in accessibility to social and economic resources. While Milan has a creditable public transportation system, particularly in comparison to other Italian cities, many of its dis-advantaged areas are not well connected to the rest of the city. This is the case for some social housing dis-tricts on the outer fringes (Infussi, 2006), as well as for outlying suburban areas that are only weakly linked to the inner city and to other municipalities on the metropolitan periphery (Laris, 2009).19 At the 19 This research was carried out in a suburban area (Pinzano) located 15 kilometers from Milan and characterized by severe socioeconomic deprivation, lack of public services, and poor infra-structure connecting the area to other suburbs or to the inner city of Milan. Focus groups highlighted several problems: restrictions on

same time, recent efforts to develop the accessibility of these poor areas have neither received many re-sources from local administrations to improve tradi-tional public transportation nor have they used many innovative tools, such as demand response transpor-tation systems (DRTS), car sharing, and carpooling.20 Local public action has instead been largely oriented to sustainable mobility strategies focused on the ecological dimension.

One example is Ecopass, a pollution charge with variable fees to enter the city center based on the specific “EURO class” of the vehicle.21 Although this measure is innovative with respect to the environ-mental dimension of sustainable mobility, it does not consider appropriately the potential social justice impacts on the weakest sectors of society. In Italy, vulnerable people typically live in deprived areas poorly connected by public transportation to the city center and cannot afford low-emission vehicles, de-spite public funding to support the renewal of private parking facilities in recent decades. For this reason, policies oriented to increasing automobile operating costs should be implemented with caution. While such measures could confer environmental benefits, they could hurt low-income people who have no op-tion but to drive (Mercado et al. 2011). Furthermore, policies oriented to renewing private parking facili-ties show another interesting tradeoff between the different sustainability dimensions: by fostering own-ership of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), public ad-ministrators are reducing environmental impacts from congestion, but are not acting on the underlying prob-lems that create these conditions in the first place.22 As outlined in Figure 2, time (minutes per person) spent daily in movements in Italy has increased in recent years. In addition, congestion may also worsen dangerous conditions that lead to road accidents.

the selection of schools by students, poor accessibility to health services by elderly people, and the impossibility for currently unemployed people to reach potential workplaces. 20 DRTS is an advanced, user-oriented form of public transport characterized by flexible routing and scheduling of small/medium vehicles, operating in shared-ride mode between pick-up and drop-off locations according to passenger’s needs. 21 Ecopass differs from the congestion charge used in London, Stockholm and Trondheim because cars pay fees depending on their level of environmental impact. More specifically, Euro 4 vehicles do not pay a charge to enter the city center, while more polluting cars are subject to a variable fee (Gervasoni & Sartori, 2007; Villavecchia, 2009). 22 Some recent data on the impacts of the Ecopass charge in Milan demonstrate that decreases in traffic congestion have been tem-pered by adoption of less polluting vehicles (Comune di Milano, 2009).



77

We have highlighted several reasons why effec-tive action to promote sustainable mobility should be oriented to tools sensitive to the social dimension, encouraging the weak Italian attitude toward organ-izing individual transfer (e.g., by private car) in col-lective movements (e.g., buses, trains, collective cars) For example, the introduction of car-sharing schemes, or means of transportation that are available “on demand” (sometimes known as DRTS), have achieved few results in areas that have tested such measures because they are too expensive for public administrations, or lack a “critical mass” of users paying a fee for the service (Debernardi & Battaiotto, 2009). It is well known that the struggle against auto-mobile culture is a big challenge in Italy due to a long history of public support for car manufacturing (Featherstone et al. 2004; Paolini, 2005). There is little doubt that this change requires a strong infor-mation strategy and time to reach all possible users (Banister, 2008), especially the most vulnerable such as elderly people (Mercado et al. 2011). Mobility into Fragile Areas

All of the problems discussed above with respect to urban mobility also affect Italy’s fragile areas, and their gravity is compounded because of very weak public action to address the issue (Osti, 2007). Recent studies identify progressive demographic decline in a very significant number of communities in the coun-try’s rural or mountainous areas (Cresme, 2008). A total of 1,650 towns out of 8,101 in Italy are deemed to be at risk of permanent abandonment by 2015 (Cresme, 2008). Although there are many reasons for this phenomenon, a particularly prominent factor is the lack of economic opportunities in these commu-nities, a problem exacerbated by inadequate public transportation (Osti, 2007).

The provision of bus service in rural and moun-tainous areas is expensive because of low population

density, thus there is potential for DRTS interven-tions in the form of subsidized taxis alongside con-ventional public transportation (UK Commission for Integrated Transport, 2008). However, public institu-tions, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), or businesses have launched some meaningful experi-ments along these lines (Cucca, 2009b). These initia-tives are oriented, first of all, to improving the acces-sibility of public services and communities and to spread services throughout the territory. Because of the Internet’s relevance in the development of such services, many local administrations in rural and mountainous regions are acting to limit the digital divide that still characterizes these fragile areas (Warren, 2007). As far as these services are con-cerned, there are some interesting examples from the care sector, especially related to the needs of the el-derly who comprise a prominent part of the rural population, the delivery of prescription drugs and the provision of home-health services by NGOs and co-operatives as a strategic tool to enhance their sustain-able life conditions. In addition, some actors are promoting new kinds of collective transportation that are less expensive than traditional public bus ser-vices. An NGO in northern Italy’s mountainous areas has recently introduced an interesting system of car-pooling to organize people who are commuting reg-ularly, as well as traveling more infrequently, along common routes (Panna, 2009).

However, these experiments will likely be insuf-ficient if they are not framed as part of a more gen-eral strategy of integrated transportation policies for these so-called fragile areas (Santos et al. 2010). Contemporary organizational modes have many im-pacts on local sustainability and demonstrate some interesting paradoxes, the most prominent of which is the lack of environmental pollution generated by the population’s low access to economic and social re-sources. This phenomenon not only fosters the eco-nomic and demographic decline of fragile areas, but also implies huge social costs for residents, who are forced to become daily commuters or are pressed to migrate toward the suburbs, increasing urban sprawl and is associated environmental impacts. Final Remarks: Fostering Sustainable Accessibility

This article has sought to demonstrate the com-plexity of issues related to sustainable mobility and to analyze some of the tradeoffs that emerge out of cur-rent policies that have been adopted in Italy. A har-monious balance among environmental protection, economic prosperity, and social integration is diffi-cult to achieve through initiatives for the reorganiza-tion of people and goods mobility. Current mobility

Figure 2 Trend of the time (minutes/person) spent daily in movements in Italy (Author’s elaborations on Asstra-ISFORT, 2009).



78

trends are contributing to a range of environmental problems including resource consumption (fuel and soil) and air and noise pollution. In addition, the ad-vantages and disadvantages of mobility are not equally distributed in terms of access to social and economic resources. High levels of accessibility have been achieved only by a minority of the world’s pop-ulation that is able to enjoy the benefits of very fa-vorable economic, logistical, and infrastructural con-ditions. In fact, ecological harm from mobility is mainly generated by the most developed countries, which arguably should assume some financial burden for environmental mitigation or renewal. A further challenge is that the social and environmental costs often accrue to people who can hardly enjoy the re-lated benefits. This situation entails a problem of fairness in burden sharing for environmental protec-tion that unduly encumbers low-income people. As a result, the socioenvironmental costs of transportation systems should be carefully evaluated, with consider-ation devoted to identifying who gains and who loses from specific policy decisions.

However, there is little doubt that mobility repre-sents, at the same time, an increasingly strategic asset for human development. Research has shown how social inequalities can be measured, inter alia, in terms of differential access to resources (SEU, 2003). For this reason, the challenge is to improve strategies oriented to more sustainable accessibility by limiting some of the tradeoffs between the different dimen-sions of the concept: environmental protection, eco-nomic sustainability, and accessibility (CEC, 2000). Such an approach becomes possible only by the inno-vation of tools available for the task, with particular attention to facilitating, controlling, and reorganizing the flows at different territorial levels, to interrupt the vicious feedback loops between short and long ranges of mobility (Cucca, 2009a).

First, it is necessary to facilitate individual movements by structuring actions that make individ-ual travel more ecofriendly and safe. This objective can be achieved by encouraging transportation that does not promote automobile dependency, such as walking and bicycling and the development of a new transportation hierarchy that reduces urban traffic speeds and reallocates space to light mobility and social life (Banister, 2008). The above discussion describes how such strategies can improve accessi-bility to local resources for the most vulnerable peo-ple. However, because of the personal automobile’s high legitimacy, it is also important to foster the dif-fusion of ZEVs and to improve traffic flows through the innovative use of traffic-control systems (Begg & Gray, 2004).

Second, planners should seek to contain individ-ual movements in various ways. The most important

approaches are related to land-use policies that re-duce the physical separation of activities, increase density and concentration (e.g., mixed-use develop-ment, housing location, space and route layouts), and situate public services in proximity to already-existing infrastructures. Successful compact cities are, however, only attainable by creating attractive and affordable spaces and localities in the urban area, and by reducing opportunities and motivations for “escape mobility” (Heinze, 2000). It is also important to put services at accessible points in rural and mountainous areas and to fight urban sprawl dynam-ics. Another strategy to facilitate this process is to encourage the uptake of information and communi-cations technologies to reduce mobility demand through telework and computerization of utility ser-vices (Moos et al. 2006). Initiatives that enable home care, especially with respect to the needs of elderly or disabled people can have this desirable effect (Shergold & Parkhurst, 2010). The containment of movement also seems particularly important in terms of the mobility of goods and strategies that decouple and valorize local production.

Finally, there is the ambitious goal of reorganiz-ing individual movements by creating opportunities for collective mobility. This objective can be pursued through the “classic cure of iron” by extending un-derground networks and developing railway infra-structure, including penetration into the urban context (Tacchi, 2007). There is also the upgrading of buses and increasing their efficiency by, for instance, cre-ating new dedicated lanes. Opportunities additionally exist to trial and diffuse innovative strategies such as DRTS, car sharing, and carpooling. The provision of information about how to effectively combine differ-ent means of transportation to reach a particular des-tination can play an important role as a component of these strategies.

The ultimate goal should be promotion of inte-grated transportation policies (Santos et al. 2010) at different territorial levels that are able to manage the pressures of globalized modernity, where challenges of movement have become prominent features of social inequality (Cass et al. 2005). Accordingly, some experimental policies to promote sustainable mobility, as part of wider policy programs, have be-gun to receive attention and deserve to be supported. These measures, often promoted by civil society, effect different sustainability dimensions and take into consideration both the ecological and social pil-lars. Only a balanced transportation system can con-tribute to comprehensive and unambiguous progress toward sustainable development and promote a tran-sition from the focus on ecofriendly mobility to sus-tainable accessibility. The real challenge is not one of fostering greener mobility for a narrow elite, but



79

promoting fair and responsible access to resources for all. Acknowledgment The authors are grateful to the anonymous referees and the editors for constructive comments and suggestions. References Ambiente Italia. 2007. Rapporto Sullo Stato del Paese. [Report on

the State of the Country]. Milan: Edizioni Ambiente (in Ital-ian).

Appleyard, D. 1981. Livable Streets. Berkeley: University of Cali-fornia Press.

Asstra-ISFORT. 2005. Avanti c’è Posto? Report Annuale Sulla Mobilità Urbana: i Bisogni dei Cittadini, le Risposte Della Città. [Is There Room Next? Annual Report on Urban Mobil-ity: Citizens’ Needs and the Answers of the City]. Rome: Charles Isfort Carminucci (in Italian).

Asstra-ISFORT. 2009. Il Dato è Tratto: Alla Ricerca di un Punto di Svolta. [The Data Have Been Cast: Looking For a Turning Point]. Annual Report. May 9. Rome (in Italian).

Banister, D. 2008. The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport Policy 15(2):73–80.

Bauman, Z. 1998. Globalization: The Human Consequences. New York: Columbia University Press.

Beck, U. 1986. Risikogesellshaft: Aufdem Weg in eine andere Moderne. [Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity]. Frank-furt: Suhrkamp Verlag (in German).

Beckmann, J. 2004. Mobility and safety. Theory, Culture & Soci-ety 21(4–5):81–100.

Begg, D. & Gray, D. 2004. Transport policy and vehicle emission objectives in the UK: is the marriage between transport and environment policy over? Environmental Science & Policy 7(3):155–163.

Boffi, M., D’Ovidio, M., Tornaghi, C., & Natoli, E. 2004. Urban Mobility of Elderly People: GPS and GIS for Collecting and Analyzing Space-Time Information on Mobility. Seventh AGILE Conference on Geographic Information Science. April 29–May 1, Heraklion, Crete.

Carrosio G. 2011. I Biocarburanti: Globalizzazione e Politiche Territoriali. [Biofuel: Globalization and Regional Policies]. Roma: Carocci (in Italian).

Cass, N., Shove, E., & Urry, J. 2005. Social exclusion, mobility and access. Sociological Review 53(3):539–555.

Castells, M. 1996. The Rise of the Network Society: The Infor-mation Age. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Castells, M., Fernández-Ardévol, M., Linchuan Qiu, J., & Sey, A. 2007. Mobile Communication and Society: A Global Per-spective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Coffmann, M. & Umemoto, K. 2010. The triple-bottom-line: framing of trade-offs in sustainability planning practice. En-vironment, Development, and Sustainability 12(5):597–610.

Colantonio, A. 2008. Traditional and Emerging Prospects in So-cial Sustainability. EIBURS Working Paper Series. Oxford: Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development (OISD). http://oisd.brookes.ac.uk/sustainable_communities/resources/SocialSustainabilityProspectspaper.pdf.

Colleoni, M. (Ed.). 2008. La Ricerca Sociale Sulla Mobilità Ur-bana: Metodi e Risultati di Indagine. [Social Research on Urban Mobility: Methods and Survey Results]. Milan: Edizioni Libreria Cortina (in Italian).

Commission of the European Communities (CEC). 2000. Defining an Environmentally Sustainable Transport System: Commis-sion Expert Group on Transport and Environment. Brussels: CEC.

Comune di Milano. 2009. Monitoraggio Ecopass. [Ecopass As-sessment]. Milan: Agenzia Mobilità Ambiente e Territorio (in Italian). http://www.comune.milano.it/dseserver/ecopass/re port/Report_Ecopass_9mesi09.pdf.

Cresme. 2000. L’Italia del Disagio Insediativo: Investire nel Belpaese–Servizi Territoriali Diffusi per la Competizione Globale. [Housing Discomfort in Italy: Investing in the Beau-tiful Country–Widespread Territorial Services for Global Competition]. Rome: Serico (in Italian).

Cresme. 2008. 1996/2016–Eccellenze e Ghost Town nell’Italia dei Piccoli Comuni. [Excellences and Ghost Towns in Italian Small Municipalities]. Rome: Serico (in Italian) http://www.confcommercio.it/home/ArchivioGi/2008/Varie/SINTESI-RICERCA-def-6-08.doc_cvt.htm.

Cucca, R. 2009a. Partecipare alla Mobilità Sostenibile: Politiche, Strumenti e Attori. [Participating in Sustainable Mobility: Policies, Tools and Actors]. Rome: Carocci (in Italian).

Cucca, R. 2009b. Cittadini più consapevoli e istituzioni più re-sponsabili. [More conscious citizens and more responsible institutions]. Etica per le professioni 11(1):37–43 (in Italian).

Dauhs, J. 1982. The situation of the handicapped in today’s traffic, viewed by those concerned. In Bundesministerium für Verkehr (Ed.), Mitteilungen über Forschungen zur Verbesserung der Verkehrsverhältnisse der Gemeinden. Maßnahmen und Möglichkeiten zur Integration behinderter Menschen im Verkehr. pp. 132–133. Bonn: Forschung Stadtverkehr.

Debernardi, A. & Battaiotto, S. 2009. La mobilità sostenibile: verso un approccio integrato. [Sustainable mobility: towards an integrated approach]. Inquinamento 51(111):26–29 (in Italian).

Della Porta, D. & Piazza, G. 2008. Le Ragioni del no: Le Cam-pagne Contro la Tav in Val di Susa e il Ponte Sullo Stretto. [The Reasons for Refusal: The Campaign Against the High-Speed Railway in Susa Valley and the Bridge Over The Strait]. Milan: Feltrinelli (in Italian).


Dillard, J., V. Dujon, & M. King (Eds.). 2009 Understanding the Social Dimension of Sustainability. New York: Routledge.

Engwicht, D. 1993. Reclaiming Our Cities and Towns: Better Living with Less Traffic. Philadelphia: New Society Publish-ers.

European Union (EU). 2006. Keep Europe Moving: A Transport Policy for Sustainable Mobility. http://europa.eu/rapid/ pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/818. January 20, 2012.

European Union (EU). 2009. Energy and Transport in Figures. Luxembourg: European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/ energy/publications/statistics/doc/2009_energy_transport_figures.pdf.

Eurostat. 2007. Panorama of Transport: Statistical Books. Luxem-burg: Office for Official Publications of the European Com-munity. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB /KS-DA-07-001/EN/KS-DA-07-001-EN.PDF.

Featherstone, M. 2004. Automobilities: an introduction. Theory, Culture & Society 21(4–5):1–24.

Finkelstein, M., Jerret, M., & Sears, M. 2004. Traffic air pollution and mortality rate advancement periods. American Journal of Epidemiology 160(2):173–177.

Gervasoni, A. & Sartori, M. 2007. Il road pricing: esperienze in-ternazionali, costi, benefici e sostenibilità finanziaria. [Road pricing: international experiences, costs, benefits and finan-cial sustainability]. Liuc Papers, Serie Impresa e mercati fi-nanziari 198(6):1–42 (in Italian).

Glasbergen, P. 1998. The question of environmental governance. In P. Glasbergen (Ed.), Cooperative Environmental Govern-ance. pp. 1–18. Boston: Kluwer.



80

Gorman, D., Douglas, M., Conway, L., Noble, P., & Hanlon, P. 2003. Transport policy and health inequalities: a health im-pact assessment of Edinburgh’s transport policy. Public Health 117(1):15–24.

Hajer, M. 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecologi-cal Modernisation and the Policy Process. New York: Clara-don Press.

Heinze, G. 2000. Transport and leisure: growth as opportunity. In European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) (Ed.), Transport and Leisure, ECMT Round Table 111. pp. 1–51. Paris: OECD.

Hine, J. & Grieco, M. 2003. Scatters and clusters in time and space: implications for delivering integrated and inclusive transport. Transport Policy 10(4):299–306.

Hoek, G., Brunekreef, B., & Goldbohm, S. 2002. Association between mortality and indicators of traffic-related air pollu-tion in The Netherlands: a cohort study. Lancet 360(9341): 1203–1209.

Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., & O’Brien, G. 2005. Sustainable devel-opment: mapping different approaches. Sustainable Devel-opment 13(1):38–52.

Infussi, F. 2006. Il Progetto nel Processo di Riqualificazione Sos-tenibile Della Città Pubblica: Versione Provvisoria. [The Project in the Process of Sustainable Redevelopment in Pub-lic Cities: Draft Issue]. Milan: Diap (in Italian).

Istituto Nazionale di Statistica (ISTAT). 2007. Statistiche Sugli Incidenti Stradali. [Statistics on Road Accidents]. Rome: ISTAT (in Italian).

Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale (ISPRA). 2008. Qualità dell’ambiente Urbano. [Quality of Urban Environment]. http://www.apat.gov.it/site/_content files/00154500/154513_V_Rapporto_%20Aree_urb.pdf (in Italian).

Kenyon, S., Lyons, G., & Rafferty, J. 2002. Transport and social exclusion: investigating the possibility of promoting inclu-sion through virtual mobility. Journal of Transport Geogra-phy 10(3):207–219.

Laboratory for Research and Intervention on Societies (Laris). 2009. Azione Sperimentale “Tempi per Pinzano:” Nuove Modalità di Erogazione e Localizzazione dei Servizi. [Ex-perimental Action “Times for Pinzano:” New Ways to De-liver and Locate Public Services]. Limbiate: Te.M.P.O. (in Italian).

Leonard, J. 1989. Environment and the Poor: Development Strate-gies for a Common Agenda. Washington, DC: Overseas De-velopment Council.

Levine, J. & Garb, Y. 2002. Congestion pricing’s conditional promise: promotion of accessibility or mobility? Transport Policy 9(3):179–188.

Litman, T. 2003. Sustainable Transportation and TDM: Planning that Balances Economics, Social and Ecological Objectives. Victoria: Victoria Transport Policy Institute. http://www.vtpi. org/tdm/tdm67.htm.


Lyons, G. & Kenyon, S. 2003. Social Participation, Personal Travel and Internet Use. Proceedings of the Tenth Interna-tional Conference on Travel Behavior Research. August 1–13, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.


Mercado, R., Paez, A., Farber, S., Roorda, M., & Morency, C. 2011. Explaining transport mode use of low-income persons for journeys to work in urban areas: a case study of Ontario and Quebec. Transportmetrica. Online March 22.

Moos, M., Andrey, J., & Johnson, L. 2006. The sustainability of telework: an ecological-footprinting approach. Sustainability:

Science, Practice, & Policy 2(1):3–14. http://sspp.proquest. com/archives/vol2iss1/0511-020.moos.html.

Moriarty, P. & Reed, C. 1989. Reducing vehicular travel needs through increasing efficiency. Urban Policy and Research 7 (4):161–175.

Muller, A. & Sterner, T. 2006. Environmental Taxation in Prac-tice. Farnham, Surrey: Aldershot.

Noland, R. 2007. Transport planning and environmental assess-ment: implication of induced travel effects. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 1(1):1–28.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2002. Indicators to Measure Decoupling of Envi-ronmental Pressure from Economic Growth. Paris: OECD.

Oppenchaim, N. 2010. The Daily Mobility of Adolescents of Seg-regated Neighbourhoods. Paper presented at the International Sociological Association World Conference. July 11–17, Göteborg.

Osti, G. 2004. Un’economia leggera per aree fragili: criteri per la sostenibilità ambientale nel Nord Italia. [A light economy for fragile areas: criteria of environmental sustainability in northern Italy]. Sviluppo Locale 11(27):9–31 (in Italian).

Osti, G. 2007. Are Public Transport Systems so Flexible to Satisfy Remote Rural Areas’ Needs? XXII Congress of the European Society for Rural Sociology. August 20–24, Wageningen University, The Netherlands.

Pahl, R. 1991. The search for social cohesion: from Durkheim to the European Commission. European Journal of Sociology 32(2):345–360.

Panna, E. 2009. Riempire le auto per svuotare le strade: i vantaggi del ‘car pooling’. [Fill the cars to clear the streets: the ad-vantages of ‘car pooling’]. Etica per le Professioni 11(1):60–65 (in Italian).

Paolini, F. 2005. Un Paese a Quattro Ruote: Automobili e Società in Italia. [A Four-Wheels Country: Cars and Society in Italy]. Venice: Marsilio Editore (in Italian).

Pellizzoni, L. 2010. Environmental knowledge and deliberative democracy. In M. Gross & H. Heinrichs (Eds.), Environ-mental Sociology: European Perspectives, and Interdiscipli-nary Challenges. pp. 159–182. New York: Springer.

Polèse, M. & Stren, R. 2001. The Social Sustainability of Cities: Diversity and the Management of Change. Toronto: Univer-sity of Toronto Press.

Ponti, M. 2010. La mobilità sostenibile e il futuro delle metropoli. [Sustainable mobility and the future of metropolis]. Vita e Pensiero 93(1):113–119 (in Italian).

Poulit, J. 2007. Connecting People While Preserving the Planet. New York: Esri Press.

Ranci, C. 2011. Competitiveness and social cohesion in western European cities. Urban Studies 48(13):2789–2804.

Santos, G., Behrendt, H., & Teytelboym, A. 2010. Policy instru-ment for sustainable road transport. Research in Transporta-tion Economics 28(1):46–91.

Sauter-Servaes, T. & Nash, A. 2007. Applying low-cost airplane pricing strategies on European railroads. Transportation Re-search Record 1995:1–8.

Sawyer, D. 2008. Climate change, biofuels and eco-social impacts in the Brazilian Amazon and Cerrado. Philosophical Trans-actions of the Royal Society of London B(biological Sciences) 363(1498):1747–1752.

Shergold, I. & Parkhurst, G. 2010. Operationalising “sustainable mobility”: the case of transport policy for older citizens in ru-ral areas. Journal of Transport Geography 18(2):336–339.

Sheller, M. & Urry, J. 2006. The new mobilities paradigm. Envi-ronment and Planning A 38(2):207–226.

Social Exclusion Unit (SEU). 2003. Making the Connections: Final Report on Transport and Social Exclusion. London: SEU.

Tacchi, E. 2007. Conurbazioni urbane e sistemi di mobilità. [Urban conurbations and mobility systems]. In S. Paone (Ed.), Alla



81

ricerca Della Città Futura: l’Ambiente Nella Dimensione Urbana. pp. 197–215. Pisa: Edizioni ETS (in Italian).

Tomlison, J. 1999. Globalization and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

UK Commission for Integrated Transport. 2008. A New Approach to Rural Public Transport. London: HMSO.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). 2010. Review of Maritime Transport. New York: United Nations.

United Nations (UN). 1997. Glossary of Environment Statistics: Studies in Methods. Series F, No. 67. New York: UN. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/publication/SeriesF/SeriesF_67E.pdf.

Urry, J. 2000. Sociology Beyond Society: Mobilities for the Twenty-First Century. New York: Routledge.

van Tatenhoven, J. & Leroy, P. 2003. Environment and participa-tion in a context of political modernisation. Environmental Values 12(2):155–174.

von Braun, J. & Pachauri, R. 2006. The Promises and Challenges of Biofuels for the Poor in Developing Countries. Washing-ton, DC: International Food Policy Research. http://www. ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ar05e.pdf.

Vasconcellos, E. 2001. Urban Transport, Environment, and Eq-uity: The Case for Developing Countries. London: Earthscan.

Viale, G. 1996. Tutti in Taxi: Demonologia dell’Automobile. [Eve-ryone in Taxi: A Demonology of Cars]. Milan: Feltrinelli (in Italian).

Viale, G. 2007. Vita e Morte dell’Automobile. [Life and Death of the Automobile]. Turin: Bollati Boringhieri (in Italian).

Villavecchia, B. 2009. Prototipo sperimentale di contrasto dell’inquinamento da traffico urbano. [An experimental pro-totype to face urban traffic pollution]. Etica per le Profes-sioni 11(1):50–55 (in Italian).

Vranken, J., Decker, P., & van Nieuwenhuyze, I. 2002. Urban Governance, Social Inclusion and Sustainability: National Context Reports. Antwerp: Garant.

Warren, M. 2007. The digital vicious cycle: links between social disadvantage and digital exclusion in rural areas. Telecom-munications Policy 31(6–7):374–388.

Zanchini, E., Nanni, G., & Eroe, K. 2010. Pendolaria 2010: La Situazione e Gli Scenari del Trasporto Ferroviario Pendo-lare in Italia. [Pendolaria 2010: Situation and Outlook of Railway Commuter Transport in Italy]. Rome: Legambiente. http://www.regione.toscana.it/regione/multimedia/RT/documents/2011/02/25/b51b89b2b9f07e19bafd09f17d28b410_dossierpendolaria0000002089.pdf (in Italian).


2012 Osti Winter 2012 | Volume 8 | Issue 1

82

ARTICLE

Green social cooperatives in Italy: a practical way to cover the three pillars of sustainability? Giorgio Osti Department of Political and Social Sciences, University of Trieste, Piazzale Europa, 1, Trieste 34127 Italy (email: [email protected]) This article provides an introductory description of Italian green social cooperatives which are democratic nonprofit organizations specializing in the provision of environmental services. The background to this topic is the literature on the “third sector,” usually called social entrepreneurship, and the “sociology of environment,” mainly that part con-cerned with consumption and lifestyles. Green social cooperatives are a concrete attempt to unify the three pillars of sustainability. The analysis is divided into two parts. The first part highlights the challenges that the environmental crisis raises for social enterprises and considers three dimensions in particular: work integration, generalized or linear exchange, and the theory of the commons. The discussion reveals mismatches between the urgency of moving to-ward a sustainable world and the competences of social enterprises. The second part examines this asymmetry and uses the social cooperative, the main empirical expression of social enterprise in Italy, as its point of departure. The article proposes a typology with which to frame green social cooperatives and employs a qualitative approach to out-line a concrete case for each type. The result is the emergence of a social area, at present decidedly underdeveloped and undersized, but with considerable potential for job creation and environmental services. The analysis demon-strates that social enterprises are interesting hybrids of economic and social sustainability, but to promote the envi-ronmental pillar of sustainability they must combine work and habitation (or production and consumption) according to a logic of sufficiency. KEYWORDS: nonprofit associations, employment, community involvement, social services, rights of future generations, resource management, human-environment relationship Introduction: The Environment as a Stimulus for the Reconsideration of Work

Social enterprises are entrepreneurial activities with two primary objectives: “identify a stable but inherently unjust equilibrium that causes the exclu-sion, marginalization, or suffering of a segment of humanity”; organize a direct and efficient activity to change this equilibrium, reinvesting the surpluses in the community, rather than in shareholders and own-ers (Martin & Osberg, 2007). Besides social aims and the nonprofit constraint, social enterprises also often have the features of financial and managerial auton-omy and the democratic representation of employees (one vote per person) (Borzaga & Defourny, 2001).

A central concern for social enterprises is the high value of “work” that is inherent in the concept of the “work integration social enterprise” (Spear & Bidet, 2005). The principle is that work is a constitu-ent part of human dignity (Sennett, 1998). Social enterprises offer excellent opportunities for recovery and integration through work, removing people in serious difficulties from welfare dependency. This characterization applies not only to those suffering hardship, for even the most fortunate find that work is a source of freedom and personal expression.

Work comprises not only social recovery and employment, but also has an entrepreneurial dimen-sion: the pleasure of doing new things and doing them well. If we relate the environmental question to work as a source of meaning, three aspects of partic-ular interest to social enterprises emerge: 1) work is the manipulation of environmental goods; 2) work is knowledge of nature’s mechanisms; and 3) work is a way of living in a place.

The first meaning is the most common of the three: work is the constant manipulation of goods present in nature for the purpose of ensuring the sur-vival of self and family. The value of work consists in transforming environmental goods into objects usable by humans. Environmental goods are therefore means with which to obtain sustenance, services, and sometimes a stock of resources from which further goods and services can be derived or accumulated.

In fact, social enterprises move with alacrity in the environment in search of work opportunities for their members, especially the disadvantaged ones. Because of its simplicity and immediacy, the manip-ulation of environmental goods is generally a useful source of employment: consider “green care” or the maintenance of public and private green spaces. Of course, we can distinguish between obtaining organic

Osti: Green Social Cooperatives in Italy


83

food and carefully tending gardens or golf courses. In one case, we have products intended to satisfy basic needs; in the other, services for decidedly less urgent ones. Nevertheless, the emphasis on work as the ma-nipulation of nature to extract goods and services does not entail many differences. What is important is guaranteeing work in itself because it gives people dignity and recognition.

Work in the second sense—knowledge about nature—closely concerns the environmental question. The environmental crisis is intimately bound up with science, even if in an ambivalent way. On one hand, the scientific revolution in a general sense is blamed as one of the main causes of the crisis (an objective and manipulative view of nature) (see, e.g., Pellizzoni, 2009) while, on the other hand, technical or experimental knowledge makes it possible to quantify human and environmental damage and to devise solutions. Science is, therefore, a mixed blessing for the environment. Whatever the case may be, it is evidently difficult to return to magical beliefs or to take refuge in agnosticism. Human societies incessantly produce technical innovations and envi-ronmental changes, the impact of which must first be monitored and then managed by means of refined knowledge and instruments.

This meaning of work as knowledge and as knowing how to manipulate the environment emerges to its fullest extent in the work of scholars such as Peter Dickens.1 The expression that synthesizes the question is “environment professions.” Accordingly, there is a considerable body of literature on these professions, along with numerous expectations of their employment impact (Beato, 2000; Morriss et al. 2009). The constant creation of synthetic products, and the cumulative effects of human transformations, requires distinct specializations that subsequently give rise to new disciplinary branches, and they, in turn, foster the birth of new public agencies or au-thorities. The academic disciplines, for their part, have created an environmental subsector of their own, with a clear trend toward specialization.

Social enterprises, therefore, confront a further challenge if they want to concern themselves with the environment: they must acquire highly complex knowledge and skills. Social professionalism (i.e., interactions, relationships, ties) is useful insofar as it is still necessary to grasp interdependences among phenomena according to an ecological logic. How-ever, the individual parts of ecosystems are so com-plex as to discourage any form of rough intervention. 1 Dickens (2002) contends that capitalist forces are always able to control labor, keeping the workers unskilled. The environmental crisis—given its complexity and systemic character—is a further proof for testing the capacity of labor forces to overcome this situ-ation, launching a great project of self-skilling.

If, for example, a social enterprise intends to furnish energy-saving services to households, it must possess highly refined knowledge about insulating materials and heat-diffusion processes. Otherwise, the organi-zation will need to rely on externally appropriated sources of knowledge, which are generally expen-sive, difficult to evaluate, and dependence inducing.

The problem of technical-organizational profes-sionalism is particularly severe in social enterprises (Fazzi & Stanzani, 2005) and is exacerbated in the case of environmental protection because it requires systematic knowledge. For example, this is what happened to small farmers forced to face the mod-ernization of agricultural methods; they not only had to possess agronomic skills but also chemical, me-chanical, and accounting ones. In short, this was a difficult learning process that in many cases led to removal of the business function from farmers and its transfer to external agencies (van der Ploeg, 2008). That social enterprises may suffer the same fate is evinced by the waste-management sector, where so-cial enterprises have tended to assume those parts of the overall cycle with the smallest knowledge con-tent, with serious risks that their workers will be oc-cupationally marginalized.

The third meaning of work—a way of inhabit-ing—arises from criticism of the typical vocational or Weberian conception of work (Beruf). Various movements, among them environmentalism (Gorz, 2003) and what we may call the minimalist or pau-perist ones (Etzioni, 2004; Cohen, 2005; Gesualdi, 2005), criticize the fact that work has become an end in itself. Such movements maintain that work is now primarily a dire necessity and only secondarily a source of pleasure. They denounce the fact that work has become a social duty, a moral obligation, an ex-orbitant sign of prestige and material wealth which clearly extends beyond its original purpose.

This view also comprises a critique against methods that measure work solely in terms of mone-tary remuneration. That work has become commodi-fied is certainly not a new observation (see, e.g., Polanyi, 1944), but it regains vigor from the envi-ronmental perspective because of the monetary translation of the entire value (monetary and non-monetary) of numerous environmental goods. The commodification of work, relationships, art, and the environment has distorted their meaning, as well as our enjoyment of them. It is for these reasons that the value of voluntary or community work has been most appreciated in the environmental field (Linne, 2001). Such work involves the free delivery of services en-dowed with an imponderable social and existential value.

From an environmental-philosophical perspec-tive, monetized work must be calibrated to people’s



84

real needs. Such a requirement also entails revaluing self-production, neighborhood work, and work un-dertaken at the local scale. The environmental crisis highlights that work that is disconnected from its material basis and instrumental meaning becomes a mere commodity relocatable at will. Work has be-come a largely self-referential activity that prevents understanding that it is untenable to defend a job if it pollutes the place where one lives. The possibility of relocating work and the self-referential view of it create a nonsensical conflict between the professional sphere and the residential domain.

Insofar as social enterprises adopt an extremist position on work, they are liable to commit the same error of separating the worker from the resident. The appeal to the local community is a crucial aspect of the approach adopted by work cooperatives—the integration of a disadvantaged person depends on both work and extra-work relations. Without the sup-port of the local community, a social enterprise—even if it provides regular work for its members—is flawed. The environmental perspective heightens the community dimension because it requires taking ac-count of numerous integrating factors (e.g., health, consumption, lifestyle, infrastructure impact) that a social enterprise must use as criteria for evaluation of its service.

The all-encompassing perspective urged by the environmental crisis is crucial. This is evident in the case of immigrants, a social category vulnerable not so much in regard to work (which may instead be relatively abundant) as to housing and its conditions, which are generally seriously inadequate and stigma-tizing. This third meaning of work as a function of living both corrects and includes the other two (work as a source of recognition and work as a profession). It also furnishes precise parameters with which to evaluate the concrete actions of social enterprises. The social enterprises most virtuous from this point of view are those that respond to the need for both occupational and residential integration into the community. The Environment as a Stimulus for Generalized and Linear Reciprocity

The social dimension of green social enterprises (GSEs) can be construed on the basis of reciprocity, an archetypal principle regulating human exchanges (see, e.g., Becker, 1990). Based on symmetry be-tween the exchangers and on a permanent obligation to give, to receive, and to return gifts (Mauss, 1923-24), reciprocity is widely considered the distinctive feature of the so-called “third sector” to which social enterprises belong (Donati, 1996; Boccacin, 2005). Even if reciprocity is present in various forms and to

different extents in all human domains (Thompson, 2003; Bruni, 2008; Sacchetti & Sugden, 2009), it is especially recognized as an ordering principle of so-cial enterprises. However, typical forms of interper-sonal reciprocity inherent in social enterprises are challenged when the issue of sustainability is raised. If they want to be “green,” they have to develop new forms of reciprocity, called linear (A B C …) or generalized (A BCD), where the arrow indi-cates the act of giving (gift).

In social enterprises, relationships have value in themselves because they have therapeutic effects and give meaning and satisfaction to those who engage in them. Moreover, as transaction cost theory maintains, in some productive contexts and for certain goods, reciprocity is more efficient than the hierarchy or market (Ouchi, 1980). Strong bonds among principal and agent are the best conditions for the provision of high quality goods or of high relational content ser-vices.

There is little question that reciprocity has draw-backs as well: its stickiness and the personalization of relationships may induce pathological phenomena, such as moral and psychological blackmail and vari-ous forms of collusion (bribes represent an extreme example). Nevertheless, reciprocity is a way to regu-late highly complex and risky relationships requiring a large degree of trust between parties. The social en-terprise is one such case, in that it must reconcile the principles of efficiency and solidarity, it must work with people suffering from distress of diverse kinds, and it must constantly cope with highly uncertain circumstances. Trust among practitioners, and be-tween these and the beneficiaries, is of crucial im-portance: social work is essentially team work.

Does the environmental perspective add to or subtract from the salient reciprocity of social enter-prises? Reciprocity in activities that are difficult to evaluate—such as environmental monitoring—is important because the trustful relation conveys in-formation not otherwise obtainable (Dodgson, 1993). Reciprocity thus yields a form of knowledge that cannot be transmitted through the normal codes of science, which instead work according to the subject-object schema (Honneth, 2005).2 Thus intuited are connections whose understanding is improved by interpersonal accord. However, this situation raises the risk that knowledge may be confined within a very narrow domain and be restricted to the interac-tive capacities of the two parties concerned. Put in more direct terms, a reciprocal relationship between doctor and patient is not enough to diagnose a tumor;

2 Jay (2008) explains that “Honneth stresses the priority of recognition to cognition, the intersubjective interaction that sub-tends any relationship between subject and object, self and world.”



85

also required is a body of knowledge and procedures external to that relationship. Nevertheless, long-lasting and affective patient-doctor relations may be—as Honneth argues—a prerequisite for encoded knowledge.

Concern for the environment can be a stimulus for concern for objects and things external to social relations (Smith, 2005). The environment rarely pre-sents itself in the guise of a person with whom to establish a dialogue. There are certainly flesh-and-blood people who are victims of environmental in-justices, and for whom reciprocity and dialogue may be the most appropriate medicines. But in the major-ity of cases, the environment presents itself as an impersonal good devoid of human features. In some cases, it is a forecast of damage to generations not yet born or living in remote areas. Here, reciprocity be-tween A and B is not enough. In fact, reciprocity must be integrated with a type of relationship that we may call “generalized exchange” (Ekeh, 1974; see also Pearce & Conger, 2003), and that concern for the environment helps to develop. As Ricoeur (1990) puts it, this capability entails considering not only the face of the other but also the face of everybody; that is, the anonymous other whose specific features I shall never be able to grasp for practical reasons, and with whom I shall never establish an enduring rela-tionship.

The “face of everyone”—which Ricoeur prefers to the “anonymous” face—recalls care for the other as the holder of rights without distinctions of a per-sonal kind. One form of recognition is treatment of the other as a role, an abstract entity, a bundle of rights. This does not always give pleasure, nor is it understood, but in some circumstances it can be a highly refined form of respect: respect for the other as a person as such without considering any social capacity or individual attribute. The pedagogical force of the notion of “everybody” is strongly appar-ent in the case of environmental rights. These are living conditions for thousands of people, many of them not yet born, and to whom broad and imper-sonal respect must be given.

In the case of GSEs, movement in this direction entails enlargement of the number and the types of stakeholders to consider. The range will depend on what environmental services the GSE wishes to fur-

nish; in the case of waste management, for instance, it must deal anonymously with thousands of users of urban cleansing services.

Two challenges ensue with waste management: the first is that a good home-collection service or the management of an ecological platform requires the GSE to establish with the user both a personalized exchange, based on the particular needs of the indi-vidual user, and a generalized exchange based on the rights/duties of every citizen in regard to the provi-sion of public hygiene services. The second challenge is that the waste-management cycle is very long; some parts of the waste collected often have distant and improper destinations. The social enterprise can-not gloss over this fact by claiming, as do many firms in the sector, that it is responsible for only one phase of the process, while it knows nothing about the waste’s final disposal location. In other words, the undertaking of environmental services by a responsi-ble social enterprise greatly extends the chain of reci-procity relations. Dyadic or small group relationships are not enough. Necessary instead is linear reciproc-ity in which the paradigm is the intergenerational gift (Bearman, 1997). This is a path of sequential respon-sibility that could easily be adopted by social enter-prises that want to be environmentally sustainable. If sustainability means the lasting use of an environ-mental good, linear reciprocity is an important source of commitment “over time” for every actor in the chain. The Environment as a Stimulus to Enter Commons

It is possible to further grasp the potential of so-cial enterprises acting on the environment by consid-ering the well-known classification of goods first drawn up by Elinor Ostrom (1990) and then elabo-rated upon by several Italian authors (Borzaga, 2007; Marelli, 2009; Bravo, 2011). If we start from the ty-pology resulting from the cross-referencing of sub-tractability and excludability,3 we have four kinds of goods (Figure 1). The current environmental crisis is attributable to a shift of many goods from public to commons (Pellizzoni, in press). The air, water, and forests have become scarcer and more polluted re-sources. Every new human action subtracts value from them, reduces their quantity, and diminishes their quality. These goods have scant excludability: in short, they become commons.

3 Subtractability, or rivalness, refers to the degree to which one person’s use of a resource diminishes others’ use. Excludability refers to whether or not a user can be efficiently excluded from using a resource.

Subtractability

High Low

Excludability High private goods club goods

Low commons public goods

Figure 1 A typology of public goods.



86

High subtractability and low excludability facil-itate opportunism—in other words, one can enjoy a good without contributing to its protection. Common goods require close control to inhibit free riding lest they be rapidly depleted. The problem is how to ex-ercise this managerial influence. Hardin’s (1968) proposals that goods (or rights to their use) should be allocated to private agents, or that centralized public control should be created, stand in opposition to the bottom-up institutional arrangements that Ostrom (2000) theorized. Such interventions involve creating forms of self-governance that comprise an appropri-ate mix of firmness and flexibility, positive and neg-ative sanctions, stable and revisable procedures. The relevant institutions are not always public, but in some cases can consist of undivided private property, such as certain forests in the Italian Alps.

Social enterprises are in some respects oriented to private goods and they often furnish discrete goods to individuals. Home help for a dependent elderly person is a very frequent case. The objection that this is the supply of a relational good that arises from the relationship between the provider and consumer is correct (Gui, 2000). In fact, according to the classifi-cation used here, a relational good tends to be a club good: it is not depleted by use (low subtractability), but at the same time it is very easy to exclude other potential users from the relationship. Various forms of community or group therapy are indivisible goods, but they are easily and rightfully excludable. If there were indiscriminate access to the service, the thera-peutic value of the group work would collapse.

Social enterprises therefore can operate agilely in the domain of club goods. This applies all the more to environmental services. In fact, there are many cases of cooperatives that furnish natural and cultural guide services; these are club goods in that their use is col-lective, or at any rate it concerns an indivisible good like a landscape, an ecosystem, or a cultural asset. The service may be exclusive (in the form of an entry ticket to a park or a museum or payment of a guide), but its use—within certain limits—does not subtract value from the good. Club goods yield an economic return for the supplier, with the consequence that cooperatives have been set up by young people in areas of environmental or archaeological value.

But the dynamics of environmental goods open new prospects. Goods that were once public have become not only more subtractable, but also rather easily excludable, owing to increasingly technical requirements imposed by their provision. Drinking water provides an example: its distribution through underground mains and the controlled connections to each user make it a more easily excludable good and thus discourage free riding (although, of course, it does not disappear entirely).

Throughout history, enterprises arose that dealt specifically with the management of drinking water. This service was typically promoted by wealthy citi-zens who wanted the convenience of piped water in their homes. Municipal corporations then took over with the intention of distributing the precious liquid to everybody, even the least well off. The use of drinking water has been so strongly embodied in technical and accounting systems (the mains water supply) that it has become an outright subtractable and excludable good from which private enterprises could extract a profit. As is well known, water pri-vatization is now strongly contested, because it is feared that drinking water will give rise to specula-tive use and less diligence in ensuring its distribution in low-density housing areas, which is notoriously less profitable. The political reaction to this tendency has been to propose the exclusive management of the good by an entirely public corporation.

This context of the (contested) privatization of common goods offers enormous scope for action by social enterprises (Fiorentini & Preite, 2004; Rieth, 2005; Pestoff, 2009). These organizations could manage goods of a public nature that have become commons because of the complexity of supply sys-tems and the intensity of their use. These goods have attracted interest in their exploitation in the purely economic sense. This situation, though, poses conflict in two respects: equality in both the social and territo-rial senses and the need to moderate resource use. In this regard, social enterprises have ample terrain on which to assert their social (equity) and environmen-tal (saving) commitment. Empirical cases, though, are rare; some cooperatives in the Alps have their own hydroelectric plants (Mendini et al. 2007) or irrigation systems (Bravo, 2002). Accordingly, the Po valley reclamation consortia tasked with regulating water drainage and the irrigation of fields can be con-sidered social enterprises sui generis (private status, public function).

What makes the “social enterprise solution” dif-ficult, besides ideological resistance, is the territorial scale of the delivery systems for environmental goods. Water, for example, typically accumulates over wide catchment areas that require integrated management on a large scale (Bobbio, 2005). This challenge necessitates the coordination of numerous private users and other institutions, as well as the availability of adequate investments. For the govern-ance of a social enterprise, even if it is conducted on a multistakeholder basis, managing goods on such a scale may be very difficult (Fazzi, 2007). Hierar-chical management mechanisms would have to be applied, and this would conflict with the principle of reciprocity that generally regulates nonprofit organi-zations.



87

Analytical Criteria and Types of Green Social Enterprises

The previous section discussed how social enter-prises require certain operational mechanisms to be able to effectively address environmental sustain-ability. Under appropriate circumstances, conserving the environment can stimulate the creation of work opportunities with low-entry thresholds, provide training in systemic skills (e.g., analysis, planning, coordination), expand awareness of the needs of the local community, complement arrangements for dy-adic or circular reciprocity with linear and general-ized reciprocity, and increase attention to commons undergoing privatization.

These considerations can be illustrated by con-ceiving the social enterprise as a system that interacts with its environment. In this case, “environment” has the twofold meaning of “everything that is distinct from the organization” and “the domain comprising vital resources (ecosystems).” Notably, these defini-tions overlap, producing new exigencies for the so-cial enterprise, which is a system that receives con-stant stimuli from the environment and on which it, in turn, reacts.

Having codified the essential features of the re-lationship between the social enterprise and the envi-ronment, it is now possible to consider whether a combination of these features exists that enables con-struction of a typology to guide empirical investiga-tions. This typology—which must be a good com-promise between variety and parsimony—can be constructed on the basis of two key dimensions. The first ranges from whether the social enterprise is, on one hand, exclusively concerned with work or whether it, on the other hand, reconciles work and living (attention to acting professionally and with consideration of the local community). The second dimension specifically concerns the environment in terms of whether it is viewed as an instrument or as an end in itself.4 The intersection of these two dimen-

4 The second dimension can be translated in terms of sustainability (see Robinson, 2004). An instrumental approach to the environ-ment means using an environmental label for other purposes, while

sions produces a Cartesian space with four quadrants in which four ideal types of social enterprise can be arranged (Figure 2).

Quadrant A comprises the vast majority of social cooperatives5 that are involved generically with the environment.6 Organizations that furnish services for the maintenance of public green spaces, for urban waste collection, and for urban sanitation probably account for one quarter of the Type B social cooper-atives in Italy (Mattioni & Tranquilli, 1998). The census of social cooperatives conducted by the Isti-tuto Nazionale di Statistica (ISTAT) in 2003 reported approximately 400 such cooperatives operating in the “green” sector, which also includes agriculture and forestry. They represent approximately 20% of the Type B social cooperatives in the country.7 Little

an end-directed approach aims at the conservation (or the repro-duction) of an ecosystem over a long period of time. 5 In Italy, “social enterprises” almost always take the form of “social cooperatives,” a unique institutional form created in 1991 by a national law. Social cooperatives can be of Type A (commu-nity services to nonmembers) or Type B (one third of the coopera-tive’s members must be disadvantaged people) (see Thomas, 2004). The rationale of this national law was to institutionalize the solidarity toward nonmembers rather than the typical mutuality among members of cooperatives. 6 The case-selection method is based on an “ideal types” mode of organization (Zijderveld, 2004). It captures and interprets the dis-tance between models and real cases. The former are constructed with the analytical dimensions of social enterprises envisaged in the initial paragraphs of this article and summarized in Figure 2. The latter are the result of “purposive sampling” or selection of a few exemplary cases, usually one or two for each ideal type. It is a nonrandom sample of real cases used as examples of the theoreti-cal types. The article is not based on a statistical survey of social cooperatives, but only the exemplification of their theoretical traits through singular aspects of case studies. The method is then quali-tative and is justified by the explorative nature of the analysis and the hybrid nature of social cooperatives. The main source of em-pirical cases is a special issue of the Italian journal Impresa Sociale from 2007 that highlights several green social cooperatives in different regions of the country. It merits noting that inside the same legal framework, social cooperatives are “used” for many different aims, such as waste management and fighting crime syn-dicates. 7 According to the European Research Institute on Cooperative and Social Enterprises (2011), in 2008 the Italian social cooper-atives numbered 13,938, of which 814 were working in the indus-trial sector, and 230 were active in the waste and water manage-ment and sanitation sectors. The report does not specify how many

Aim of the Social Enterprise Value Set on the

Environment Produce Produce and Inhabit

Instrumental A–Simple environmental services (e.g., urban cleansing)

SIMPLE GSE

B–Territorial promotion services (e.g., environmental education)

TERRITORIAL GSE

Final C–Services with high technical-innovative content (e.g., solar energy plants)

INNOVATIVE GSE

D–Services incorporating lifestyles (e.g., residences with self-contained consumption)

COMMUNITARIAN GSE Figure 2 Types of green social enterprises (GSE).



88

information is available at the European level, but it is almost certain that activities to do with waste recy-cling, especially in its recovery and transaction seg-ment, are most common among GSEs (Bicciato et al. 1999; Ferraresi & Sidaway, 1999; Aiken & Spear, 2005; Williams et al. 2005; Heike & Koring, 2008).

After beginning on a small scale in the late 1990s with the start-up of integrated waste manage-ment, these services began to develop quite rapidly in Italy. In particular, municipal administrations con-tracted the collection of certain types of waste and waste-recycling facilities to social cooperatives (Osti, 2002). Furthermore, the maintenance of public green spaces was outsourced to social cooperatives. Coop-eratives also work on private gardens and sanitize industrial areas, creating a macroscale area of activity that can be designated as “hygiene services.”

These services were initially hailed as highly in-novative because they introduced more refined meth-ods of waste sorting and recycling and because the institutions assigned a multifunctional role to the social cooperatives (Osti, 1998). This enthusiasm subsided over time because it became apparent that these were low-grade activities and the institutional partners were unwilling (or unable) to foster the growth of social enterprises. Nevertheless, the sector has created numerous opportunities for work integra-tion and substantial revenues for the cooperatives and a chance to diversify their activities.

The problem remains of the level of professionalism associated with public hygiene ser-vices. Only rarely are social cooperatives able to de-sign such services themselves and propose them to public authorities. While Lombardy, the first region of the country to introduce a large-scale waste-sorting system, offers some encouraging, contravening evi-dence (Panna, 1999), most social cooperatives in Italy have failed in their attempts to assume a more industrial and professional profile. However, tech-nical factors are to some degree responsible for these developments—once an advanced waste-sorting sys-tem is introduced, further recycling phases become highly mechanized and require specific expertise and large investments. Few social cooperatives have en-tered the more industrial phases of the waste cycle, which instead has been taken over by nonsocial co-operatives belonging to large consortia.8

of the 10,538 social cooperatives working in the service sector provided environmental services occasionally or secondarily. 8 There are two kinds of Italian cooperatives: nonsocial (or quasi-profit) and social. This article discusses the latter type, which rep-resents a smaller part of the Italian cooperative movement. Ac-cording to the European Research Institute on Cooperative and Social Enterprises (2011), in 2008 there were 57,640 Italian non-social cooperatives; see also footnote 7.

The most innovative social cooperatives in Italy are shifting toward waste prevention and reuse. In other words, these organizations have developed ini-tiatives with low technological, but high cultural content that enables them to promote more moderate consumption and to conduct workshops to repair discarded—but otherwise functional—goods for re-sale (Zanetti, 2007). In terms of the typology in Fig-ure 2, this means that such cooperatives move from Quadrant A to Quadrant B (educational services) and Quadrant D (lifestyles). This shift, though, has impli-cations for revenue because users are unlikely to pay for educational and cultural services, so that ongoing provision is dependent on public subsidies. Contrib-uting further to the challenge is the fact that demand for these services is often sporadic, a situation that differs dramatically from public hygiene services that have a daily or weekly periodicity. Given this dis-tinction, some social cooperatives have tended to shift from the enterprise model to voluntarism or “way of life” models.

The most emblematic case is the network of the Emmaus communities. But the “Riciclaggio e Soli-darietà” cooperative, based in Florence and run by the “Mani Tese” (Open Hands) nongovernmental organization, resembles the model as well.9 Revenues are very low because the repair of used objects is time consuming, and customers for such objects—with the exception of some collectors—are not pre-pared to pay very much money for them.

Quadrant B—territorial services—comprises so-cial enterprises furnishing home-care services, tourist entertainment and recreation, environmental educa-tion, and cultural promotion. This category effec-tively captures the social cooperatives that have been established in rural areas of Italy that are well en-dowed with environmental amenities but lack ade-quate commercial and social services. In fact, these organizations plan and manage care services for the resident population and recreational services for out-siders (Carrosio, 2007). It is no coincidence that tourism-oriented cooperatives and social cooperatives tend to merge together. This is the case also for for-estry cooperatives that now increasingly engage in biomass recovery for energy purposes in addition to the provision of civil and tourism services. Their action is centered on promoting noninvasive use of territory. A census of Italian ecotourism cooperatives

9 Emmaus Italy is a network of communities, created in France by Abbé Pierre, and involved in the accommodation of marginal people, who specifically work in the sector of recycling and reuse as a form of personal redemption. Mani Tese is an Italian secular nongovernmental organization (NGO) working mainly in the sec-tor of international cooperation. It has a “green” identity as well, very similar to the American voluntary simplicity movement (Grigsby, 2004).



89

conducted during the late 1990s counted almost 250 cases (Eco&Eco, 1999); more recent numbers are not available. These organizations were often for-profit cooperatives created or inspired by environmental associations, particularly ones interested in the pro-tection of natural sites (Osti, 2007).

The second type of social enterprise in Quadrant B is most prevalent in urban and suburban contexts affected by poor community life. The most frequent activity is the management of social centers that host after-school and consumer clubs, as well as recrea-tional and sports activities. Obviously, the manage-ment of public premises does not compete with the supply of work opportunities. On the contrary, the integration between work and habitation is the dis-tinctive feature of this type of social cooperative (Battaglini, 2007). The most commercial part of such organizations may be the management of a bar or sports facility, the facilitation of weekend breaks and holidays, and the maintenance of green areas. The attribution of “instrumental” to the use of the envi-ronment by social cooperatives of this kind signifies that their main concern is socially focused; environ-mental issues are addressed only on a reactive basis, for instance, in response to the threatened closure of a public park or the presence of a polluting factory.

Various kinds of practitioners are involved in these social cooperatives, with a predominance of cultural educators. Great importance is given to communication and training. The already-mentioned problem of low remuneration persists because the organization depends on public revenues or donations by local residents. Services that can be sold at full price—a day with a nature guide or entertainment by an educator—can survive only on the basis of high volume. Nevertheless, the problem of remuneration can be attenuated by the establishment of appropriate mutual-help arrangements. When a territorial cooper-ative is well-integrated into a network of public bod-ies and associations, an exchange of services and operators takes place that enables some members to be fully compensated. Cooperatives that are better off because they operate in more lucrative sectors (e.g., homes for the elderly or with children) acquire train-ing and recreational services from cooperatives of the Quadrant B type. In addition, local authorities, aware of the social and cultural value of these initiatives, often seek to ensure that funding is provided on a regular schedule.

It is furthermore instructive to consider the ca-pacity of social cooperatives to assemble themselves into larger associations to participate in European Union (EU) calls for proposals. For example, some Italian social cooperatives have been able to prepare and win bids on environment-related projects fi-nanced by the Communitarian Initiative EQUAL, a

funding scheme focused on supporting innovative, transnational projects aimed at tackling discrimina-tion and disadvantage in the labor market (European Communities, 2004).

Quadrant C comprises social cooperatives for which the introduction of environment-friendly tech-nologies in recent years has created useful opportuni-ties to acquire work for their members and to develop customary industrial skills. These activities specifi-cally concern the installation of energy-production devices and, more rarely, the construction of low- energy buildings; these mainly involve “nonsocial” cooperatives that have sufficient technical and practi-cal knowledge to consider construction of an entire building.

Some Italian social cooperatives have found it relatively easy to enter the market for the installation of solar panels. The ability of these organizations to move in this direction is, however, grounded in prior expertise that derives from earlier experience in the assembly of complex devices, primarily switchboards (Battaglini, 2007). Still, the installation of panels is simple enough to be done by that part of cooperative membership represented by disabled workers. Of course, the social cooperatives provide the installa-tion phase, while the assembly of the panels them-selves is out of their sphere of activity. Nevertheless, they are satisfied that they are contributing to a clean energy transition.

Initiatives by social cooperatives in the energy-technology field exist at different levels. The first activity centers on the aforementioned installation of panels. Notable is the concentration of these organi-zations in Lombardy, with promising forms of inte-gration in “districts of social economy,” i.e., local agreements of small firms and consumers clubs (Biolghini, 2007). Consortia and larger cooperatives promote a number of technician-training schemes, and in some rare cases cooperatives undertake their own research and development in the energy-technology sector. Programs to enable collective pur-chasing of energy-saving devices exist; these initia-tives are spearheaded by cooperative banks and other financial associations, although such efforts are typi-cally coordinated with social cooperatives.

In the case of energy cooperatives, it merits con-sidering not only their capacity to learn techniques but also their commercial practices. Unlike some other goods, both energy-production and energy-conservation devices are discrete products for which it is relatively easy to identify a price and to market. Why and how have some social cooperatives entered the energy-technology sector? There is reason to think that what happened first in the organic sector, and then in the waste sector, has been repeated. More specifically, some social enterprises have managed to



90

effectively anticipate the market, to create the insti-tutions needed to realize the value of certain energy technologies and to develop a comparative advantage position for themselves (Bravo & Villa, 2007). In other words, they were organizations able to innovate before private for-profit enterprises. The social pur-pose of these organizations has provided greater free-dom to transcend considerations of short-term profit-ability that dissuade “rational” entrepreneurs. There is, in fact, evidence to suggest that the latter can get bogged down in excessively detailed calculations and thus become risk averse at the expense of creativity (Beveridge & Guy, 2005).

The social orientation of an enterprise may there-fore enhance its capacity for risk-taking and innova-tion. Nevertheless, it warrants keeping in mind that only a very small minority of social cooperatives are involved with energy technologies. The entry thresh-old to the sector is often high, and it is certainly more limiting than is the case for urban hygiene. Another difference (especially with respect to waste disposal) is that the energy sector entails closer engagement with private agents more than with public bodies. Moreover, competition in energy technology is in-tense and firms are frequently forced out of business.

The social enterprises in Quadrant C also have more chances of overlapping with nonsocial cooper-atives, especially those operating in the housing sec-tor. Such circumstances also mean greater competi-tion within the cooperative domain, with potential for internecine competition. This situation previously emerged in the waste sector when ordinary coopera-tives delivering routine services resented the entrance of social cooperatives with new practices such as sorted collection and help from public authorities.

An Italian province with a strong cooperative tradition, such as Brescia, exhibits rather marked polarization between a consortium of ordinary coop-eratives (that comprise noncooperative enterprises as well) and a consortium of social cooperatives (Bravo & Villa, 2007). Working to protect the environment therefore creates many social and economic interac-tions, but paradoxically it does so to a lesser extent inside the cooperative movement.

Finally, we come to the social enterprises located in Quadrant D that interpret environmental action as a lifestyle. In analytical terms, these entities are formed by the intersection between, on one hand, the dimension of producing and inhabiting and, on the other hand, treating the environment as an end in itself. These kinds of organizations were discussed above in terms of the shift of certain social coopera-tives in the waste-management sector to waste pre-vention and reuse. In addition, some social coopera-tives in Quadrant D have begun to engage in experi-ments in communal living. These cases are particu-

larly prevalent in rural areas where religious and identity movements use the cooperative formula as the best way to economically express their ideals (Carrosio, 2004-5).

There are also cases in which care for marginal-ized people, community life, and a search for solidarity-enhancing modes of work have merged into a single large organization or are closely con-nected in networks. A rare but paradigmatic example is provided by the movement “Comunità e Famiglia” that refers to itself as a “solidarist condominium” (Volpi & Volpi, 2002). The participants in this scheme reside together, take care of disadvantaged young people, and observe quite stringent ecocon-sumption rules. They live in a radical style, sharing their homes and ecofriendly practices with disadvan-taged people. The sustainability dimension is not secondary in such a composite and all-encompassing organization. It is prominent in the awareness of the crucial importance of consumption and the urgency of the ecological crisis. There is a growing conviction among the members of this movement that merely reassembling activities on more efficient bases can-not reverse the crisis without a parallel and substan-tial “reduction” of consumption volumes at both the residential and industrial levels (Osti, 2006).

Quadrant D harbors a further type of social co-operative concerned with consumption. Old con-sumption cooperatives, born at the beginning of the twentieth century, persist in Italy, the largest of which manifest environmental awareness through marketing initiatives. Besides these historical cases, however, consideration should be given to a new category of social cooperatives that manage “fair trade purchase groups” (FTPs) and give priority to environmental objectives. The aim of these organiza-tions is to reduce consumption, shorten supply chains, and develop relationships with producers that use environmentally preferable practices (Brunori et al. 2012).

Social entrepreneurship intersects with the FTPs when these groups decide to give a broader and more commercial organization to their service. This re-quires a legal structure more appropriate than a sim-ple association and able to engage in complex eco-nomic relationships. There are no statistics on how many FTPs have a cooperative form and many of them continue as informal organizations because they are averse to bureaucratization. In contrast, other groups find it convenient to rely on an existing social cooperative to avoid the costs of initial organization and to enhance their multifunctional capacity.

A final aspect regards the food producers that FTPs use. They are not social enterprises, but small individual farms, the backbone of Italian agriculture. Nevertheless, some agricultural cooperatives are in-



91

volved and have a “lifestyle” component: almost all of them use organic farming methods (Carrosio, 2004-5) and others practice the green-care approach that often entails residential services for disavantaged people (Di Iacovo, 2009). The economic solidity of these socioagriculture cooperatives mainly derives from the close commercial and personal relationships that they maintain with a wide network of consumers and institutions. Of particular relevance are certain southern Italian cooperatives located in areas of the country dominated by organized crime (Angelini & Pizzuto, 2007). In these regions, young people, church groups, and free associations have created agricultural and crafts cooperatives, often with the legal form “social” enterprise, not only because they deliver services of this type, but also because they express a determination to free local communities from the grip of criminal syndicates. These efforts are evidence of a further means to promote the merging of work and habitation through social-political re-establishment of the community.

Prospects: Beyond the Instrumental Approach

The preceding analysis of GSEs in Italy has highlighted a number of crucial dimensions of these organizations. Although specific data are not availa-ble, it is likely that the majority of these entities in the country are concentrated in the upper part of Fig-ure 2, and divided between the so-called simple and territorial GSEs for which environmental objectives are either instrumental (provide a simple source of work) or highly diluted into broad cultural services. From a social point of view, this orientation is justi-fied on the basis that jobs are created, attention is paid to the local community, and production and habitation are pursued as valuable goals.

The challenge of environmental sustainability supplements this line of development: social cooper-atives centered on work and reciprocity are not suffi-cient to cope with goods exhaustion that profoundly undermines the possibility of working and living together. To understand the limits of GSEs in this field, the environmental problem origins have to be mentioned, along with a related crisis of knowledge about the secondary effects of human actions and a reduction in the quality and quantity of common re-sources.

It is precisely in these two spheres—knowledge and commons—that social enterprises are notably weak. Very few social cooperatives are able to oper-ate in the area of applied knowledge (“innovative” GSEs) because these activities require expertise in ecosystems or complex systems to enable the inte-grated management of, say, waste recycling or energy supplies. We have seen that the majority of Italian

social cooperatives instead are engaged in labor-intensive services. Their success in these endeavors depends heavily on other organizations that may be present in the relevant sectors. For instance, if large public or private utilities are operating as quasimo-nopolies, it will be difficult for social cooperatives to enter or to acquire roles of responsibility.

Yet social enterprises also have room to maneu-ver, provided they possess practical knowledge and insights deriving from their capacity to create strong and durable relationships with ordinary people. Communal transport provides an example: shared travel should be encouraged by arrangements such as carpooling and car sharing, in which social enter-prises have a specific competence based on reciproc-ity. The picture is even more promising with regard to the durable management of common goods (“com-munitarian” GSEs). There are few social enterprises dedicated to reducing the consumption of resources, but they exhibit a certain dynamism as evinced by the creation of fair-trade districts. The difficulty in this case is typical of every enterprise that conceives itself as a “producer” that presumably must grow indefi-nitely. But the ecological ideal does not require pro-duction to stop; it instead requires production of what is necessary and can be consumed with sobriety—in other words, it pursues “a logic of sufficiency” (de Geus, 2003; Princen, 2005; Sachs & Santarius, 2005). Accordingly, some social cooperatives have sought to bring together green production, rehabilitation of insulated dwellings, and education campaigns em-phasizing the prudent use of goods. The success of these enterprises has to date been attributable to their ability to combine these aspects of producing, living, and communicating. From this combination, they have derived strong legitimation for their existence and operations. The social enterprises in the “com-munitarian” quadrant express a coherence that elicits the approval and support of other organizations.

These organizational relationships prompt a final consideration. It is pointless to deny that GSEs do not enjoy high social power—they do not have bargain-ing power with utilities and municipalities, the coop-erative movement considers them its “poor relations,” the trade unions fear their competition since it in-fringes upon general labor rules, environmental or-ganizations regard them as excessively rigid in their employment relationships, and for-profit enterprises usually try to exploit them. Public opinion is largely indifferent to GSEs, and at best considers that dele-gating them disagreeable functions, such as waste disposal, is already a major concession.

This description may seem ungenerous, but it is necessary to avoid the risk of idealizing initiatives undertaken in highly precarious conditions. The prestige and legitimacy of GSEs, from which derive



92

material resources as well, probably resides in a demonstrated commitment to environmental sustain-ability and the creation of jobs. The instrumental approach can only be left behind by shifting between the lower quadrants in the analytical scheme, with more applied knowledge of how ecosystems work and application of a rigorous logic of sufficiency to producing and consuming. From this commitment we may derive greater appreciation of GSEs and initial reconciliation among the three pillars of sustain-ability. References Aiken, M. & Spear R. 2005. Gateways into Employment: Third

Sector Organisations Working With Groups Disadvantaged in the Labour Market. Tokyo: Consumers’ Cooperative In-stitute.

Angelini, A. & Pizzuto, P. 2007. Cooperative sociali, ambiente e beni confiscati alla mafia [Social cooperatives, environment and confiscated goods to the Mafia]. Impresa Sociale 76(4):158–168 (in Italian).

Battaglini, E. 2007. La sfida delle imprese sociali in una società tardo moderna [The social cooperatives challenge in a late modernity society]. Impresa Sociale 76(4):169–189 (in Ital-ian).

Bearman, P. 1997. Generalized exchange. American Journal of Sociology 105(5):1383–1415.

Beato, F. 2000. Aree protette, professioni e professionalità: princi-pali risultati di una ricerca europea [Protected areas, profes-sions and professionalism: main results of European re-search]. Futuribili 1(2):113–120 (in Italian).

Becker, L. 1990. Reciprocity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Beveridge, R. & Guy, S. 2005. The rise of the eco-preneur and the messy world of environmental innovation. Local Environ-ment 10(6):665–676.

Bicciato, F., L. Foschi, & F. Capozzo (Eds.). 1999. La Finanza Etica e le Imprese Sociali Verdi: Una Prospettiva Interna-zionale [Ethical Finance and Green Social Enterprises: An International Perspective]. Milan: Fondazione Enrico Mattei (in Italian).

Biolghini, D. 2007. Il popolo dell’Economia Solidale: Alla Ricerca di Un’altra Economia [The People of the Solidarity Econ-omy: Searching for Another Economy]. Bologna: EMI (in Italian).

Bobbio, L. 2005. Governance multilivello e democrazia [Multi-level governance and democracy]. Rivista delle Politiche So-ciali 2:51–62 (in Italian).

Boccacin, L. 2005. Third Sector and Social Partnership in Italy: A Sociological Perspective. Milan: Vita e Pensiero.

Borzaga, C. 2007. Le Forme di Proprietà e di Governance Dei Produttori di Beni di Interesse Collettivo [The Property and Governance Forms of Producers of Common Interest Goods]. ISSAN Working Paper 22. Trento: Institute for the Development of Non-Profit Organisations (in Italian).

Borzaga, C. & J. Defourny (Eds.). 2001. The Emergence of Social Enterprise. New York: Routledge.

Bravo, G. 2002. Istituzioni e capitale sociale nella gestione di risorse comuni: il caso dei sistemi di irrigazione Valdostani [Institutions and social capital in the management of common pool resources: the case of Val d’Aosta irrigation systems]. Rassegna Italiana di Sociologia 43(2):229–250 (in Italian).

Bravo, G. 2011. Agents’ beliefs and the evolution of institutions for common-pool resource management. Rationality and So-ciety 23(1):117–152.

Bravo, G. & Villa, M. 2007. Imprese sociali verdi? L’esperienza della provincia di Brescia [Green social enterprises? The ex-perience of Brescia Province]. Impresa Sociale 76(4):102–126 (in Italian).

Bruni, L. 2008. Reciprocity, Altruism, and the Civil Society. New York: Routledge.

Brunori, G., Rossi, A., & Guidi, F. 2012. On the new social rela-tions around and beyond food: analysing consumers’ role and action in Gruppi di Acquisto Solidale (Solidarity Purchasing Groups). Sociologia Ruralis 52(1):1–30.

Carrosio, G. 2004-5. Un caso emblematico di economia leggera in aree fragili: la cooperativa Valli Unite [An emblematic case of soft economy in fragile areas: the Valli United coopera-tive]. Sviluppo Locale 11(27):78–93 (in Italian).

Carrosio, G. 2007. Imprese sociali verdi in aree fragili [Green social cooperatives in fragile areas]. Impresa Sociale 76(4):127–143 (in Italian).

Cohen, M. 2005. Sustainable consumption American style: nutri-tion education, active living and financial literacy. Interna-tional Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 12(4):407–418.

de Geus, M. 2003. The End of Over-consumption: Towards a Lifestyle of Moderation and Self-restraint. Utrecht: Interna-tional Books.

Dickens, P. 2002. A green Marxism? Labor processes, alienation, and the division of labor. In R. Dunlap, F. Buttel, P. Dickens, & A. Gijswijt (Eds.), Sociological Theory and the Environ-ment. pp. 51–72. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Di Iacovo, F. (Ed.). 2009. Supporting Policies for Social Farming in Europe: Progressing Multifunctionality in Responsive Ru-ral Areas. Florence: Arsia.

Donati, P. (Ed.). 1996. Sociologia del Terzo Settore [Sociology of the Third Sector]. Rome: Nis (in Italian).

Dodgson, M. 1993. Learning, trust, and technological collabora-tion. Human Relations 46(1):77–95.

Eco&Eco. 1999. Ecoturismo, Gestione Verde dei Rifiuti e Cooper-ative: Analisi di Casi e Indicazioni di Policy [Ecotourism, Green Management of Waste and Cooperatives: Case Studies and Policy Indications]. Bologna: Economy and Ecology. http://www.eco-eco.191.it/download/coop_verde_rif.pdf (in Italian).

Ekeh, P. 1974. Social Exchange Theory: The Two Traditions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Etzioni, A. 2004. The post affluent society. Review of Social Econ-omy 62(3):407–420.

European Communities. 2004. Equal, Free Movement of Good Ideas: Working Against Discrimination and Inequality in Eu-rope. Brussels: European Commission

European Research Institute on Cooperative and Social Enter-prises. 2011. La Cooperazione in Italia [Cooperation in It-aly]. Italy: EURICSE (in Italian).

Fazzi, L. 2007. Governance per le Imprese Sociali e il Non Profit [Governance of Social Enterprises and the Non-Profit Sec-tor]. Rome: Carocci Faber (in Italian).

Fazzi, L. & Stanzani, S. 2005. Le culture organizzative della coop-erazione sociale: identità in movimento [The organizational cultures of social cooperation: identity in motion]. In Centro Studi CGM (Ed.), Beni Comuni. Quarto Rapporto Sulla Cooperazione Sociale in Italia. pp. 119–154. Turin: Fonda-zione Agnelli (in Italian).

Ferraresi, P. & Sidaway, J. 1999. Global Ecology: Environmental and Social Regeneration. Brussels: CECOP R&D.

Fiorentini, G. & Preite, D. 2004. L’integrazione funzionale fra aziende pubbliche e non profit nella gestione dei servizi pub-blici locali [The functional integration of public and nonprofit enterprises in the management of local public utilities]. Non Profit 9(3):541–597 (in Italian).

Gesualdi, F. 2005. Sobrietà: Dallo Spreco dei Pochi ai Diritti Per Tutti [Soberness: From the Wastefulness of a Few People to Rights for All]. Milan: Feltrinelli (in Italian).



93

Gorz, A. 2003. L’immatériel: Connaissance, Valeur et Capital [The Immaterial: Knowledge, Value and Capital]. Paris: Gal-ilée (in French).

Grigsby, M. 2004. Buying Time and Getting By: The Voluntary Simplicity Movement. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Gui, B. 2000. Beyond transactions: on the interpersonal dimension of economic reality. Annals of Public and Cooperative Eco-nomics 71(2):139–169.

Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162(3859): 1243–1248.

Heike, A. & Koring, C. 2008. An Investigation and Analysis of the Second-Hand Sector in Europe. Bremen: Institute of Technology and Education. http://www.rreuse.org/t3/file admin/editor-mount/documents/Leonardo-SH-Sector/LSH00 4-European-Sector-Analysis-Report-english.pdf.

Honneth, A. 2005. Verdinglichung [Reification]. Frankfurt: Suhr-kamp Verlag (in German).

Jay, M. 2008. Introduction. In M. Jay (Ed.), Reification: A New Look at an Old Idea. pp. 3–16. New York: Oxford University Press.

Linne, G. 2001. Pathways to a Sustainable Future: Results from the Work & Environment Interdisciplinary Project. Dusseldorf: Hans-Böckler Stiftung.

Marelli, B. 2009. Irrigation systems and values: understanding the process of self-governing water resources in Northern Italy. Proteus 26(1):17–24.

Martin, R. & Osberg, S. 2007. Social entrepreneurship: the case for definition. Stanford Social Innovation Review 5(2):29–39.

Mattioni, F. & Tranquilli, D. 1998. Da Svantaggiati a Imprendi-tori: Risorse Umane, Mercato e Sviluppo delle Cooperative Sociali di “Tipo B” in Italia [From Disadvantaged to Entre-preneur: Human Resources, Market and Development of Type B Social Cooperatives]. Rome: D’Anselmi (in Italian).

Mauss, M. 1923–24. Essai sur le don. Forme et raison de l’échange dans les sociétés archaïques [The gift: form and reason for exchange in archaic societies]. L’Année Sociologique 2(1): 30–186 (in French).

Mendini, N., Tomasi, A., & Tonelli, P. 2007. Cooperazione tren-tina: produzione e distribuzione di energia fra ricerca del nuovo e attualità dell’antico [Trento cooperation: production and distribution of energy, searching for the new and updat-ing the old]. Impresa Sociale 76(4):190–202 (in Italian).

Morriss, A., Bogart, W., Dorchak, A., & Meiners, R. 2009. Green Jobs Myths. New York: Social Science Research Network. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1358423.

Osti, G. 1998. Questione rifiuti in Italia e ruolo degli organismi non-profit [The waste problem in Italy and the role of non-profit organizations]. Aggiornamenti Sociali 49(12):889–902 (in Italian).

Osti, G. 2002. Il Coinvolgimento dei Cittadini Nella Gestione dei Rifiuti [The Involvement of Citizens in Waste Management]. Milan: Angeli (in Italian).

Osti, G. 2006. Nuovi Asceti: Consumatori, Imprese e Istituzioni di Fronte alla Crisi Ambientale [New Ascetics: Consumers, Enterprises, and Institutions in Front of Environmental Cri-sis]. Bologna: Il mulino (in Italian).

Osti, G. 2007. Nature protection organizations in Italy: from elitist fervour to confluence with environmentalism. In C. van Koppen & W. Markham (Eds.), Protecting Nature: Organi-zations and Networks in Europe and the USA. pp. 117–139. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of In-stitutions for Collective Action. New York: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Ostrom, E. 2000. Crowding out citizenship. Scandinavian Political Studies 23(1):3–16.

Ouchi, W. 1980. A framework for understanding organizational failure. In J. Kimberly & R. Miles (Eds.), The Organizational Cycle Life. pp. 395–429. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Panna, E. 1999. Nuove strategie per le imprese sociali verdi: un esempio italiano (cooperativa La Ringhiera) [New Strategies for green social enterprises: an Italian example (Cooperative La Ringhiera)]. In F. Bicciato, L. Foschi, & F. Capozzo (Eds.), La Finanza Etica e le Imprese Sociali Verdi: Una Prospettiva Internazionale. pp. 52–57. Milan: Fondazione Enrico Mattei (in Italian).

Pearce, C. & Conger, J. 2003. Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pellizzoni, L. 2009. Revolution or passing fashion? Reassessing the precautionary principle. International Journal of Risk As-sessment and Management 12(1):14–34.

Pellizzoni, L. (in press). Mistaking publics: a challenge for envi-ronmental governance. In C. Claeys-Mekdade & M. Jacqué (Eds.), Environment, Knowledge and Democracy. Bern: Lang.

Pestoff, V. 2009. Here comes the citizen co-producer. openDemoc-racy November 12:1–5. http://www.opendemocracy.net/ openeconomy/victor-pestoff/here-comes-citizen-co-producer.

Polanyi, K. 1944. The Great Transformation. New York: Reinhart. Princen, T. 2005. The Logic of Sufficiency. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press. Ricoeur, P. 1990. Soi-même Comme un Autre [Oneself as an

Other]. Paris: Seuil (in French). Rieth, L. 2005. Old Concepts, New Actors: Public Goods, TNCs’

Power and NGOs’ Legitimacy–The Provision of the Public Good “Peace and Security” in Weak Zones of Governance. 46th Annual International Studies Association Conference. March 1–5, Honolulu, Hawaii. http://www.allacademic.com /meta/p70797_index.html.

Robinson, J. 2004. Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development. Ecological Economics 48(4): 369–384.

Sacchetti, S. & Sugden, R. 2009. The organization of production and its publics: mental proximity, market and hierarchies. Review of Social Economy 67(3):289–311.

Sachs, W. & Santarius, T. 2005. Fair Future. Munich: C.H. Beck oHG.

Sennett, R. 1998. The Corrosion of Character: The Personal Con-sequences of Work in the New Capitalism. New York: W. W. Norton.

Smith, G. 2005. Green citizenship and social economy. Environ-mental Politics 14(2):273–289.

Spear, R. & Bidet, E. 2005. Social enterprise for work integration in 12 European Countries: a descriptive analysis. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 76(2):195–231.

Thomas, A. 2004. The rise of social cooperatives in Italy. Voluntas 15(3):243–263.

Thompson, G. 2003. Between Hierarchies and Markets: The Logic and Limits of Network Forms of Organization. New York: Oxford University Press.

van der Ploeg, J. 2008. The New Peasantries: Struggle of Auton-omy and Sustainability in an Era of Empire and Globalisa-tion. London: Earthscan.

Volpi, E. & Volpi, B. 2002. Un’alternativa Possibile: Le Comunità di Famiglie [A Possible Alternative: The Communities of Families]. Saronno: Monti (in Italian).

Williams, N., Croker, M., & Barrett, D. 2005. Review of the Vol-untary and Community Waste Sector in England. London: The In-House Policy Consultancy. http://archive.defra. gov.uk/environment/waste/thirdsector/documents/communityreview.pdf.

Zanetti, C. 2007. Da rifiuti a risorse: le cooperative di inserimento lavorativo e la sfida ambientale [From waste to resource: the work cooperatives and the environmental challenge]. Impresa Sociale 76(4):145–167 (in Italian).

Zijderveld, A. 2004. Ideal type. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Social Theory. pp. 289–390. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


2012 Jensen et al. Winter 2012 | Volume 8 | Issue 1

94

ARTICLE

Has social sustainability left the building? The recent conceptualization of “sustainability” in Danish buildings Jesper Ole Jensen1, Michael Søgaard Jørgensen2, Morten Elle2, & Erik Hagelskjær Lauridsen2 1 Department of Housing and Urban Renewal, Danish Building Research Institute, Dr. Neergaards Vej 15, Hørsholm 2970 Denmark

(email: [email protected]) 2 DTU Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Building 424, Lyngby 2800 Denmark Sustainable buildings have often been niche products, but in recent years a new approach has emerged in Denmark aimed at mainstreaming and normalizing this mode of construction and seeking to attract ordinary Danes through market conditions. The aim is to present an alternative conceptualization of sustainable buildings to the ecocommuni-ties’ vision and to involve traditional building firms in their design and development. From a theoretical perspective, the mainstreaming of sustainable buildings can be seen either as an example of ecological modernization or techno-logical transition. The new conceptualization has implied a narrower approach to sustainability and a lack of social sustainability measures. While earlier paradigms of sustainable buildings emphasized themes such as community building, self-provisioning, local empowerment, and shared facilities, such objectives are largely absent in the new types of sustainable buildings. We question to what extent it is possible to design sustainable settlements without social sustainability. By viewing sustainable buildings as technological configurations, we argue that the multiactor approach, fragmentation of roles, and absent initiatives for social sustainability influence the buildings’ environmental performance and should be important for the next generation of these structures. KEYWORDS: buildings, housing, interest groups, energy efficiency, architectural design, social environments Introduction

Developing “sustainable buildings” has become a central goal for national and local policies as part of efforts to reduce energy consumption and to limit greenhouse-gas emissions. While numerous viable technical solutions already exist, the main challenge currently is to implement them in the built environ-ment (Guy, 2006). Sustainable buildings have tradi-tionally been “niche” products and have been intro-duced in protected contexts (Rip & Kemp, 1998); they have rarely matured for wider market dissemi-nation. Previous development of sustainable build-ings in Denmark has involved a changing range of concepts over time (Gram-Hanssen & Jensen, 2005; Jensen & Gram-Hanssen, 2007).The different config-urations in terms of planning, “hardware” technolo-gies, infrastructure, facilities, financing, and social ideals include the following: • Green buildings as energy-saving devices: After

the oil crisis of 1973, science-based efforts were made in Denmark to develop technologies to im-prove the energy performance of buildings and regulations were introduced for implementing these technologies.

• Grassroots ecocommunities: A number of alter-native and green rural settlements emerged in Denmark in the 1980s and 1990s emphasizing community, self-sufficiency, alternative technol-ogies and lifestyles, and spirituality.

• Subsidized urban projects: Commitment to the Brundtland Report created a public drive for green buildings in the 1980s and 1990s that was aimed at testing, approving, and institutionaliz-ing green technologies on the basis of extensive public funding. Danish projects included sustain-able renovation under the Urban Renewal Act, as well as sustainable building projects in the social housing sector. A similar typology of sustainable buildings can

be found in other countries, such as Germany and Austria (see, e.g., Rohracher & Ornetzeder, 2002). In recent years, however, there have been several at-tempts in Denmark to provide sustainable buildings for “ordinary Danes”—detached houses that appear traditional and where the sustainability enhancements are not very visible. These new building projects share a number of features in their visions, purposes, imagined users, design, and conceptualization of sustainability, and in many ways differ from earlier sustainable building “paradigms.” The new approach

Jensen et al.: Sustainability in Danish Buildings


95

has focused on applying low energy standards to “traditional buildings,” primarily detached houses in suburban areas, and has devoted little attention to social sustainability. In other words, the buildings are typically established as traditional housing with lim-ited shared responsibilities, facilities, and organiza-tion. The aim has been to involve the conventional building sector, encouraging and qualifying it to build sustainable buildings. This development can, in the light of sociotechnical transition theory (Rip & Kemp, 1998; Geels, 2002), be seen as an attempt to accelerate the progression of sustainable buildings from niche-based innovations to established regime-level alternatives. In this process, Danish local au-thorities (municipalities)—given the role that they have played in initiating and framing many of these development projects—have been very active. This process implies a number of changes and challenges in relation to previous approaches to encourage the construction of sustainable buildings.

This article explores challenges to the strategy of mainstreaming sustainable housing in Denmark, but the discussion is likely relevant as well for other contexts. We especially discuss the absence of the social dimension in relation to pursuing the goals of environmental sustainability, asking if it is possible to ignore social sustainability and still legitimately achieve environmentally sustainable buildings. And if not, why not, and how can the mainstreaming ap-proach be improved by, for example, learning from other sustainable building concepts. Methodology

This article is based on a recent study of new sustainable building development sites in Denmark. These developments do not necessarily define them-selves as part of a collective approach, but clearly share an ambition to “normalize” sustainable build-ings. The specific cases were selected to represent the characteristics of the new approach to sustainable buildings, but also to include properties with varied ownership (social housing versus privately owned ac-commodation) to provide a basis for comparison. We also prioritized projects where construction was completed, with residents in occupation for at least three months. The case studies are predicated on in-terviews with key actors, visits to the sites, and docu-ment studies. In total, 22 interviews were conducted across six cases. Informants included representatives from the institutions that took the initiative on the projects and included municipal officials, a producer of building insulation, and a social housing company, as well as other key informants such as designers, consultants and, in two instances, residents.

We conducted qualitative interviews, using a semistructured interview guide, but also allowed in-formants to introduce viewpoints about the concept and process, adding an explorative element to the procedure. We recorded and transcribed the inter-views, and afterwards thematically analyzed them in accordance with the predefined themes of our inter-view guide: description of the project in terms of aims, sustainability focus, number and types of dwellings, and key actors; background for initiation; and experiences and themes raised by the informants. The analysis and conclusions from the case studies were subsequently presented to key actors on sustain-able buildings at a closed workshop, as well as to individuals with general experience and expertise in the field of sustainable buildings, including research-ers, architects, and regulators. The comments and discussions helped to correct, challenge, and qualify the conclusions.

To compare the studies of new sustainable buildings, we drew on existing research and docu-mentation from several Danish ecovillages. This ma-terial included published studies and reports, websites of the respective communities, as well as our own investigations based on qualitative interviews and visits to the buildings. For example, we carried out studies as part of the collaborative projects “Sustain-able Flow Management” (Moss et al. 2001) and Practical Evaluation Tools for Urban Sustainability (PETUS).1 Theoretical Aspects

We apply two different theoretical perspectives to analyze development of the new mode of sustain-able buildings in Denmark that aim to normalize the practice and make the homes accessible to “ordinary Danes” through customary provisioning channels.

First, ecological modernization theory (EMT) represents an optimistic view of the greening of the market based on a reinvention of existing institutions. From this standpoint, sustainability should not be seen as contravening the market, but rather as an op-portunity for further market development. This view contrasts with the idea that sustainability can only be pursued in niches (a perspective sometimes referred to as “small is beautiful”) that are outside market mechanisms. EMT suggests that sustainable devel-opment implies a modernization process in which sustainable practices are gradually integrated into institutions, businesses, and personal decision making instead of being delegated to the environmental man-agement sector. This integration occurs through pro-cesses of measurement and visualization (Hajer,

1 For details on PETUS see http://www.petus.eu.com



96

1995; Mol & Sonnenfeld, 2000; Spaargaren, 2000), the deployment of new economic instruments, novel modes of cooperation such as voluntary agreements (Boström, 2003; van Tatenhove & Leroy, 2003), and innovative roles for nation states, social movements, and market actors (van den Burg, 2006). The EMT perspective therefore highlights governance chal-lenges for sustainable development. Accordingly, Spaargaren & Mol (2008) argue that increasing glob-alization weakens state-led environmental regulation and instead requires effective and legitimate forms of environmental authority at the local and nonstate level.

Second, we argue that sustainable buildings should be seen as sociotechnical artifacts where ma-terial structures are interwoven with uses of the building (Farmer & Guy, 2005; Guy, 2006; Lovell et al. 2009). We use transition theory to frame the un-derstanding of sustainable buildings, as well as their relation to protected niches and possible transition pathways for the existing building sector (or regime). In this view, technology consists of material struc-tures and physical artifacts in addition to natural re-sources, organizations, and social structures. Thus, technology can be seen as “configurations that work” (Rip & Kemp, 1998). The theory suggests that changes do not just occur in technology, but also in user practices, regulations, industrial networks, infra-structures, and symbolic meanings (Rip & Kemp, 1998; Geels, 2002). To work in practice, all elements have to be in place. When these elements are in bal-ance they allow for some adjustments in the configu-ration, for instance in terms of facilitating smaller technological changes.

In contrast to a traditional view of technological development, Arie Rip & René Kemp (1998) argue that “emphasizing the artifact and the technologist runs the risk of underconceptualizing the social envi-ronment into which the novelty is introduced.” They suggest that instead of focusing mainly on the inno-vation itself more attention should be paid to its adoption or the rearrangement of individual behav-iors, organizations, and society to adopt (and adapt to) the novelty.

Transition theory is based on a hierarchy of three levels: macro-level landscapes, meso-level regimes, and micro-level niches. First, “landscape” as a meta-phor represents solid and stable structures in terms of cities, buildings, and technical infrastructure, as well as social structures such as legislation and norms. Second, “regimes” are the practices embedded in institutions and infrastructures such as production-process technologies, product characteristics, skills and procedures, in addition to the way problems are defined and managed (Rip & Kemp, 1998). The con-figuration of the technology within a regime gives it a

large degree of irreversibility, and at the same time makes it difficult for new alternatives to scale up from niches. Some theorists have included other ac-tors in the regime, such as users, policy makers, fi-nancial institutions, and scientists, labeling this ele-ment of the model as a “socio-technical regime” (Geels, 2002). Finally, “niches” are isolated and pro-tected environments where technologies are able to develop and then possibly transfer to the regime. Rip & Kemp (1998) emphasize the role of niches in tech-nological innovation, but other scholars have sug-gested that technological change might also be a top-down process, spreading from the macro-level (or the landscape) to the regime (see, e.g., Geels, 2002; Shove, 2003).

From the perspective of EMT, the sustainability agenda formulated by the eco-communities is likely to be understood as favoring demodernization, de-industrialization and counterproductivity (Mol & Spaargaren, 2000), and therefore not contributing to growth-based notion of sustainable development. while the new wave of sustainable buildings adheres to an EMT-oriented approach, anti-modernization and “back to basics” ideologies still have a notable role in the Danish context of sustainable buildings and it is difficult to grasp their development only through EMT (Jensen & Gram-Hanssen, 2007). By comparison, transition theory stresses innovative niche development, based on shared visions and pro-tection from the market, as the main driver of tech-nological change. The theory therefore offers a pos-sible explanation and more elaborated understanding of barriers and potentials for sustainable technologies and practices to evolve, as well as an alternative to the gradual modernization process stressed by EMT. Status and Background for the New Sustainable Buildings

Table 1 presents descriptions of the six case studies. A comparison of these cases to the earlier generation of Danish sustainable buildings points up several interrelated issues. Normalization and Market Orientation

The new wave of sustainable buildings is strongly oriented toward the market, signaling that there is no conflict between economic growth and sustainability. The slogans include “from the extraor-dinary to the ordinary” (Lærkehaven), “building houses for normal people” (Fremtidens parcelhuse), and “building traditional family houses as passive houses” (Comfort Houses). These catchphrases are meant to convey a market approach that includes design aimed at integrating sustainability into mod-ern, spacious, attractive buildings; collaborating with



97

“traditional” actors in the building industry; and, overall, making sustainable buildings economically accessible and attractive. As an example, the project program of “Fremtidens Parcelhuse” (Future Single-Family Houses) in Køge characteristically states:

[T]he Agenda 21 committee in the Munici-pality of Køge and the Green House believe there is a great need to develop modern Danish single-family houses that are energy-efficient and environmentally friendly. Work to develop energy-efficient and envi-ronmentally friendly single-family housing has been carried out at the grassroots level for many years, while the more professional companies have focused on buildings on a larger scale. Interest in living in a healthy environment, as well as living energy effi-ciently and environmentally soundly, has meanwhile grown markedly in recent years, and for this reason there is an increasing need for an effort in relation to the ongoing professional development of industrialized building in the field of single-family hous-ing. The building must offer healthy, en-ergy-efficient, and environmentally friendly housing which is attractive to ordinary Danes architecturally as well as financially (The Green House, 2005).

Similarly, the municipality of Stenløse Syd “pre-ferred to collaborate with the market and thereby reach 90% of the population rather than collaborate with a small segment of environmentally conscious citizens” (planner, Stenløse). At the same time, the municipality had seen that voluntary agreements were not effective; professional builders were very slow to implement sustainable technologies and the users lacked the knowledge to demand these prod-ucts. The municipality therefore saw itself as “the missing link” between the building sector and users of sustainable buildings and as landowners they could demand certain sustainability goals. In general, the strategy and ideology of the projects are, on one hand, a reaction to the previous understanding of sustainable buildings as something different and ex-traordinary and, on the other hand, a reaction to the rather inactive policy and slow development of sus-tainable buildings that had previously existed in Denmark

Along with the market orientation, the new wave of sustainable buildings, in contrast to previous types, includes explicit sustainability goals, primarily on energy performance. For instance, by using the Ger-man passive house standard2 the energy performance

2 The German passive house standard is a building concept to ensure low energy consumption for heating (15 kWh/m2) and a comfortable indoor climate. The concept is not protected, but a certification scheme, the Passive House Planning Package (PHPP), has been developed to guarantee that only buildings fulfilling these criteria get the certificate.

Table 1 Characteristics from the six examples of new Danish sustainable buildings.

Name and Location Number and Type of

Dwelling Developer Environmental Issues “Fremtidens Parcelhuse,” Køge

86 detached houses Municipality of Køge and local Agenda 21 group

Low energy and sustainable materials as defined by the “Swan Label.”

“Teglmosegrunden,” Albertslund

91 dwellings Municipality of Albertslund

Reduction of fossil fuels, promotion of local percolation of rainwater, limits on the use of groundwater, waste minimization.

“Stenløse Syd,” Stenløse

750 dwellings, mostly detached houses

Municipality of Stenløse Maximum energy consumption defined (35 kilowatt-hours per square meter, kWh/m2), recirculation of heating, solar collectors, no use of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or pressure-treated wood, collection of rainwater.

“Lærkehaven,” Lystrup, Århus

122 dwellings as social housing

Social housing association “Ringgården”

Combines sustainability with good architecture. Energy demand defined through passive house standard (15 kWh/m2) and energy class 1 (30 kWh/ m2), good indoor climate, environmentally sound materials.

Rønnebækhave II, Næstved

23 dwellings as social housing

Social housing administrator “Domea”

Tests whether the passive house standard can be applied in a Danish context (as the first building in Denmark).

Komforthusene, Vejle 10 detached houses Isover Applies the passive house concept, making it a learning project for the building industry.



98

of the building design must pass the “Passive House Planning Package” (PHPP) under supervision of a certified evaluator. This procedure might include several calculations during the design process with subsequent redesign to match the criteria. In a similar way, the introduction of two different “low energy classes” for buildings in the Danish building regula-tions and the development of a tool (Be06) to calcu-late the energy performance of the building made it possible for municipalities to define explicit goals for building performance and to check satisfactory achievement of these standards throughout the design process.3 New Actor Roles and Types of Collaboration

Another characteristic of the projects is that a number of actors have assumed new roles, especially the municipalities that have increasingly been leading the development process. Traditionally, local govern-ments in Denmark have acted in a relatively passive role as regulatory authorities, issuing building per-mits and developing plans. In the new projects, these entities have been more active in defining sustain-ability criteria, buying land, setting up the collabora-tive framework, and so forth and often strongly influ-enced by Agenda 21 strategies and green nongov-ernmental organizations (NGOs). Private building firms are involved to a much larger extent, not only as contractors, but also as designers and developers. For example, Isover, a private insulation producer, took the initiative to build Comfort Houses that con-sists of ten individual homes based on the German passive house concept and set up a collaborative framework organized around “integrative design.” The project entailed considerable knowledge sharing among the design teams of the different houses. In several cases, integrated design was used as a form of collaboration between architects and engineers and as a way to integrate environmental measures and standards to achieve an attractive home design.

Experience from the New Wave of Sustainable Buildings

The new wave of sustainable building projects in Denmark has achieved several goals. These initia-tives have shown that it is possible to build attractive buildings according to well-defined environmental standards, to involve traditional building firms, and to

3 The two voluntary low energy classes (low energy class 1 and low energy class 2) were introduced in the Danish Building Regu-lations in 2006. Designing with energy class 1 will result in 50% lower energy loss for heating compared to a house built in accord-ance with traditional building regulations and energy class 2 will result in a reduction of 25% compared to a traditional house. The heating loss is calculated using the Be06 tool.

sell sustainable houses to “ordinary” Danes. Planners suggest that residents can be characterized as “aver-age citizens” in socioeconomic terms and this is sup-ported by a survey from Stenløse Syd that showed no income difference between the new occupants and residents of the municipality as a whole. Also, the new inhabitants did not appear to opt for residences on the basis of the sustainability performance of their new homes. In Køge, a residential survey demon-strated that environmental qualities ranked third in a list of reasons for moving to the area. In other new sustainable housing developments many residents were not aware that they lived in a “sustainable building.” The projects also demonstrated that local governments can play a large and active role in facil-itating the provision of sustainable buildings and this effort has inspired other municipalities in the country to take similar steps. These initiatives are the first to implement the German passive house standard in Denmark and therefore have contributed to a learning process among the actors in the building industry who have apparently implemented some of their ex-perience in their product lines. Several of the build-ings have received awards for their architecture or collaborative frameworks, as well as a great deal of public and professional attention more generally.

Despite these achievements, our research shows a number of problematic issues related to the “new wave of sustainable buildings.” We can divide these issues into two parts.

First, concern exists about the new role of mu-nicipal governments in initiating and framing these projects. This unease came to the surface in Stenløse and Køge due to a desire to formulate sustainability goals for the buildings in the area, to encourage “tra-ditional” building firms to construct houses that matched the criteria, and to build the buildings in accordance with market conditions (i.e., with no sub-sidies), and to market the buildings to “ordinary” Danes. One of the problems encountered entailed the assessment of how ambitious sustainability goals could be defined if one still wanted market actors to take interest in the project. If the goals were too am-bitious there might have been insufficient uptake by investors to be able to construct the buildings and by owners to purchase them. Therefore, municipal plan-ners need to have a good sense of the market, the attractiveness of the project, and the extra costs to implement the sustainability measures to be able to proceed. This process deviated from earlier efforts to develop sustainable settlements that involved highly engaged owners (grassroots ecocommunities) and/or ample public subsidies (subsidized urban projects) that gave such developments “niche” status and pro-tection from market conditions.



99

Another challenge was that the municipalities spent considerable time and resources transferring knowledge to construction companies about, for in-stance, how to design and build low energy buildings and how to translate design standards into actual per-formance outcomes. Also, the role of the municipal government relative to the building owners could be fraught with ambiguity. If something went wrong in relation to the low energy concept, owners expected that the municipality would help to resolve the prob-lem since the local government imposed the measures for the buildings in the first place. However, the mu-nicipalities have no formal obligations to these buildings and responsibility for correction resides with the construction companies.

Similar views emerged in interviews with resi-dents about obligations for maintaining sustainability performance over time. For instance, some residents asked why the municipality did not react when other residents built a garage with pressure-treated wood prohibited by the sustainability guidelines. This am-biguous status of the municipality has the potential to create disappointment among homeowners in the area and possibly discourage them from maintaining their own commitments to the project’s overarching prin-ciples.

The second set of potential problems concerned the absence of a social dimension in the sustainability concept being applied to high-performance homes in Denmark. This deficiency included the involvement of users in the design and planning phases, as well as supporting users in the operation phase. We elaborate on these issues in the following sections. Narrowing the Sustainability Concept

The sustainability concepts that have been ap-plied to the new wave of sustainable buildings have been rather narrow compared to how such ideas have in the past been used in Denmark through the en-gagement of grassroots’ ecocommunities during the 1980s and urban projects during the 1990s. Where these approaches previously paid notable attention to social sustainability, as well as adopted a holistic environmental approach, the new sustainable build-ings have mainly addressed energy performance in individual buildings and have only devoted passing attention to material-sourcing requirements (for in-stance by not using polyvinyl chloride or pressure-treated wood) and rainwater percolation. In addition, no effort has been made to address waste sorting, local waste management, or, more generally, local self-provisioning. Neither has structural sustain-ability, including the separation of functions—home, work, leisure, public and private services—been ad-dressed. Moreover, little consideration has been given to transportation, localization, shared facilities,

or local technical infrastructure in terms of energy supply and water management.

In sum, the structures of the new sustainable buildings and settlements are to a large extent based on well-known planning types, primarily the subur-ban detached house, where social sustainability has not generally been a concern. Initiatives to foster so-cial sustainability, such as combining land-use func-tions, mixing tenure types, establishing communal meeting places, facilitating place making, encourag-ing local ownership, and creating opportunities for collective management of facilities, have generally been overlooked (Polese & Stren, 2000; Carmona et al. 2010). Also, prospective residents have only occa-sionally been involved in the design of the buildings and the formulation of sustainability measures. Facilitating Users

Helping users to manage the novel technologies in the new wave of sustainable buildings is another issue that has not been satisfactorily addressed, alt-hough experience from low energy buildings and passive houses reveals a number of challenges (Rohracher & Ornetzeder, 2002). In their operations phase, the effective utilization of low energy houses depends on specific sets of user practices. The build-ings have very dense systems for providing mechani-cal ventilation, heat supply from heat pumps, heat regeneration (from the warm ventilation air), and passive solar heating. Furthermore, they sometimes rely on active solar energy from solar cells or solar collectors. Appropriate use of this type of house re-quires residents to adopt new habits and practices to keep energy use low and indoor climate optimal.

Some of these challenges relate to shading the house. For instance, during the daytime sunlight should be limited as the house will otherwise become very warm. Other potential problems relate to under-standing how to operate the ventilation and heating system—the doors should not be kept open too long because it takes a longer time to heat the house once the temperature has dropped as compared to “tradi-tional” heating devices. Also, doors and windows should not be opened to ventilate the house as the mechanical ventilation (which includes the heat-regeneration system) manages this aspect of home comfort. Adjusting to the new technology may well present obstacles for residents who have purchased their houses for reasons unrelated to energy perfor-mance. These challenges likely influence energy con-sumption.

A survey of actual energy consumption in nine houses in the Koge project revealed that actual use was on average 31% higher than calculated by BE06 during the preconstruction phase, mainly due to higher than anticipated heat utilization. Average heat



100

use among the nine houses was 55 kilowatt-hours per square meter (kWh/m2) per year (about half the amount of a “traditional” single-family house). How-ever, the buildings consume 13% more energy com-pared to Danish low energy class 2,4 primarily due to higher energy use for heating (Kristensen & Jensen, 2011).

The high energy consumption seems to derive from a combination of residents’ comfort practices and a lack of information on maintenance, manage-ment, indoor climate, and heating and ventilation systems (Kristensen & Jensen, 2011). Generally, the transfer of knowledge from designers to users has been confined to guidance manuals for residents, but in practice this means of dissemination has had lim-ited effect, or even no effect in several cases. Be-tween 35% and 71% of the respondents in Køge dis-closed that they had not received this information, although providing it is mandatory according to the Swan label (Kristensen & Jensen, 2011).5 This find-ing suggests uncertainty about the transfer of knowledge to users and how they are being integrated into the projects.

Moreover, some residents questioned how the environmental requirements for the neighborhood are managed in the operations phase. They are aware that one sustainability objective entails constructing houses without pressure-treated wood, but when they see their neighbors building garages with such mate-rials they ask how the sustainability targets are en-forced, and by whom? This kind of variance raises doubts regarding who should be responsible for en-suring that developments live up to their sustain-ability objectives and what organizational models and sanctions might prevent deviations.

The division of roles among different actors (e.g., developer, designer, contractor, owner, opera-tor, and user) in the new sustainable buildings departs from the organization of other sustainable building concepts (see Table 2). In the context of ecovillages, or sustainability projects in social housing, there is

4 This includes energy for heating and electricity. To qualify for Danish low energy class 2 a house measuring 100 square meters would use a maximum of 66 kWh/m2 per year. 5 The Swan Label is a common Scandinavian ecolabel.

greater concurrence across roles. For example, in Danish ecovillages, prospective residents have typi-cally framed the concept of the village, acting as their own developers (and to some extent as designers and constructors) and simultaneously as owners, opera-tors, and users. In social housing, the organization often takes the initiative, defines the goals, and oper-ates the buildings. The housing company itself de-cides the objectives for the buildings, operates them, and is able to collect experience for future projects. The principle differences between the various types of sustainable buildings are illustrated in Table 2.

In owner-occupied detached houses, there is generally no facilitation, no formal “expert” to ask, and no operator to check if the building is being used appropriately and whether the technological system is calibrated correctly. In comparison, social housing departments in Denmark have technical and admin-istrative personnel who are often in close contact with the residents to inform and help them to max-imize individual operational systems and the build-ings as a whole. For example, the social housing as-sociation Ringgaarden, the owner and operator of the sustainable buildings in Lystrup, is engaged in a con-tinuous dialogue with its tenants and tries to instruct them about the use of the buildings and the monitor-ing of energy performance. This engagement includes facilitation of knowledge transfer between residents, for instance from a woman who has lived half her life in Morocco (and knows how to use the blinds to avoid overheating the building during the day) to occupants who are less aware of the need to provide shading.

This type of information and learning is possible because management is part of the social housing institution, along with other shared facilities such as administration, maintenance, common houses, and playgrounds. Such facilitation is not available in the detached homes where the owner acts as his own facility manager. In this respect, when examining the connection between social and environmental sus-tainability it is useful to compare the new wave of sustainable buildings with some features from the ecovillages, especially as a contrasting example.

Table 2 Different roles in sustainable building concepts.

Sustainable Building Organization Developer Builder Operator User Ecovillages Residents Residents Residents Residents Social housing Social housing

companies Social housing

companies Social housing

companies Tenants

Detached housing Municipalities Building companies

Owner Owner



101

Configuration of Ecovillages: Social and Environmental Sustainability

Most Danish ecovillages emerged in the 1980s

and 1990s. Among the most well known are Dys-sekilde (Hundested), Hjortshøj (Århus), Munksøgård (Roskilde), and Friland (Djursland). Most ecovillages are members of the National Assembly for Eco-Communities (Landsforeningen for Økosamfund, or LØS). About 30 ecocommunities and a number of associated organizations and enterprises are part of LØS and they vary from smaller settlements situated around former farms (5–20 dwelling units), to larger ecovillages (10–400 dwellings), to communities formed around spiritual centers (10–40 units) (LØS, 2003). In general, the communities seek to achieve a high degree of self-sufficiency regarding energy and water management, food provisioning, and so forth and emphasize the creation of local jobs and facilities as ways to create community (Gram-Hanssen & Jensen, 2005). The goal of self-sufficiency creates a strong relationship between environmental and social issues and this feature represents an important ele-ment in the overall ecovillage configuration. Organization and Participation

A large number of facilities and functions are primarily managed by the residents and this creates numerous opportunities for practical tasks. For ex-ample, in Munksøgård several activity groups pro-vide practical and social services, including waste collection and management, visitor care, café opera-tion, greenhouse gas-reduction visioning, social ar-rangements, green accounting, general information, information technology, pet care, landscaping, play-ground maintenance, environmentally sensitive farming, garden management, road repair and clear-ing, wastewater collection, toilet operation, and heating (Munksøgård Bestyrelse, 2010). In addition, a number of private associations and initiatives work on various issues, for instance promoting the produc-tion and consumption of organic meat. The high de-gree of communal self-sufficiency also includes many work obligations for the residents and working groups are organized around the “green economy” and the provision of mutual assistance. Considerable built-in flexibility creates useful opportunities to en-gage in the community, to establish local ownership among residents, and to create social networks. Physical Design

In terms of the built environment, Danish ecovillages are often based on “organic” design with large variation in their architectural styles that in-clude winding streets, meeting places, shared facili-ties, and varied vegetation. Many of these communi-

ties are in a process of continuous development. For example, in Hjortshøj at the time of this research construction of new housing was underway, as well as smaller projects including a new shared commu-nity house for meetings, dinners, hobbies, and com-mon discussion (see Figure 1). Such circumstances mean that the village is “messier” than other areas, but residents regard this characteristic as a sign of life and communal evolution. In contrast, in the nearby Lystrup area, where three groups of sustainable buildings have been established, the variation is more limited and there is no neighborhood plan or func-tional integration (see Figure 2). Social Mix

Despite their alternative approach, Danish ecovillages have had few problems attracting new residents and the population today includes individu-als seeking environmental sustainability and people interested in socially relevant features. For instance, according to the residents of Munksøgård, the com-munity has become very popular among people looking for social qualities (work groups, shared re-sponsibilities, and social arrangements) and social mix (different types of home ownership, various ages).

In contrast, the quest for self-sufficiency in terms of facility maintenance, building operations, and other practical tasks means that the communities are careful about acceptance of residents. The self-reliance approach therefore includes a risk of exclu-sion for people who are not regarded as able to oper-ate within the frames of “self-sufficiency.” However, contrary examples also exist. For instance, in Hjortshøj the community has fought to acquire an institution for mentally disabled residents and this is now being built. The objective is that the new resi-dents will be able to take on smaller jobs such as

Figure 1 Hjortshøj eco-village with individual houses (right and left), with a shared community house in the middle (October 2010).



102

cleaning, caretaking, and general maintenance. Social diversity is to some extent ensured by including so-cial housing in the development. Many Danish ecovillages, such as Hjortshøj, Dyssekilde, and Munksøgård, are divided into housing groups, with different types of homes, residents, ownership struc-tures, and environmental features. Functional Mix

Several ecovillages in Denmark have sought to create local workplaces and this effort has been, at least to some extent, successful. The workplaces are mainly provided by smaller enterprises related to community activities. In Hjortshøj, for instance, a self-employed gardener supplies organic vegetables to a local shop. In addition, a display building located in the middle of the development contains rooms for exhibits and educational courses and houses a local company and the international secretariat for INFORSE, an international network for renewable energy. In Dyssekilde, the community has developed a local income source by organizing tours for visitors. These activities are far from sufficient to employ all

of the residents who want or need salaried jobs and therefore considerable car-based commuting takes place because most ecovillages are not located in proximate distance to public transport. However, the local enterprises are valued due to the contribution they make to enhance the social experience.

In summary, the understanding of sustainability being put into practice in the ecovillages entails a close relationship between the environmental and social dimensions. This feature, in combination with the various social qualities that are part of the overall design, adds a sense of community, an attribute diffi-cult to find in the new wave of Danish sustainable buildings. Transformation Perspectives

Transition theory emphasizes the need to recon-figure the social and organizational contexts as a pre-condition for technological change. Efforts to bring technologies such as sustainable buildings from niche-scale to regime-scale can be regarded as “‘real world experiments.” When working on systems change involving complex technologies, the best way to learn about them is to build them and test them in everyday life (Gross & Hoffmann-Riem, 2005). The new generation of sustainable buildings in Denmark that are based on market principles constitute such an activity. Our cases have shown that a precondition for these initiatives is that central actors, presently or formerly involved in niche activities (such as Local Agenda 21 initiatives and grassroots-oriented sus-tainable buildings), have paved the way for these experiments. Ironically, the actors in Køge and Stenløse who have this background are the ones fiercely promoting an EMT mindset in the “storyline” that has developed around these new sustainable buildings and emphasizing the shortcomings in how the ecocommunities approach sustainable build-ings—they are regarded as too alternative, unappeal-ing to ordinary Danes, and destined to remain “niche products.” Nevertheless, the cases illustrate the dy-namic among niches, “real-life” sustainable building experiments, and regime and landscape changes in terms of new building codes and other types of public regulation.

From an EMT perspective, we might treat the new wave of sustainable buildings as examples of increasing experimentation and collaboration be-tween public and private partners, generating new roles for actors, creating different uses of regulation, and so forth. On a practical level, the cases also show that these sustainable buildings face some energy- savings challenges related to their use and the ab-sence of a structure to support and inform users about their technological aspects. As mentioned earlier, the

Figure 2 New sustainable buildings (Lærkehaven) in Lystrup with light construction passive standard houses (top) and heavy construction low energy buildings (bottom) (October, 2010).



103

shortcomings stem from an overall need to include social sustainability in the building concept and to develop more ambitious targets with respect to envi-ronmental sustainability.

Danish ecovillages can be seen as experiments to explore the relationship between social and ecologi-cal sustainability. It can be argued that grassroots initiatives and niche developments generate ample opportunities for innovation that are valuable for market dissemination, but they also pose several bar-riers and challenges. As Seyfang & Smith (2007) argue: “Niches find themselves at the weak end of complex and extended power relations under global-ising capitalism, and dominant individualist and con-sumerist lifestyles aspirations run counter to commu-nity collectivism.” Although grassroots innovations might include development of niche technologies and practices such as wind-energy production or car-sharing clubs, we contend that the lesson from the ecocommunities is that a direct transfer does not nec-essarily exist (neither is a transformation of individ-ual technologies relevant). Rather, an understanding of sustainable buildings is best viewed as comprising a combination of self-sufficiency, ecological and economic sustainability, social activities, social mix, shared facilities, and functional diversity that in com-bination constitute a “configuration that works” (Rip & Kemp, 1998).

There is no doubt that Danish municipalities can get inspiration from ecocommunities and other sus-tainable buildings (for instance by visits and infor-mation exchanges), but there is a need to find ways to institutionalize knowledge transfer and competence building. Local management of buildings should have a greater focus on social sustainability, in terms of social and functional diversity and shared facilities, in combination with design and place making that support these functions. Users live in the buildings as homes, not as technical artifacts. Domestication the-ory, as it pertains to technological adaptation, demon-strates that the way technologies are integrated into specific contexts such as “a home” often include dif-ferent practices and meanings than those imagined by the architects and engineers who initially planned them (Lie & Sørensen, 1996). This situation calls for better understanding of users as residents and con-sumers at the same time, improvement in the inter-play between designers and users, as well as efforts to include users in decision-making processes on de-sign and technical solutions (Rohracher & Ornetzeder, 2002; Hoffman, 2007).

Strategies to improve competence regarding how to use the buildings could include knowledge transfer whereby existing expert users would act as mentors for new residents and teach them how to use the buildings and technologies in an optimal way. Con-

crete suggestions from actors in the sustainable buildings sector include systems for better building monitoring and ways for residents to gain infor-mation about their house—such as Internet based solutions—that could be implemented without changing the basic concept of mainstreamed sustain-able buildings.

On a larger scale, municipalities could facilitate such learning processes by inviting and grouping settlements to enable mutual learning. For example, Roskilde municipality has developed the area of Trekroner which is a cluster where different types of ecosettlements can establish themselves. Established developments such as Munksøgård are already lo-cated in the district and are able to share facilities with similar settlements and help with practical problems.

Although social sustainability is a concept with many diverse interpretations (Vallance et al. 2011), there are pragmatic ways to make it operational and accountable, for instance by following best-practice checklists and applying measures on social sustain-ability (for instance regarding social mix, meeting places, and shared facilities) (Polese & Stren, 2000; Carmona et al. 2010). Emerging standards on sus-tainable buildings and neighborhoods might be an-other way to incorporate social sustainability measures.6 Although recent research suggests that these evaluation systems do not take all features into account when evaluating sustainable communities (Mapes & Wolch, 2011) and have difficulties quanti-fying the softer benefits (Retzlaff, 2010), they might be a way to highlight qualities of social sustainability in such settlements.

Because the new wave of sustainable buildings, as well as the sustainability standards, are signs of adoption and diffusion of sustainable technologies and concepts (Rip & Kemp, 1998), we can ask whether we still need inputs, innovations, and con-cepts from bottom-up initiatives and niche develop-ments. From this perspective, initiatives from within the sector (for instance developing a sustainability label for buildings), in combination with administra-tive and regulatory reforms, seem the most likely path for the continuous mainstreaming of sustainable buildings. Our research suggests that in light of the very limited inclusion of social sustainability measures in these sustainable buildings, we still could learn a lot from the niche products and bottom-up approaches on sustainable building. Not only could this make the new sustainable buildings more attractive, but larger inclusion of social structure 6 Two prominent examples are Leadership in Energy and Environ-mental Design (LEED) in the United States and the Building Re-search Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) in the UK.



104

could also help improve the interaction between buildings and users to reduce energy consumption. Conclusion

We can interpret recent efforts to mainstream sustainable buildings as generally consistent with EMT, particularly in terms of a robust market ap-proach and a rejection of the antimodernist attitude that has been generally evident in sustainable build-ings in Denmark and elsewhere. From a transition theory perspective, mainstreaming sustainable build-ings is a strategy within the existing regime, a prom-ising way to implement such innovations, but one that so far faces a number of shortcomings and chal-lenges.

The observations from practice indicate that so-cial sustainability initiatives—physical, spatial, or-ganizational—have not been satisfactorily imple-mented and issues such as engagement with resi-dents, information about building use, and creation of “ownership” regarding sustainability measures for the settlements are unresolved and unaddressed. We ar-gue that this situation has negative consequences for the energy performance of these buildings and for the sustainability of larger settlements. We therefore suggest that the next generation of sustainable build-ings should adopt a broader perspective in terms of environmental sustainability and include more robust initiatives on social sustainability, including the physical and organizational layout of settlements. Acknowledgement The authors would like to thank the Aase og Einar Dan-ielsens Fond (Aase and Einar Danielsen’s Fund) and Real-Dania for supporting the study reported in this article. We also would like to express our appreciation to five anony-mous referees for useful comments and suggestions on an earlier draft.

References Boström, M. 2003. Environmental organisations in new forms of

political participation: ecological and the making of volun-tary rules. Environmental Values 12(2):175–193.

Carmona, M., Tiesdell, S., Heath, T., & Oc, T. 2010. Public Places–Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design. 2nd ed. New York: Architectural Press.

Farmer, G. & Guy, S. 2005. Hybrid environments: the spaces of sustainable design. In S. Guy & S. Moore (Eds.), Sustainable Architectures: Cultures and Natures in Europe and North America. pp. 15–30. New York: Spon Press.

Geels, F. 2002. Technological transition as evolutionary reconfigu-ration process: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy 31(8–9):1257–1274.

Guy, S. 2006. Designing urban knowledge: competing perspectives on energy and buildings. Environment and Planning C: Gov-ernment and Policy 24(5):645–659.

Gram-Hanssen, K. & Jensen, J. 2005. Green buildings in Denmark: from radical ecology to consumer oriented market ap-proaches? In S. Guy & S. Moore (Eds.), Sustainable Archi-tectures: Cultures and Natures in Europe and North Amer-ica. pp.165–183. New York: Spon Press.

Gross, M. & Hoffmann-Riem, H. 2005. Ecological restoration as a real-world experiment: designing robust implementation strategies in an urban environment. Public Understanding of Science 14(3):269–284.

Hajer, M. 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Eco-logical Modernization and the Policy Process. New York: Clarendon Press.

Hoffman, E. 2007. Consumer integration in sustainable product development. Business Strategy and the Environment 16(5): 322–338.

Jensen, J. & Gram-Hanssen, K. 2007. Ecological modernisation of sustainable building: a Danish perspective. Building Re-search and Information 36(2):146–158.

Kristensen, L. & Jensen, O. 2011. Erfaringsopfølgning På Laven-ergibyggeri Klasse 1 og 2: Med “Fremtidens Parcelhuse” Som Eksempel [Experiences from Low Energy Buildings Class 1 and 2: Using the “Detached House of the Future” as an Example]. Køge: Fremtidens Parcelhuse. http://www.fp.fremtidensparcelhuse.dk/download/Samlet_rapport.pdf (in Danish).

Landsforeningen for Økosamfund (LØS). 2003. Økosamfund i Danmark: Hvordan Drømmer Bliver til Virkelighed [Eco-Communities in Denmark: How Dreams Come True]. Galten: Landsforeningen for Økosamfund. http://losnet.dk/_ny/ LOSNETny/LOSNETpdf/2003_OkosamfundiDanmark.pdf (in Danish).

Lie, M. & K. Sørensen (Eds.). 1996. Making Technology Our Own: Domesticating Technology into Everyday Life. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.

Lovell, H., Bulkeley, H., & Owens, S. 2009. Converging agendas? Energy and climate change politics in the UK. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 27(1):90–109.

Mapes, J. & Wolch, J. 2011. “Living green:” the promise and pitfall of new sustainable communities. Journal of Urban Design 16(1):105–126.

Mol, A. & Sonnenfeld, D. 2000. Ecological modernisation around the world: an introduction. Environmental Politics 9(1):3–14.

Mol, A. & Spaargaren, G. 2000. Ecological modernisation theory in debate: a review. Environmental Politics 9(1):17–49.

Moss, T., S. Marvin, & S. Guy (Eds.). 2001. Urban Infrastructure in Transition: Networks, Buildings, Plans. London: Earthscan.

Munksøgård Bestyrelse. 2010. Orientering om Munksøgård [Briefing on Munksøgård]. Roskilde: Munksøgård. http://www.munksoegaard.dk/orientering.pdf (in Danish).

Polese, M. & R. Stren (Eds.). 2000. The Social Sustainability of Cities: Diversity and the Management of Change. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Retzlaff, T. 2010. Developing policies for green buildings: what can the United States learn from the Netherlands? Sustain-ability: Science, Practice & Policy 6(1):28–38. http://sspp. proquest.com/archives/vol6iss1/1004-020.retzlaff.html.

Rip, A. & Kemp, R. 1998. Technological change. In S. Rayner & E. Malone (Eds.), Human Choice and Climate Change: Vol-ume 2 (Resources and Technology). pp. 327–399. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press.

Rohracher, H. & Ornetzeder, M. 2002. Green buildings in context: improving social learning processes between users and pro-ducers. Built Environment 28(1):73–84.

Seyfang, G. & Smith, A. 2007. Grassroots innovations for sustain-able development: towards a new research and policy agenda. Environmental Politics 16(4):584–603.

Spaargaren, G. 2000. Ecological theory and domestic consump-tion. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 2(4): 323–335.



105

Spaargaren, G. & Mol, A. 2008. Greening global consumption: redefining politics and authority. Global Environmental Change 18(3):350–359.

Shove, E. 2003. Comfort, Cleanliness, and Convenience: The Social Organization of Normality. New York: Berg.

The Green House. 2005. Projektbeskrivelse for Fremtidens Par-celhuse [Project Description for Future Detached Houses]. Køge: Fremtidens Parcelhuse (in Danish).

Vallance, S., Perkins, H., & Dixon, J. 2011. What is social sustain-ability? A clarification of concepts. Geoforum 42(3):342–348.

van den Burg, S. 2006. Governance Through Information: Envi-ronmental Monitoring from a Citizen Consumer Perspective. Doctoral Dissertation. Wageningen Institute for Environment and Climate Research, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

van Tatenhove, J. & Leroy, P. 2003. Environment and participation in a context of political modernisation. Environmental Values 12(2):155–174.


2012 Devlin & Tubino Winter 2012 | Volume 8 | Issue 1

106

ARTICLE

Contention, participation, and mobilization in environmental assessment follow-up: the Itabira experience John Devlin1 & Denise Isabel Tubino2 1 School of Environmental Design and Rural Development, University of Guelph, Landscape Architecture Building, Guelph, Ontario

N1G 2W1 Canada (email: [email protected]) 2 Independent Consultant, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (email: [email protected]) This article analyzes the public participation and follow-up stages of the environmental assessment process to secure an operating license for an iron-ore mine in Itabira, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Vale, a major Brazilian mining company, eventually received authorization to begin operations in 2000, but only after making significant concessions to public demands on a variety of environmental and social conditions. In the years following the approval, Vale met several conditions regarding environmental cleanup, parks and infrastructure, water protection, and commitment to the local community. However, over time some of these activities were interrupted or aborted, while a number of conditions were never met. This article suggests that these weaknesses in follow-up were a consequence of the demobilization and retreat of the state and a parallel demobilization of civil society after 2000. The case demonstrates that state and public attentiveness can be episodic and suggests that high-profile agreements do not assure sustainable outcomes. Institutionalized participatory monitoring and management units appear necessary for continued environmental man-agement that pursues long-term sustainability. KEYWORDS: environmental management, follow-up studies, political change, public awareness, mining, interest groups Introduction

Environmental assessment (EA) was introduced in the United States during the 1960s in response to environmental concerns and a desire for both rational and publicly involved environmental decision making (Weston, 2004). Advocates initially hoped that the combination of technocratic and populist elements in EA would reduce political conflict over environ-mental issues, allowing environmentalism to become a dimension of public administration rather than a continuous area of political contention (Caldwell, 1998). With the emergence of a sustainability dis-course in the 1980s, EA came to be identified as an important tool for achieving environmental, eco-nomic, and social sustainability. However, EA’s technocratic and populist orientations have continued to generate tensions (Wood, 2003; Weston, 2004; Morrison-Saunders & Fischer, 2006).

Technocrats decry the politicization of EA pro-cesses and criticize the public for subscribing to a not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) mentality, while oth-ers express dissatisfaction with the limitations placed on public participation (see, e.g., Petts, 1999). At the same time, the social pillar of sustainability with its focus on equity, social justice, and democracy ap-pears less theoretically developed and integrated into decision making than the environmental and eco-

nomic pillars (Littig & Griessler, 2005; Gibson, 2006).

Populists push for increased democratization of EA through more inclusive and deliberative pro-cesses (Deitz, 1987; Bartlett, 2005; Doelle & Sinclair, 2006; Isaksson et al. 2009), but, as Sinclair & Doelle (2003) suggest, assumptions about the po-tential for participation may be unrealistic. EA un-folds within socially unequal systems and tends to reflect that inequality. In general, projects that are subject to EA are promoted by groups for whom de-velopmental or profit-earning goals are paramount and are opposed by groups concerned with potential negative environmental and social impacts. Powerful actors who value economic development over envi-ronmental preservation dominate the decision-making process (Yap, 1990; Beattie, 1995; White, 1996; Gismondi, 1997; Diduck et al. 2007; Bäckstrand et al. 2010). Under socially unequal con-ditions, EA is open to political manipulation (Dietz & Stern, 2008) and participation in EA may often be little more than “theater” (Hokkanen, 2001). How-ever, sometimes EA processes do lead to abandon-ment of project proposals (Devlin & Yap, 2008) and proponents do change their plans in response to pub-lic concerns (Rutherford & Campbell, 2004). Why do these unusual events occur? Do they represent a strengthening of the social pillar of sustainability?

Devlin & Tubino: Environmental Assessment Follow-Up


107

To pursue these questions, we adopt a conten-tious politics approach. Analysts of political conten-tion suggest that weaker social actors can gain lever-age in decision making only under conditions that create unusual political opportunities (McAdam et al. 2001). These openings may be generated by new legislation, changes in the characteristics of the po-litical regime, elections, initiatives of international actors, or other events that shift the political terrain (Meyer & Minkoff, 2004). Political opportunities can bring new groups to power, increase institutional provisions for participation, encourage new alliances that did not previously seem possible, and make available external resources to groups that lack inter-nal ones (Tarrow, 1994; McAdam, 1996; Tilly, 1999; Meyer, 2004; Boudet & Ortolano, 2010).

The conditions that create political opportunities are historically contingent. Mobilizations can be contained or collapsed, and advances can be reversed (Piven & Cloward, 1979; Tarrow, 1994). While studies of contentious politics tend to focus on macro-level processes, such as large-scale social movements, revolutions, or waves of labor militancy, the approach can also be applied to micro-level pro-cesses. For instance, Taylor (2007) argues that the emergence of “new governance” has created oppor-tunities for previously disadvantaged groups to influ-ence decision making. We approach public participa-tion in EA as contentious, historically contextualized processes (Sharp & Connelly, 2002; Connelly & Richardson, 2004), and seek to uncover their micro-scale dynamics to explain how public participation influences EA decisions and outcomes in specific cases (Flyvbjerg, 2002; 2004).

This article offers a case study of what we ini-tially identified as a successful, and thus atypical, public participation process in Brazil. We selected the case because a very powerful Brazilian mining company, Vale, agreed to a long list of environmental and social conditions to obtain an operating license. The agreement was the result of an EA that stimu-lated public mobilization and a two-year negotiation between the company, state agencies, and community representatives. The resulting environmental man-agement plan incorporated many public concerns. We were interested in understanding how this agreement was reached. How important was public participa-tion? Was the Itabira agreement an advance in social sustainability or an unusual and ephemeral political opportunity?

We were interested in determining whether the agreement was implemented successfully. The liter-ature on EA follow-up suggests that after an envi-ronmental management plan has been approved, the implementation period should incorporate monitor-ing, evaluation, management, and communication,

and that public participation can contribute to these processes (Baker, 2004; Morrison-Saunders & Arts, 2004; Marshall et al. 2005). However, numerous difficulties are also recognized in bringing effective EA follow-up into practice (Nadeem & Hameed, 2010). We wanted to know if the Itabira agreement had been successfully implemented. If so, what fac-tors would have contributed to the result and what role might public participation have played.

The next section outlines the events leading up to Vale’s environmental licensing in 2000. The third section describes the key public meeting in 1998 that occurred at the height of the public mobilization. This is followed by a description of Vale’s compliance with licensing between 2000 and 2008. We then sur-vey the factors explaining the levels of compliance achieved and conclude with some lessons for EA planners and environmentalists.

We carried out a process of initial document collection and review during the summer of 2008 in the archives of the environmental authority for the state of Minas Gerais, Fundação Estadual de Meio Ambiente (FEAM) and in the Prefeitura de Itabira (PMI). We examined the EA documentation, minutes of meetings, memoranda of understanding, and letters among the main stakeholders (Vale, FEAM, and the PMI). The following year, we conducted 22 semi-structured interviews in the state capital Belo Hori-zonte, in Itabira, and in Rio de Janeiro where Vale has its headquarters. Interviewees included three rep-resentatives from the state environmental authority (FEAM); three local government representatives from Itabira (PMI), three representatives from the headquarters of Vale in Rio de Janeiro, two repre-sentatives from Vale operations in Itabira, and eleven representatives from Itabira’s civil society including the Municipal Environmental Defense Council (CODEMA). The interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed. The Itabira Process

Itabira is one of 853 municipalities in the Bra-zilian state of Minas Gerais, located approximately 100 kilometers (km) northeast of the state capital, Belo Horizonte. The total area of the Municipality of Itabira is approximately 1,257 square km and is part of the Doce River watershed (IBGE, 2009). Itabira is situated in the geological area known as the “Iron Quadrangle,” characterized by large quantities of iron-ore deposits (Souza e Silva, 2004; IBGE, 2009), for which the Companhia Vale do Rio Doce (Vale) was formed in Itabira in 1942 to extract, commer-cialize, and distribute. Vale remained a national state-owned company from 1942 until 1996. The munici-



108

pality’s capital (also named Itabira) has a population of just over 100,000 people (Souza e Silva, 2004).1

Public concerns about the environment have a long history in Itabira, where the first “National Meeting on Mining Cities” took place in 1984, bringing together several municipalities of Minas Gerais to discuss environmental issues. The meeting called for civil society, government, and mining companies to seek environmental solutions through a partnership approach. The Municipal Environmental Defense Council (CODEMA) was created in 1985 following that meeting, and strengthened the envi-ronmental capacity of Itabira’s civil society, includ-ing churches, teachers, and neighborhood associa-tions (Souza e Silva, 2004; Guimarães de Souza, 2007). In the early 1990s, there were several commu-nity protests over environmental issues such as air quality. One slogan disseminated on tee-shirts and hats in the early 1990s announced “That’s not fair Vale; I want to Breathe!” (Guimarães de Souza, 2007).

In 1994, the state government of Minas Gerais instructed Vale to obtain an environmental license, as mandated for all mines to operate under the Norma-tive Deliberation State Environmental Law Council (COPAM) which came into effect in 1990. In 1995, Vale filed for a Corrective Environmental License (Licença de Operação Corretiva or LOC) as required under the law. Also in 1995, Brazil’s President Fernando Henrique Cardoso announced that Vale would be privatized, a decision that turned the re-quest for an environmental license into a political opportunity for environmental advocates.

Staff of the local government reported that the EA submitted to obtain the LOC contained inaccura-cies and this led to demand for a public meeting, an unusual event at the time.2 A representative of the 1 Brazilian municipalities can be large regions having capital cit-ies. 2 Brazilian environmental legislation established in January 1986 through CONAMA Resolution nº 01/86 addressed the need for environmental assessment and environmental licensing for activi-

state agency FEAM explained that the initial pressure for a public meeting came from FEAM and PMI, but the community soon took up the demand stimulated by the privatization concerns (for a list of acronyms of the main organizations involved in this case study, see Box 1). In the build-up to the public meeting, PMI played an important role by allocating financial support and personnel to prepare the community to voice its concerns.

The Public Meeting

The public meeting took place on February 12, 1998 and ran from 7:30 pm until 1:00 am. Over 800 people attended and, according to a spokesperson from Vale, they were very angry but polite and in-formed. Civil society representatives came from bar-rio associations, as well as business, professional, and church groups.3

Sixty-two participants spoke during the meeting: seven Vale representatives; 22 civil society repre-sentatives; 21 individuals unaffiliated with a specific group or agency; four COPAM members, seven lo-cally elected officials, Itabira’s Mayor Jackson, and one Vale rebuttal representative who was later put in charge of negotiations with the community (COPAM, 1998). At the meeting, 96 charges were set forth,

ties that caused or could potentially cause environmental harm. This was followed by the passage of CONAMA Resolution nº 09/87 one year later, which legislated public participation in the form of public meetings. CONAMA is the Conselho Nacional de Meio Ambiente, a Federal branch of environmental protection (Fowler & Dias de Aguiar, 1993). 3 Some of the major civil society participants were: CODEMA; ASSEAG (Apiculture Nucleus; Engineers, Geologists, Agricultur-alists, and Architects Association); 52nd subsection of the Brazil-ian Lawyers Association; Medical Association of Itabira; Repre-sentative of the Association of Mining Municipalities of Minas Gerais (AMIG); Itabira Rotary Club; ACITA (Commercia, Indus-trial, Services and Agricultural Association of Itabira); Vila Paciencia Community Association; Bela Vista Neighborhood Association, Sao Cristovao Neighborhood Association, Alto Pe-reira Neighborhood Association, Campestre Neighborhood Asso-ciation; and Diocese Itabira (COPAM, 1998).

Box 1 Acronyms for the main organizations involved in case study.

CODEMA: Conselho Municipal de Defesa do Meio Ambiente [Municipal Council for Environmental Defence of Itabira].

COPAM: Conselho de Política Ambiental de Minas Gerais [Environmental Law Council of Minas Gerais].

FEAM: Fundação Estadual de Meio Ambiente [Environmental Protection State Foundation of Minas Gerais] (The Minas Gerais environmental agency).

PEMSO: Programa de Mobilização Social de Itabira [Social Mobilization Program of Itabira].

PMI: Prefeitura Municipal de Itabira [Municipal Government of Itabira].

SMA/PMI: Secretaria Municipal de Meio Ambiente da Prefeitura Municipal de Itabira [Environmental Secretariat of the Municipal Government of Itabira) (The main environmental representative of the local government).

SUPRAM leste: Eastern Regional Environmental Superintendence of Minas Gerais.



109

eleven suggestions advanced, seventeen demands presented, and eight requests for clarification made (COPAM, 1998). The main environmental issues raised included concerns about environmental man-agement, air quality, ground and surface water man-agement, management of tailings, waste rock, haz-ardous materials, land reclamation (of decommis-sioned open-pit sites such as Cauê Mine), and flora and fauna. Concern was also expressed for patri-mony, the intrinsic value of the scenery and biota, as well as about mine encroachment on the city and resettlement issues, noise pollution due to 24-hour mining operations, industrial trucks, blasting, public health and safety, and economic development in light of the mine closure anticipated in 2025 (COPAM, 1996a; 1996b). The Vale spokesperson recalled that she had to agree with the issues raised and informed the community that Vale would be open to negotia-tion.

After the public meeting, negotiations began in-volving FEAM, Vale, SMA/PMI, and CODEMA to establish conditions that would be part of the envi-ronmental license. FEAM created technical subcom-mittees centered on the main concerns, such as water resources, air pollution, and soils. CODEMA and SMA/PMI met with FEAM and Vale representatives on a continuous basis. CODEMA served as the bridge with the community, keeping community members informed about the negotiations and com-municating concerns to FEAM. Vale spokespersons and SMA/PMI and CODEMA representatives all indicated that the continuous meetings with FEAM personnel were crucial to come to a consensus.

After two years of meetings, it was announced that Vale, FEAM, SMA/PMI, and CODEMA had agreed upon 52 conditions to the environmental li-cense (LOC). The LOC was finally granted to Vale on June 21, 2000. The conditions created a wide range of commitments to the community and the municipality arising from the concerns expressed in the public meeting. They included environmental cleanup, creation of parks and infrastructure, com-munity environmental education and protection of Itabira’s water supply (see Appendix for the complete LOC). Vale, with the help of CODEMA, held several neighborhood meetings to share the results of the negotiations with the community. A majority of community respondents felt that the 52 conditions were a reflection of their concerns shaped by their participation at the public meeting and with the help of CODEMA representatives during the 1998 to 2000 negotiations.

The Follow-up: What was Actually Achieved?

In the years following the licensing approval in 2000, several conditions were met. For example, Vale supported an environmental education program for the community, fenced off urban railroad tracks for public safety, and built neighborhood plazas and sports fields. The company introduced internal waste-management systems and solid-waste and oil con-tainment at train terminals. Some public works and site-remediation projects were also completed. Vale engaged in activities that improved air quality, en-hanced environmental waste-management systems, and upgraded land-reclamation sites. In addition, the Parque do Intelecto (Intellectual Park), an urban envi-ronmental education and wheelchair-accessible recre-ational area, was completed.

However, in time some of these activities were interrupted or aborted. For example, Vale ceased to sponsor activities for community environmental edu-cation. In addition, the Programa de Mobilização Social de Itabira (PEMSO—Social Mobilization Pro-gram) lasted three years, but was not replaced with another social investment program. The neighbor-hood plazas and sports fields were destroyed and not replaced and the substitution of exotics with endemic species in land reclamation remains incomplete. Moreover, several conditions relating to the Itabira landfill were never met, including protection of water sources and water quality and compensation for bio-diversity losses and deforestation. The Itabiruçu En-vironmental Education Park was converted into a sterile dumping site, interrupting community-training activities. The general public no longer received promised daily bulletins on air quality. Finally, Vale considered all conditions that required a “study,” “conceptual project,” or “plan” to have been com-pleted upon submission of the associated document even if there has been little or no action to fulfill the plan. Why Have the Results been Mixed?

It is true, but trivial, to suggest that the reason not all 52 conditions were met was because Vale did not follow through on its commitments, that state agencies did not effectively enforce the agreed re-quirements, or that civil society did not mobilize to pressure for complete compliance. All have fallen short, but how might we explain this breakdown?

From Vale’s perspective, minimizing the costs of compliance was almost certainly a motivation. Slowing down the delivery process, seeking to rede-fine some commitments, and simply ignoring others would represent a “bottom line” approach. At the same time, the company sought and obtained ISO



110

14000 certification in 2000.4 To remain certified, a company must develop an internal environmental-management plan and show evidence of regular im-provement in environmental practices (Qadir & Gorman, 2008). So Vale had reasons to meet some, but not necessarily all, conditions. But why did local government and state agencies not sustain their focus when they had been so instrumental in the original negotiation of conditions, and why did public atten-tion falter?

First, the key event affecting the local govern-ment was the municipal election in 2000. The envi-ronmentally oriented mayor was defeated and several community members suggested that under the new mayor, João Izael Querino Coelho, the local govern-ment actively elevated the interests of Vale over those of the community. Most significantly, the PMI administration under the new mayor reduced the size of CODEMA in 2001 and discontinued the positions of two civil society representatives. In 2003, a decree was passed by the municipality that entitled the Sec-retary of the Environment of the PMI/SMA to be automatically elected as president of CODEMA (Guimarães de Souza, 2007). One interviewee re-ferred to this as the “dismantling of CODEMA.”

The state of Minas Gerais reduced its attention to Itabira once the LOC was granted, FEAM’s attention shifted to other issues, the special technical commit-tees focused on air, water, and soil were dissolved, and staff was reallocated to work on other environ-mental license applications. FEAM also was admin-istratively decentralized and the regional office re-sponsible for Itabira (SUPRAM leste) was moved from Belo Horizonte to the city of Governador Valadares, which was even further away. Under these new circumstances, it became more difficult for FEAM staff to follow-up on the LOC process in Ita-bira. Hence, the efficacy of the local and state gov-ernmental actors was significantly reduced after the LOC was granted.

From the community’s perspective, the mobili-zation from 1996 to 1998 was, as one retired Vale employee stated, “a unique coincidence.” The com-pany’s privatization caused concern and anxiety at the community level; one respondent explained that it allowed “an already ticked off community to express itself.” People were worried about layoffs, as Vale started to offer “early retirement” and began out-sourcing several services. Vale’s image within the community began to decline. As one resident ob- 4 ISO 14000 is a privately managed international program that certifies that a company has in place and is maintaining an envi-ronmental management program. The certification is reviewed annually. Many firms in a value chain may require ISO 14000 certification from their suppliers. Thus, ISO 14000 is often a re-quirement to enter markets in North America and Europe.

served, “Their image was worn out...we started to feel job insecurity, salaries started to fall, and they removed the health plan.” In 1979, at the height of direct employment, Vale had provided work for over 5,000 people. Between 1990 and 2002, there was a 55% reduction (Souza e Silva, 2004). All the com-munity respondents suggested that privatization was expected to lead to job loss. Protests took place, with posters reading: “My father [worked for Vale] for 30 years but what about me?” (Souza e Silva, 2004). There was also fear that the company might eventu-ally shut down its operations completely in light of the anticipated exhaustion of mineral deposits by 2025.

People felt they had “nothing else to lose” and all of the internalized complaints finally surfaced and were expressed at the 1998 public meeting. While the immediate mobilization leading up to the meeting was around the environmental issues raised by the licensing application, the broader impetus came from concerns about the economic implications of privati-zation. However, after 2000, concern about layoffs declined. Mineral exhaustion was reassessed and Vale announced that it would expand mining opera-tions and would also start to extract iron from lower grade ores and from mine tailings. So the level of public concern and worry about future employment abated.

The second reason for the faltering of public at-tention occurred after the LOC was granted, when civil society groups stopped engaging with Vale as a collective group. The ex-president of the council of neighborhood associations noted, “[A]fter the LOC was granted the interassociation started to meet less and less frequently; the member associations began to focus on neighborhood issues. We lost our cohesive-ness.” In part, this was because Vale introduced new communication channels for contact with individual neighborhoods, such as Vale Community (Vale Co-munidade), which ran from 2003 to 2006 and was followed in 2007 by the Reference Group (Grupo de Referencia) program. Vale negotiators would go to the neighborhoods once a month or the community leaders of the neighborhood association would go to Vale offices to discuss issues. Several respondents explained that community concerns are no longer discussed in terms of the LOC. For example, when house walls were cracking in the neighborhood of Vila Paciencia due to ongoing blasts, the affected community members contacted Vale to repair the cracks but did not address other community obliga-tions under the LOC. That Vale had conditions placed on its license to operate had largely been for-gotten.

Third, weaknesses in compliance with the 52 conditions were due to the fact that the community



111

put its faith in the hands of the local government and expected it to ensure compliance. As the local gov-ernment lost its willingness and capacity to enforce the LOC, no one else emerged to remobilize the community around environmental issues.

Finally, noncompliance was partial and only be-came apparent incrementally. After 2000, Vale and the community underwent a honeymoon period marked by corporate social responsibility, during which public works such as sports fields and plazas, as well as the Praia Canal, were completed. A free concert to inaugurate the canal, in addition to several highly visible Vale-sponsored events such as school competitions, proved popular within the community. However, as time passed, programs contracted and public works, such as the plazas and sports fields, were not maintained. The relationship of such pro-grams to the LOC faded from public memory. The change in government and the decline in cohesive community pressure gave Vale scope to decide which conditions to meet and to what degree. In addition, for some conditions the exact nature of compliance was unclear. For instance, a respondent indicated that Condition 12, which refers to Itabira’s water supply, continues to be “negotiated” due to the lack of clarity over who is responsible for finding alternate water sources. Hence, in effect, no agreement has been reached on this condition at all.

Overarching all of these factors is the city’s con-tinuing dependence on mining operations for jobs and local economic development. According to Souza e Silva (2004) and several respondents, the municipal-ity is attempting to diversify its economy through partnerships initiated by the Commercial, Industrial, and Agribusiness Association of Itabira (ACITA), but the economy cannot easily disassociate itself from Vale’s presence. Indeed, Vale indirectly supports such services as hotels, banks, taxis, shops, and res-taurants. Furthermore, Vale remains central to the psyche of Itabiran society. Several respondents ex-plained that without Vale, Itabira would be a poor and isolated municipality. In 2004, Vale’s LOC for Itabira was renewed behind closed doors in negotia-tions between SUPRAM leste and Vale without local participation. Several community respondents indi-cated that they had not even known that Vale’s LOC had been renewed prior to the interviews in 2009.

Viewing the entire period between 1995 and 2008, three distinct phases can be identified. Condi-tions worked in favor of public mobilization during the late 1990s. The profile of the environment arising from the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio in 1992, the election of a progressive mayor, and most importantly, the an-nouncement in 1995 of the planned privatization of Vale increased the level of popular access to the po-

litical system. The local and state governments were concerned about the future of Vale, which had been nationally owned. This action resulted in an alliance between the local and state governments and the community to put pressure on Vale’s new manage-ment. This alliance was maintained during the second phase of the negotiation period up to 2000. During this period, the public was demobilized as commu-nity representatives engaged in the negotiation pro-cess. The third phase began with the 2000 agreement on the LOC and the 52 conditions. The municipal election in 2000 shifted the relations between Vale and the municipal government, as the progressive mayor was not re-elected. Vale took a conciliatory position, began to implement some of the agree-ment’s conditions, and made clear that the mine would continue to operate. The new mayor moved toward the company and the strength of the alliance with the community began to fade. Key leaders in FEAM left the organization. Barrio associations turned their attention back to neighborhood concerns.

What the future holds for issues of environmen-tal sustainability in Itabira is far from clear. With the global economic crisis and over 1,000 layoffs from Vale in 2009, the community’s economic foundation is once again in doubt. Perhaps this will spur a new wave of public mobilization and renewed concerns about Vale’s effect on Itabira’s environment. How-ever, the confluence of conditions leading to envi-ronmental mobilization in the 1990s may not appear again.

Conclusion

What lessons does the Itabira case offer to envi-ronmental planners, environmentalists, and sustain-ability theorists? The case suggests that local com-munities may be mobilized when jobs and livelihoods appear threatened, and during such a mobilization, environmental issues may also gain leverage. Hence, threats to economic and social sustainability can fa-cilitate environmental sustainability. Yet, such a foundation for environmental mobilization is weak because it hinges on economic rather than environ-mental concerns. It can be easily reversed. The case also demonstrates the potential for corporations to use community outreach to outflank regulatory over-sight. Through corporate social responsibility pro-grams, such as neighborhood meetings, companies can reach around governments to engage directly with communities and deflect attention away from past environmental agreements by introducing new programs.

Thus, environmentalists must be cautious about apparent victories. Having public concerns recog-nized and embedded in an environmental manage-



112

ment plan is necessary but not sufficient for envi-ronmental sustainability. The management plan must be implemented. It is important to recognize that planning and implementation are two distinct phases within a longer process. During negotiations over a management plan, some public concerns may be bar-gained away to obtain others, so that the sustain-ability potential is already compromised. There is then a second protracted and informal “negotiation” over implementation, with even more sustainability conditions left unmet due to foot dragging, interpre-tation of conditions, and substantial disagreement over what is considered compliance. What was won during the initial negotiations may be lost during implementation.

Sustainability requires ongoing oversight to guarantee compliance. If a local, state, or national governmental authority takes this responsibility seri-ously, then compliance can be achieved based on state-company interactions in the standard regulatory mode. However, if government authorities waiver in their oversight for any reason, such as limited fund-ing for monitoring staff or an election resulting in a shift, oversight may falter. Still, public mobilization is also not a reliable alternative on its own, but is episodic. A third possibility is legal enforcement through lawsuits, but for this to be effective, man-agement plans must be legally binding and commu-nity organizations must have the resources to under-take risky and expensive litigation. Each of these avenues for enforcement might work in some cases and fail in others.

An alternative is for compliance to be enforced by an institutionalized mechanism that encourages sustainability by requiring state agencies and civil society to work together. Many institutional arrange-ments can facilitate such engagement (Stewart, 2007). The institution most likely to succeed will be a participatory monitoring and management unit re-sponsible for overseeing the implementation of the management plan. Such units would include public representatives with a direct link back to civil society organizations. This offers the greatest likelihood that new civil society mobilizations can be initiated when compliance begins to waiver for any reason. Such units would encourage continuous negotiation be-tween the stakeholders while the threat of remobili-zation would be sufficient to lubricate the negotiation process (O’Faircheallaigh, 2010). Such follow-up monitoring and management units would create a bridge from participatory environmental planning to participatory environmental management.

For sustainability theorists, the Itabira case demonstrates the efficacy of the political opportunity approach. Integration of environmental, economic, and social goals inevitably gives rise to conflict. For

theorists seeking to explain sustainability outcomes, the political opportunity approach encourages the analyst to identify transformational moments, which may open and close as a contentious environmental episode unfolds. Sustainability outcomes are contin-gent and unpredictable but can be explained histori-cally with attention to political processes. This ap-proach may not add to the normative debate over the meaning of environmental, economic, and social sustainability. However, it does remind us that what happens in the real world is far more influenced by immediate interests than by visions of what a sustain-able future could become. The focus on politics in-vites particular attention to the social conditions un-der which sustainability is pursued and the uneven distribution of power among the contending interests. For theorists of social sustainability, the Itabira case suggests that the social pillar of sustainability is often missing in practice as well as in theory.

Although EA tends to focus on technical and sci-entific aspects reflecting its original roots as a ra-tional planning tool, the inclusion of public partici-pation has been a step toward the democratization of environmental planning. Institutionalizing continuous participation in the follow-up period would further expand social sustainability through persistent com-munity oversight. Nevertheless, the creation of such multi-stakeholder units will have to be required as a condition of project approval. Monitoring units must be created while project approval is in doubt and project proponents are vulnerable to the possibility that their application will be turned down. Once a project is approved, the political moment passes. Without participatory monitoring, the potential of EA to support environmental sustainability will be com-promised. EA processes will continue to deliver out-comes that fall short of the conditions anticipated in environmental management plans in spite of the high levels of contention, participation, and mobilization that may have stimulated their creation. Acknowledgement The research and fieldwork upon which this article is based was partially supported by a Standard Research Grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, which is gratefully acknowledged. References Bäckstrand, K., Khan, J., Kronsell, A., & Lövbrand, E. 2010. The

promise of new modes of environmental governance. In K. Bäckstrand, J. Khan, & A. Kronsell (Eds.), Environmental Politics and Deliberative Democracy: Examining the Prom-ise of New Modes of Governance. pp. 3–27. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.



113

Baker, J. 2004. A practical framework for EIA follow-up. In A. Morrison-Saunders & J. Arts (Eds.), Assessing Impact: Handbook of EIA and SEA Follow-Up. pp. 42–62. London: Earthscan.

Bartlett, R. 2005. Ecological reason in administration: environ-mental impact assessment and green politics. In R. Paehlke & D. Torgerson (Eds.), Managing Leviathan: Environmental Politics and the Administrative State, 2nd ed. pp. 47–58. Pe-terborough, ON: Broadview Press.

Beattie, R. 1995. Everything you already know about EIA (but don’t often admit). Environmental Impact Assessment Review 15(2):109–114.

Boudet, H. & Ortolano, L. 2010. A tale of two sitings: contentious politics in liquefied natural gas facility siting in California. Journal of Planning Education and Research 30(1):5–21.

Caldwell, L. 1998. Implementing policy through procedure: impact assessment and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In A. Porter & J. Fittipaldi (Eds.), Environmental Methods Review: Retooling Impact Assessment for the New Century. pp. 8–14. Fargo, ND: International Association for Impact Assessment.

Connelly, S. & Richardson, T. 2004. Exclusion: the necessary difference between ideal and practical consensus. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 47(1):3–17.

Conselho Estadual de Política Ambiental (COPAM). 1996a. Refer-ente à Licença de Operação Corretiva da Empresa Compan-hia Vale do Rio Doce Processo. [Reference to the Corrective Operating License Process for the Company Vale of Rio Doce ]. COPAM/N° 119/86/03/1996. FEAM. LO-Licenca de Operacao. DNPM: 820.326/1971. DIMIM Pasta: 1–3;5. Belo Horizonte, Brazil: State Environmental Foundation (in Portu-guese).

Conselho Estadual de Política Ambiental (COPAM). 1996b. Ref-erente à Licença de Operação Corretiva da Empresa Com-panhia Vale do Rio Doce Processo. [Reference to the Cor-rective Operating License Process for the Company Vale of Rio Doce ]. COPAM/N° 119/86/03/1996. Serviço Publico do Estado de Minas Gerais. CVRD/Mina Cauê-Cia Vale do Rio Doce. Itabira, MG. Minerio de Ferro/Extração e Beneficia-mento (00.11.00) Pasta velha: 3. Belo Horizonte, Brazil: State Environmental Foundation (in Portuguese).

Devlin, J. & Yap, N. 2008. Contentious politics in environmental assessment: blocked projects and winning coalitions. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 26(1):17–27.

Dietz, T. 1987. Theory and method in social impact analysis. Soci-ological Inquiry 57(12):54–69.

Dietz, T. & Stern, P. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Diduck, A., Sinclair, J., Pratap, D., & Hostetler, G. 2007. Achiev-ing meaningful public participation in the environmental as-sessment of hydro development: case studies from Chamoli District, Uttarakhand, India. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 25(3):219–231.

Doelle, M. & Sinclair, A. 2006. Time for a new approach to public participation in EA: promoting cooperation and consensus for sustainability. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26(2):185–205.

Flyvbjerg, B. 2002. Bringing power to planning research: one researcher’s praxis story. Journal of Planning Education and Research 21(4):353–366.

Flyvbjerg, B. 2004. Phronetic planning research: theoretical and methodological reflections. Planning Theory & Practice 5 (3):283–306.

Fowler, H. & Dias de Aguiar, A. 1993. Environmental impact assessment in Brazil. Environmental Impact Assessment Re-view 13(3):169–176.

Gibson, R. 2006. Beyond the pillars: sustainability assessment as a framework for effective integration of social, economic and ecological considerations in significant decision-making.

Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Manage-ment 8(3):259–280.

Gismondi, M. 1997. Sociology and environmental impact assess-ment. Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers Canadiens de Sociologie 22(4):457–479.

Guimarães de Souza, M. 2007. Da Paciência à Resistência: Con-flitos entre Atores Sociais, Espaço Urbano, e Espaço de Min-eração [Patience of the Resistance: Conflicts between Social Actors, Urban Space, and Space Mining]. São Paulo: Aderaldo & Rothschild.

Hokkanen, P. 2001. EIA and decision making in search of each other: the final disposal of nuclear waste in Finland. In T. Hilding-Rydevik (Ed.), EIA, Large Development Projects and Decision-Making in the Nordic Countries. pp. 95–151. Stockholm: Nordregio.

Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE). 2009. Minas Gerais–Itabira. http://www.ibge.gov.br/municesportes/tabelas .php?codmun=3170&uf=31&descricao=Itabira. June 30, 2009 (in Portuguese).

Isaksson, K., Richardson, T., & Olsson, K. 2009. From consulta-tion to deliberation? Tracing deliberative norms in EIA frameworks in Swedish roads planning. Environmental Im-pact Assessment Review 29(5):295–304.

Littig, B. & Griessler, E. 2005. Social sustainability: a catchword between political pragmatism and social theory. International Journal of Sustainable Development 8(1):65–79.

Marshall, R., Arts, J., & Morrison-Saunders, A. 2005. International principles for best practice EIA follow-up. Impact Assess-ment and Project Appraisal 23(3):175–181.

McAdam, D. 1996. Political opportunities: conceptual origins, current problems, future directions. In D. McAdam, J. McCarthy, & M. Zald (Eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements. pp. 23–40. New York: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

McAdam, D., Tarrow, S., & Tilly, C. 2001. Dynamics of Conten-tion. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Meyer, D. 2004. Protest and political opportunities. Annual Review of Sociology 30:125–145.

Meyer, D. & Minkoff, D. 2004. Conceptualizing political oppor-tunity. Social Forces 82(4):1457–1492.

Morrison-Saunders, A. & Arts, J. 2004. Introduction to EIA follow-up. In A. Morrison-Saunders & J. Arts (Eds.), As-sessing Impact: Handbook of EIA and SEA Follow-Up. pp. 1–21. London: Earthscan.

Morrison-Saunders, A. & Fischer, T. 2006. What is wrong with EIA and SEA anyway? A sceptic’s perspective on sustain-ability assessment. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 8(12):19–39.

Nadeem, O. & Hameed, R. 2010. Exploring the potential and con-straints to implementing the international best practice prin-ciples of EIA follow-up: the case of Pakistan. Journal of American Science 6(12):108–121.

O’Faircheallaigh, C. 2010. Public participation and environmental impact assessment: purposes, implications, and lessons for public policy making. Environmental Impact Assessment Re-view 30(1):19–27.

Petts, J. 1999. Public participation and environmental impact as-sessment. In J. Petts (Ed.), Handbook of Environmental Im-pact Assessment. pp. 145–77. Malden, MA: Blackwell Sci-ence.

Piven, F. & Cloward, R. 1979. Poor People’s Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail. New York: Vintage Books.

Qadir, S. & Gorman, H. 2008. The use of ISO 14001 in India: more than a certificate on the wall? Environmental Practice 10(2):53–65.

Rutherford, S. & Campbell, K. 2004. Time Well Spent? A Survey of Public Participation in Federal Environmental Assessment Panels. Vancouver: West Coast Environmental Law Associ-ation.



114

Sharp, L. & Connelly, S. 2002. Theorising participation: pulling down the ladder. In Y. Rydin & A. Thornley (Eds.), Planning in the UK: Agenda for the New Millennium. pp. 33–63. Lon-don: Ashgate.

Sinclair, A. & Doelle, M. 2003. Using law as a tool to ensure meaningful public participation in environmental assessment. Journal of Environmental Law and Practice 12(1):27–54.

Souza e Silva, M. 2004. A Terceira Itabir: Os Espaços Politico, Economico, Socioespacial e a Questão Ambiental [The Third Itabir: The Political Landscape, Economic, Sociospatial and Environmental Issues]. São Paulo: Editora Hucitec (in Portu-guese).

Stewart, K. 2007. Write the rules and win: understanding citizen participation game dynamics. Public Administration Review 67(6):1067–1076.

Tarrow, S. 1994. Power in Movement: Collective Action, Social Movements and Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, M. 2007. Community participation in the real world: op-portunities and pitfalls in new governance spaces. Urban Studies 44(2):297–317.

Tilly, C. 1999. Conclusion: from interactions to outcomes in social movements. In M. Giugni, D. McAdam, & C. Tilly (Eds.), How Social Movements Matter. pp. 253–270. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Weston, J. 2004. EIA in a risk society. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 47(2):313–325.

White, S. 1996. Depoliticising development: the uses and abuses of participation. Development in Practice 6(1):6–15.

Wood, C. 2003. Environmental Impact Assessment: A Compara-tive Review, 2nd ed. New York: Pearson Education.

Yap, N. 1990. Round the peg and square the hole: populists, tech-nocrats and environmental assessment in Third World coun-tries. Impact Assessment Bulletin 8(1–2):69–83.

Appendix: The 52 Conditions of the LOC (Corrective Operation License) (COPAM, 1996a) 1. Prepare a conclusive report on Itabira’s landfill and a feasibility study for solid-waste management. Due: six months after

issuance of the LOC. 2. Implement oil- and grease-management systems throughout the Vale Mining Complex in Itabira. Due: six months. 3. Provide a solid waste treatment plant (ETE) for the Vale Mining Complex in Itabira. Due: six months. 4. Develop an executive project for solid-waste containment of oils and greases at the train terminals that leave Mina Cauê

(Mine) and Conceição Mine. Due: six months. 5. Operate the solid waste treatment plant and the oil and grease systems to contain effluents as dictated by COPAM. Conduct

monthly monitoring of the oil and grease systems and submit a report every four months. Due: monthly. 6. Develop an executive project for rehabilitation of Corrego Conceição (Conceição Stream) if it is deemed technically

unviable. Provide other compensatory measures with reference to the Guidance Plan of Water Resources of Itabira. Due: three months.

7. Stabilize, rehabilitate, and fill in the sterile pile of the Cauê Mine. Due: 31 December 2001. 8. Develop an executive project for rehabilitation of the Piçarrao Mine. Due: three months. 9. Develop a contingency plan for emergency situations and a mitigation plan for catastrophic events, such as toxic waste

spills, breakage of dams, and compromise of dykes. Due: preliminary dangers report due December 2000 and all contingency plans due by July 2001.

10. Prepare an annual photographic report of the Vale Mining Complex of Itabira. Due: first report due by 1 December 2000. 11. Formalize a licensing system to control Itabira’s falling water table. Due: studies are due in three months and the

formalization of the licensing system is due in twelve months. 12. Implement all short-term proposals to remediate Itabira’s water-sourcing problems after presentation of all options.

a. Optimize and enlarge the Tres Fontes water source and study the viability of extracting water from Areao. Due: six months.

b. Improve the water-treatment plant of Pará and monitor the water that comes from the Companhia Vale do Rio Dolce (CVRD). Due: 24 months.

c. Improve the surface-water system that relies on gravity from Pai Joao. Due: six months. d. Improve water filtering and chemical-treatment equipment. Due: 24 months. e. Use technical cooperation of CVRD and PMI partnership to find new and viable water sources. Due: 28 February

2001. f. Launch a massive campaign to increase awareness about water consumption and to decrease water wastage in

Itabira. Due: 24 months. The medium-term and long-term actions on water in Itabira must be presented to FEAM by 28 February 2001 and an accord signed with PMI by 30 July 2000.

13. Maintain the Rio Peixe water level at a minimum of 100 liters per second in May to October during the whole period of validity of the LOC. Due: from 31 May 2000 onwards.

14. Install a water-flow system for Rio Peixe with approval of FEAM. Due: 6 months. 15. Develop a budget for water containment according to legislation. Due: 6 months. 16. Develop an inventory of point source air emissions in Vale operational areas as well as non-point sources (automobiles).

Due: 1 month. 17. Prepare a report on meteorological data for the Municipality of Itabira using the suspended particle study. Due: 1 month. 18. Prepare a qualitative report on the chemical composition of suspended particles in Itabira air. Due: 1 month. 19. Undertake a study of suspended particles in the air through adequate mathematical modeling techniques and identify their

sources. Due: 3 months. 20. Purchase and install equipment and software creating an Itabira air quality-monitoring network in several locations in

accordance with the suspended particles study. Due: 12 months. 21. Install two data-collection stations (computer connected to the data acquisition-monitoring units). The data must go to the air

quality-monitoring department of FEAM and to the same type of unit at PMI. Due: 12 months. 22. Maintain and operate all equipment for air-quality monitoring. Due: once the stations are installed.



115

Appendix: (cont.) 23. Propose a management plan to monitor an air-quality network that entails cooperation with PMI and FEAM to identify other

sources of air pollution. Due: twelve months. 24. Prepare evaluation reports every six months based on air quality-management actions. Due: 8 months. 25. Sample air quality every six days from November to April and every three days from May to October and send the results to

FEAM and CODEMA/PMI by weekly fax. Due: upon approval of the LOC. 26. Develop and present to FEAM and PMI a maintenance program for the operation of the automatic air-quality stations. Due:

3 months after installation of the automatic monitoring stations. 27. Present a radio-station plan to FEAM. Due: 6 months after installing the automatic air quality-monitoring stations. 28. Develop a contingency plan with PMI and FEAM for air-quality crises in Itabira. Due: six months after beginning operation of

the automatic monitoring stations. 29. Develop retrospective and prospective epidemiological reports for the Municipality of Itabira to evaluate the impacts of air

pollution on the local population. Due: six months. 30. Conduct a complimentary study of the flora and fauna of Itabira that includes an inventory and monitoring report of fauna.

Highlight the most sensitive ecological areas of the Municipality (i.e., fauna refuge, nesting sites, rare species, threatened species, and endemic species). Due: immediately after submission of the Itabira Municipal Guidance Plan on Green Areas.

31. Prepare an analytical report of aquatic fauna focused on seasonal species. Due: three months—to be submitted to FEAM for monitoring of the species.

32. Present a report on the biotypes of plants in the Municipality and in proximity to the mines. Due: twelve months. 33. Develop a management plan for Pinus and Eucalyptus use and revegetation of the sterile piles with endemic, noninvasive

species. Due: twelve months. 34. Develop a Green Areas Plan for Itabira with a chronology for physical and financial development and execution of the

actions set forth in the Plan. Due: twelve months. 35. Develop a chronology for the establishment of the Itabira Green Belt after consensus has been reached with PMI and

CODEMA in the areas of mines, railroad tracks and the city with respect to the final submission of the Conservation Units Final Report. Due: March 2002.

36. Develop a chronology for the construction of sports fields and parks. Due: seven sports fields and parks in 2000 and 2001 and the rest of the sports fields and parks due in 2002. The neighborhoods to receive a sports field or park are Bela Vista, Vila Amelia, Agua Santa, Fenix, Praia, Bela Camp, Vila Paciencia, Juca Batista, Nova Vista, Gabiroba, and Madre Maria de Jesus. Due: one month after the conceptual project is cleared by PMI.

37. Develop new alternatives for the environmental compensation units (conservation units) to include 2,500 hectares including “legal reserves” to be reforested by native species in conjunction with the Itabira Green Areas Plan and with consideration given to the 1,482 hectares that Vale plans to deforest through 2009. The proposal must have CODEMA approval. All proposals must include flora research and be integrated to the Guidance Plan of Water Resources of Itabira. Due: February 2001.

38. Present the proposed areas of a “legal reserve” (natural preservation unit) to FEAM. Due: six months. 39. Develop a chronology and follow through with the actions to rebuild Fazenda do Pontal. Due: 1 month. 40. Fencing off of all residential areas near train tracks. Due: one month. 41. Build pedestrian overpasses on all urban and residential train tracks in the neighborhoods of Vila Amelia, Bairro Praia,

Bairro Sao Cristovão, and Laboriaux. Due: 6 months. 42. Reduce the number of train maneuvers at stops within the city in Vila Amelia, Bairro Sao Cristovão so as to limit

interruptions of local traffic. Due: Permanently after concession of the LOC. 43. Inform CODEMA in advance when chemical products will be used to clean mining operations along the train tracks. Due:

Permanently. 44. Conduct a feasibility study for the relocation of the train terminal for passengers going to Espiritu Santo. Due: two months. 45. Conduct an impact study of the expropriation of homes in the neighborhoods of Vila São Jose, Santana, Bela Vista and

Camarinha. This study should include a program of mitigation and/or compensatory measures and identify affected families in an executive summary as discussed by the Dwelling Association of Itabira. Due: eight months.

46. Develop a Population Resettlement Plan as discussed by the community and the public administration as a preventative measure in light of future risk and obligatory expropriation of homes in the Itabira community with reference to the Urban Plan of Itabira. Due: no date set.

47. Prepare a report on tree buffers between the mining complex and the MG 129 highway that establishes a buffer of no less than one meter. Due: three months.

48. Prepare a report upon completion of repairs to homes that have infrastructure cracks due to the construction of the underpass of Caminho Novo. Due: three months.

49. Guarantee ongoing technical, political, and financial support to PEMSO and PEA of Itabiruçu. Due: July 2000 onwards. 50. Install the Social Communication Program (Multimedia Kiosk) and conduct periodic visits to the Itabiruçu Park. Due: three

months. 51. Prepare a report that establishes partnership actions with the Industrial and Agribusiness Association of Itabira (ACITA).

Due: three months. 52. Advise PMI on the Municipal Directive Plan of Itabira outlining obligatory studies for the development of the Plan to

guarantee diversification of the Itabira local economy. Due: 31 December 2001 (for the Municipal Directive Plan of Itabira) and July 2001 onwards for the obligatory studies.


2012 Copyright held by author Winter 2012 | Volume 8 | Issue 1

116

BOOK REVIEW PERSPECTIVES Understanding the Environment and Social Policy by Tony Fitzpatrick (Editor) Policy Press, 2011, 384pp, ISBN: 1847423795 Karin Bradley Department of Water and Environmental Studies, Linköping University, Linköping SE-581 83 Sweden (email: [email protected])

Understanding the Environment and Social Pol-icy deals with the intersection of environmental pol-icy and social policy. Though often treated as two different fields with different sets of literature, in practice, they are deeply intertwined. The book is pri-marily written from the perspective of how environ-mental challenges alter the field of social policy, but it also considers to some extent how environmental policy can be more attentive to the dimensions of social sustainability. The volume develops a thorough ecosocial perspective of ethics, policy, and planning. Its explicit aim is to help advance the emerging field of ecosocial policy making. The volume is part of a series of books oriented to students on the overall theme of “understanding welfare.” Despite a some-what unappealing title, this book is an important work, not only for students, but also for politicians and practitioners.

The book is an edited volume consisting of chapters on environmental challenges and policy, social challenges and policy, environmental ethics, environmental justice, health, urban planning, green jobs, citizenship, and international development. Tony Fitzpatrick, the editor of the book and author of three of its chapters, sets the overall tone. It is primarily his contributions—using illustrative exam-ples and writing in a transparent, humorous and sometimes unexpected way—that engage the reader.

Fitzpatrick is clear about the book’s political po-sitioning, a stance that is often absent from course literature that maintains an assumption of neutrality. He situates the work in the center-left and the mid-green shades of politics. At the same time, the contri-butors are careful to avoid being interpreted as alarmists or “unrealistic” ecologists. Rather they seek to position themselves as sound academics—well informed about global, social and environmental challenges and the necessities for action. The ana-lyses, questions, and perspectives raised in the book move beyond the well-known consensus politics and

the tired policies of mainstream society, and hence attempt to rethink current models and measurements of development and growth. In this respect, the au-thors bring up deep-rooted problems of Western civi-lization, such as the linear notion of progress and Cartesian philosophy, as they simultaneously engage with current everyday politics and geopolitical real-ity.

What was lacking, however, was a more nuanced discussion about politics and the political—a more penetrating discussion about liberal democracy, cur-rent forms of political arrangements, and their capa-bility (or lack thereof) to deal with environmental concerns. In Chapter Four, Philip Catney & Timothy Doyle briefly mention such theorists as Robyn Eckersley (2004) who argues that environmental re-sponsibility and a “truly green state cannot be achieved within the frameworks of liberal democ-racy,” and that “new forms of democracy” need to be developed. However, this chapter does not explore these new forms. This is a key question if one wants to advance ecosocial perspectives. How might current systems of democracy and governance be altered to better encompass environmental concerns, collective identities, care for the commons, as well as distant environments and distant people? It would have been fruitful to expand this discussion and engage with current debates around the post-political condition (Swyngedouw, 2007), that argues for going beyond contemporary consensus-seeking governance models and explores meanings of “the political,” agonism, and radical pluralist democracy (both within and be-yond the state) (see Mouffe, 2005).

Catney & Doyle believe in state governance; however, they admit that until now no state can be said to have effectively handled environmental con-cerns (i.e., there are no “green states”). They note the tradition of environmental thinking that is skeptical of the state and instead promote local governing. However, rather swiftly this strand of thought is dis-missed for being unable to cope with global ecologi-cal problems. But what if Catney & Doyle had posed the question differently: What are examples of socie-ties that have managed to govern their common re-sources in sustainable ways and have not contributed

Book Review Perspectives: Fitzpatrick, Understanding the Environment and Social Policy


117

to global ecological problems? This is the question put forth by Elinor Ostrom (1990). The answer is, ac-cording to Ostrom’s extensive case studies, small units of self-organized forms of governing, some-times nested in multiple layers.

The contributors to this volume are most likely aware of this work, but do not mention it. Today we have global socioecological problems and states with which we need to work, but nevertheless it is impor-tant to consider if and how we can accommodate local and trans-local self-governance with state and transnational governance. It is also worth highlight-ing that the contemporary “commons movement” is engaged in self-organized forms of governing natural resources, production, agriculture, and energy pro-duction, as well as the digital commons (see Hardt & Negri, 2009; Walljasper, 2010). These types of movements, oriented toward self-organization and nonprofit-driven development, are likely to grow stronger in the wake of economic crises, and perhaps most particularly in the crumbling welfare states of southern Europe and the UK.

Perhaps it is in directions such as these that we can look for new seeds of ecosocial governance. The so-called best practices in the book are often drawn from the Scandinavian countries. Indeed, when it comes to environmental regulation and occupational health policies, these nations have been progressive. However, they also have among the largest per capita ecological footprints and growing levels of con-sumption. In official statistics, Sweden reports that it reduced its greenhouse-gas emissions by 10% be-tween 1993 and 2005 and manages to rank highly on the Environmental Performance Index (see Chapter Three). However, recent research points out that the country’s record is not nearly as good if one includes the embodied emissions of imported products (Berglund et al. 2011). According to these latter cal-culations, the country has actually increased its emis-sions by 20% during this period. In this respect, the Scandinavian countries cannot realistically be seen as pioneering ecosocial development that takes into ac-count the well-being of global environments and populations. Other development paths are surely needed. However, the book not only portrays the Scandinavian welfare states as “the way” forward, it also discusses alternative futures (e.g., downshifting, local exchange and trading systems, feminist forms of societal organization, and environmental citizen-ship). On these subjects, the contributors walk a fine line between being optimistic—believing in a combi-nation of institutional solutions and grassroots initia-tives—and being forthright about the difficulties of current situations and development paths.

The concluding chapter of the book is, in my view, the strongest. Fitzpatrick shows the importance

of imagining and framing appealing ideas of the fu-ture, not only for the already convinced, but for all. If we cannot portray and believe in a more desirable future, how can we think that people will vote and work toward it?

This volume is vastly important and deserves to be read widely by students of social and environ-mental policy (for whom it offers excellent insight), and also by practitioners, politicians, and the general public. To make it attractive for the latter groups, a shorter and less scholarly version of the book would need to be produced.

References Berglund, M., Jakobsson, K., & Aleklett, K. Sveriges

klimatutsläpp är större än regeringen säger [Sweden's levels of green house gas emissions are higher than the government says]. Dagens Nyheter September 14 (in Swedish).

Eckersley, R. 2004. The Green State: Rethinking Democracy and Sovereignty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hardt, M. & Negri, A. 2009. Commonwealth. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Mouffe, C. 2005. On the Political. New York: Routledge. Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of In-

stitutions for Collective Action. New York: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Swyngedouw, E. 2007. Impossible “sustainability” and the postpo-litical condition. In R. Krueger & D. Gibbs (Eds.), The Sus-tainable Development Paradox: Urban Political Economy in the United States and Europe. pp. 13–40. New York: Guil-ford Press.

Walljasper, J. 2010. All That We Share: A Field Guide to the Commons. New York: The New Press.

About the Author Karin Bradley is Assistant Professor of urban and regional studies at KTH Royal Institute of Technology and Post-doctoral Researcher in the Department of Water and Envi-ronmental Studies at Linköping University. Her research concerns sociocultural perspectives on sustainable devel-opment, environmental justice, and alternative futures. Her doctoral dissertation was entitled Just Environments: Po-liticising Sustainable Urban Development and her work has appeared in Local Environment and International Planning Studies, as well as in several popular books and journals.

Henrike Rau School of Political Science and Sociology, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland (email: [email protected])

Understanding the Environment and Social Pol-icy critically examines current connections between environmental and social policy and presents propos-als for the future development of an ecosocial agenda that can address pressing sustainability problems. In this edited collection, Tony Fitzpatrick has assembled high-quality contributions from international scholars



118

with expertise in social policy, environmental policy, and sustainability. The first part of the book provides an extensive overview of major theoretical debates around the ethics and politics of welfare and envi-ronmental protection. It also identifies current ten-sions and gaps between these two policy areas, and explores opportunities for “greening” the welfare state. The second part of the volume focuses on key policy arenas, such as transportation, planning, health, employment, and international development that represent important intersections between envi-ronmental and social concerns. Case studies and syn-opses of relevant policy research illustrate more gen-eral points made in each chapter.

The main question that connects the different chapters is: How to respond to the ecological crisis in equitable ways that protect society’s most vulnerable members? The book presents a wide variety of argu-ments from greater integration of environmental and social policy to addressing pressing problems such as poverty, pollution, and climate change. Fitzpatrick argues that “we need to turn environmentalism and social policy from distant acquaintances into firm friends and it seems we need to do so with some ur-gency.” Research presented throughout the volume shows that “green” fiscal measures, such as fuel taxes and pricing mechanisms linked to domestic resource consumption, can disproportionately affect low-income households. This highlights the need for envi-ronmental and social policy makers to address im-portant ethical questions and to face uncomfortable tradeoffs between tackling poverty and exclusion, on the one hand, and preventing further environmental degradation, on the other.

The need to challenge the fragmentation and compartmentalization of policy making, which often results in environmental and social problems being dealt with separately, represents a second key theme of this collection. This separation of goals has also characterized the nongovernmental sector. According to Fitzpatrick, “advocates of social justice and envi-ronmental sustainability have all too often spoken past one another and so blunted their influence on policy makers.” Transportation-related examples used by Glenda Verrinder (Chapter Eight), Stephen Wheeler (Chapter Nine), and Michael Cahill (Chapter Ten) vividly illustrate the serious consequences for society and the environment that arise from this lack of integrated or comprehensive thinking. Importantly, these and other contributors to the book see as a key priority the establishment of an ecosocial policy agenda that addresses welfare and environmental issues in a holistic way.

Does the current ecological crisis require a more radical transformation of current economic, political, and social structures and systems? The collection

covers proposals that range from modest reforms and incremental changes in institutional setup to technol-ogical fixes and sweeping changes in the political system. Bottom-up and participatory initiatives such as local time banks, complementary currencies, and community-centered economic development also receive attention.

The volume further points to tensions between different social sectors that may or may not be irrec-oncilable. For example, the often adversarial relation-ship that exists among environmentalists, government actors, and citizens in many countries can be at-tributed to divergent views on how radical a change is needed to address the environmental crisis. As Fitzpatrick outlines in his introduction, “most envi-ronmentalists call for a rethink much deeper than governments and electorates seem currently willing to go.” Similarly, several chapters reveal that contact and collaboration between social policy actors and environmentalists has been the exception, at least until recently, partly because of divergent positions with regard to the (un)desirability of unlimited eco-nomic growth. However, the rise of environmental justice movements worldwide indicates emerging alliances between antipoverty and green campaign groups that have hitherto remained separate.

The book also identifies major barriers to an eco-social transition. These obstacles include the hegem-ony of a productivist, growth-oriented ethos, the overemphasis on paid employment as a source of material security and identity, and the very limited opportunities for meaningful public participation in political decision making. It also shows that pro-nouncements calling for a complete reassessment of the environmental and social effects of economic growth (as well as related “limits to growth” argu-ments) remain on the margins of public debate, es-pecially during recessionary times. There is ample evidence throughout the volume that economic re-covery and job creation will continue to be given priority over both ecological and social justice goals for the foreseeable future. For example, recent drastic cuts in public spending in many developed countries have intensified the competition for scarce public re-sources, which equally affect both environmental and social policy initiatives. This situation is a major ob-stacle to the transition to a “green” welfare state.

A theme that some contributors touch on (which a second edition of this book could develop further) is the role of time in environmental and social policy. “Greening” social policy clearly requires fundamen-tal time-related changes in the design, implementa-tion, and evaluation of policy measures. Here, Fitzpatrick observes that “social policy has to think more about the longer term. At present, governments are at best concerned with the short to medium term.”



119

Much contemporary policy making adopts a view of time that leaves little or no room (and no time) for meaningful public participation and deliberation. More importantly, research presented in this volume reveals that short-term thinking remains a major stumbling block to sustainability. There is a need to challenge the dominance of electoral cycles as major timeframes for policy making and implementation. Many debates presented in the book show clearly that the “greening” of the welfare state requires a long-term approach to policy, although this is not always made explicit.

This book is an important and timely collection that makes a very significant contribution to the sus-tainability debate in the social sciences. Importantly, it sets the agenda for future research in environmental and social policy. Complex subjects are presented in a clear and accessible way, with a good balance be-tween more theoretical material and relevant exam-ples. The use of images, charts, and other visual aids makes for a very engaging teaching text suitable for both undergraduate and graduate programs. The glos-sary is another useful tool that many readers will appreciate. Importantly, the concise format will ap-peal to policy makers, practitioners, and advocates in community development, social policy, welfare pro-vision, and environmental policy. A second edition could perhaps be extended to include a chapter on methodological challenges in the socioenvironmental assessment of policy, and on recent trends in social scientific sustainability research toward inter- and transdisciplinarity, qualitative and quantitative sce-nario building, and backcasting.

About the Author Henrike Rau is Lecturer in the School of Political Science and Sociology at the National University of Ireland, Gal-way. She has a background in sociology and psychology and her current research focuses on sociocultural and po-litical aspects of consumption, especially with regard to (un)sustainable transport patterns. Dr. Rau currently leads a work program in ConsEnSus, a four-year research project on consumption, environment, and sustainability funded by the Environmental Protection Agency, Ireland (http://www.consensus.ie).

Ylva Uggla Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, Örebro University, Örebro, SE-701 82 Sweden (email: [email protected])

The book Understanding the Environment and Social Policy, edited by Tony Fitzpatrick, provides an inclusive discussion of the interdependence between environmental and social policies. Sustainable devel-opment has been the dominant discourse of environ-

mental policy for over two decades. It implies that environmental concerns, social justice, and economic development must be harmonized. In practice, how-ever, there are several contradictions and conflicts to deal with in the endeavor to achieve sustainable de-velopment. Likewise, as Fitzpatrick points out, the discourse of ecological modernization has “set the agenda for discussions of public sector goods and services,” implying an emphasis on technological innovation and market-based policies to manage en-vironmental degradation. This discussion has ne-glected social policy and the core idea of sustainable development. Understanding the Environment and Social Policy provides a contribution to remedy this indifference.

The book convincingly demonstrates how envi-ronmental policy and social policy are intertwined and elucidates various synergies and tradeoffs be-tween the two. The editor and contributors present different perspectives on environmental concerns, environmental ethics, and environmental justice; in-troduce current debates on globalization and the role of the state and governance; and discuss issues such as health, transportation, planning and care that evince how environmental policy and social policy intersect in various ways. This overview of different perspectives and empirical areas provides a broad and accessible introduction to some of the key issues in a multifaceted policy field. One of the book’s strengths is that it deals with a number of complex debates and policy areas in a clear and comprehensible way.

Understanding the Environment and Social Pol-icy aims to introduce a broad variety of issues and debates of relevance at the intersection of environ-mental and social policies. The intention is to high-light possibilities for sustainability without ignoring the clash of interests and structural obstacles that of-ten stand in its way. This commendable enterprise points to one of the questions social scientists have to deal with in environmental research. How shall we as researchers approach the many difficulties and obsta-cles that are inescapable in this area without giving ourselves up either to discouragement or to naïve utopian thought?

The book avoids oversimplification of complex issues and the idea of easily gained so-called “win-win” solutions that appeal to many politicians. These points are particularly emphasized in the contribution by Philip Catney & Timothy Doyle. At the same time, Fitzpatrick’s concern and message is clear: en-vironmental degradation and climate change must be addressed, and to do so he advocates “a politics based around the principle of sustainability.” The message is that actually we do not have a choice. To leave something more than a guidebook for how to avoid catastrophe, we have to change direction. In this re-



120

gard there is a tension in the volume. On one hand, the soundness of diverging opinions and free debate is acknowledged, resulting in the idea that sustaina-bility cannot be anything but a portal or “an entrance into a series of debates.” A free society needs to fos-ter open discussion and we have to tolerate disagree-ment. On the other hand, the book stresses the need for a new trajectory and calls for harmonization of the variety of voices in contemporary ecosocial pol-icy deliberations.

With reference to the chapter by John Hannigan, Fitzpatrick argues that social scientists’ use of a so-cial constructionist perspective acts as a “veil to bind our eyes.” It is not difficult to agree with the intent of this observation. However, I challenge the view of social construction on which it is based. For example, Hannigan states that “according to the constructionist perspective, social understanding, knowledge and perception of both nature and environmental risk is inherently subjective.” However, the concept of so-cial construction is based on the idea that human un-derstanding, knowledge, and perception always arise in social contexts. Thereby, the idea of “inherently subjective” understandings and perceptions is mis-leading. This is, however, not the same as saying that environmental problems do not exist or that we can-not know anything about them. Instead, the social constructionist perspective can help us analyze the variety of ideas and opinions that we find in the sus-tainability debate. It could shed light on and help us to come to terms with some of the difficulties and obstacles that we face in discussing sustainable de-velopment.

While Understanding the Environment and So-cial Policy provides a comprehensive introduction to relevant debates (one of its explicit purposes) overall, the reader is left without tools to assess how and why various actors come to adopt different conclusions and standpoints. For example, how can we under-stand that there are different primary explanations for the “environmental disturbance” and different envi-ronmental ethics? And how can we decide which di-rection is preferable? As mentioned above, the chap-ter by Hannigan discusses social constructions and policy processes and presents the concepts of dis-course, frame and framing, and story lines. This theo-retical perspective is described, but its potential to contribute to understanding certain policy debates and controversies is never put to work in other parts of the book. Further elaboration of this and other theoretical concepts would have enabled readers to draw some general conclusions that pulled together prior contributions in the book.

Fitzgerald and his contributors stress the need to take environmental issues seriously, not least the challenges posed by global warming. For instance,

the first chapter of the book entitled “The Environ-mental Challenge” outlines the causes and conse-quences of climate change and discusses various mit-igation measures. This presentation is primarily based on a linear model of science for policy, where scien-tists provide knowledge and politicians make deci-sions. In discussing environmental issues, not least the issue of climate change, science is also an im-portant actor in policy making. As other scholars have pointed out, climate policy and regulation are inseparable from atmospheric science (van der Sluijs et al. 1998; Miller & Edwards, 2001; Weart, 2011). In this fusion of science and policy, the Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change functions as a cen-ter of authority that must uphold its credibility in the eyes of both the scientific and political communities. The book does not give much attention to this more complex role of science in environmental policy. Given the breadth of debates and perspective pre-sented, it would have been reasonable to discuss in further detail the role of science and the interdepend-ence between science and policy.

In sum, this book is worthwhile for readers looking to better understand the intersection of envi-ronmental and social policies. Understanding the Environment and Social Policy presents a broad va-riety of relevant issues in a clear and thought-provoking way, and thereby stimulates further useful discussion.

References Miller, C. & P. Edwards (Eds.). 2001. Changing the Atmosphere.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. van der Sluijs, J., van Eijendhoven, J., Shackley, S., & Wynne, B.

1998. Anchoring devices in science for policy: the case of consensus around climate sensitivity. Social Studies of Sci-ence 28(2):291–323.

Weart, S. 2011. The development of the concept of dangerous anthropogenic climate change. In J. Dryzek, R. Norgaard, & D. Schlosberg (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. pp. 77–81. New York: Oxford Univer-sity Press.

About the Author Ylva Uggla is Associate Professor of Sociology at the Centre for Urban and Regional Studies (CUReS) at Örebro University. Her research encompasses multilevel govern-ance, environmental politics and regulation, and urban planning. Recent projects concern climate change adapta-tion in local politics and planning and the negotiation of urban nature in planning processes and city marketing.



121

Rejoinder from the author Tony Fitzpatrick School of Sociology & Social Policy, Nottingham University, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD UK (email: [email protected])

First, I am deeply grateful to Karin Bradley, Henrike Rau, and Ylva Uggla for the time they took to read and comment upon Understanding the Envi-ronment and Social Policy. I am appreciative of their view that I and the contributors have helped to de-velop a much needed debate.

The debate has been ongoing for several dec-ades now, especially in the field of development studies. The task of thinking through the likely im-pact of climate change for social policies, and the implications of social policy and existing welfare systems for environmental policy more generally, is a daunting one. Thankfully, various economists, phil-osophers, social scientists, and, of course, politicians and activists have been nibbling around the edges since the 1970s. For the most part, however, and in most countries (the UK included), that body of work has failed to break into the hallowed halls through which policy makers and commentators pace. Some of the debate has been focused on social policy di-rectly and some of it has been more tangential; some of it has been highly technical, though much has been deeply prescriptive and even utopian. This has added to the sense, shared by many of us who teach and research this subject, that “social policy” is a slippery term. Beyond the core concerns of “social admin-istration,” social policy issues frequently occupy a ghostly, liminal space, hovering around a diverse series of disciplines and morphing into a variety of forms.

My objective when designing the book was therefore an ambitious one. On top of the fact that the “Understanding Welfare” series is primarily designed for students and others new to social policy, I wanted to portray the extent to which these issues are some-how simultaneously old and well-established, yet also new and cutting-edge, for policy makers but also for many lecturers, researchers, and practitioners. I also wanted to capture the “core” administrative issues traditional to social policy, and which speak to its practical, problem-solving concerns, while opening them up and highlighting the extent to which the ground has been shifting, demanding new agendas and revived, idealistic energies. If these ambitions were at least partly fulfilled, then it is due to the ef-forts of the book’s contributors and let me thank them—not for the first time!

So where do we go from here? Other than getting out of bed every day and starting again, frankly I do not know. In a world where repeated financial crises have become almost normal, where the incomes of

hundreds of millions are being squeezed (and their patience is being tested), and where the old problems of global poverty remain, both remarkable opportu-nities and troubling dangers surround us. Of course, neoliberal globalization is multifaceted. It did not win its victories to the same extent, in the same way, and in every place. Local cultures, institutions, and prac-tices matter. Nor, then, will it be resisted to the same extent in the same way, and in every place. If we are to develop a post-neoliberal settlement, then different battles must be fought in different corners of the globe. Yet, across diverse national borders and cul-tural horizons, there is also a common recognition among those straining for the birth of the new. If we are to roll back the boundaries of the free market—with its ethic of short-term self interest and profit—then some degree of concerted action is required.

My own country, the UK, is one in which op-posing forces, and opposing movements, are crystal-lizing. On one hand, many believe that three decades of neoliberal globalization have brought us to the edge of ruin. These are not just the “usual suspects.” They are many who welcomed the housing and con-sumer booms of hypercapitalism, but who now rec-ognize they were enjoying a few leftover scraps from a party which, closed to all but the super-rich and the political class, was going on elsewhere. Even some on the Right have added their voices to this disaf-fected chorus. Nonetheless, orthodox, there-is-no-alternative thinking still holds sway and forces that exist in a permanent 1980s time warp have been massing. “Yes,” we are told, “global capitalism has shipwrecked but that is bound to happen occasion-ally. Socialism is still dead. So even if free markets have failed, the solution can only be more free mar-kets.” The UK welfare state is now under assault to a degree never attempted even by Margaret Thatcher.

This is where the comments offered by Bradley, Rau, and Uggla are most relevant and potent so far as Understanding the Environment and Social Policy is concerned. The book does not deal sufficiently with the nature of political action and social change. Let me offer some background, first of all. As every edi-tor throughout history will tell you, even with the best will in the world, people do not always deliver. Academics are usually very nice people who say “yes” far too often, but, as deadlines, commitments, and real life pile up, this sometimes turns into a long, lingering “sorry.” The book was originally going to have two additional chapters, one of which would have dealt with political and social movements. Never mind; we are where we are.

Karin Bradley confronts this issue of the political head on, highlighting the extent to which our very idea of politics—let alone specific political institu-tions—may need revising. I could not agree more.



122

That said, the chapter by Philip Catney & Tim Doyle does provide part of the solution. Although Elinor Ostrom is obviously not guilty of this—and we had planned to discuss her and the “commons movement” in one of the two missing chapters—some within the green movement have been guilty of wishful thinking when it comes to collective action problems. You can be highly critical of particular states and govern-ments, you can even demand that “the state” bugger off, but this requires even more attention than before to possible collective action solutions. A local meet-ing will enable us to irrigate a field, but what is ap-propriate on a global and regional scale? Philip and Tim wanted to offer a corrective to those who would wish such questions away and to suggest that alter-native ways of thinking and organizing are most ad-vanced in the global South.

In terms of my own chapter, “The Challenge for Social Policy,” I am also aware that the best per-forming countries, on the various environmental league tables that have been devised, still fall far short of where we would wish them, and everyone else, to be. I hint as much (on page 72), and if I did not make enough of this point it is because my desire to be upbeat got the better of me. This hardly ever happens and so when it does I run with the impulse!

Henrike Rau draws attention to the role of time and its political significance within the policy-making process. Again, I could not agree more and have written on this theme elsewhere (e.g., Fitzpatrick, 2004a; 2004b; and see the chapter by Adrian Little in Fitzpatrick & Cahill, 2002). At the moment, when UK politicians think about time it is very much along the lines of “we are living longer therefore we are going to have to work longer,” and the state retirement age is ratcheted up as a result. Many new university students will not retire until the 2060s (if they are lucky!). Unfortunately, few politi-cians pay much attention to the “we” who are living longer or to the “we” who will be forced, directly or indirectly, to work longer years. This is in large part because they wish to avoid a mature conversation about the many possible ways in which “life” and “work” can relate to one another.

Finally, Ylva Uggla identifies a tension between the intellectual openness that the book embraces and its demand for a “new trajectory.” There is indeed some strain here but I hope it is a creative one. It is the difference between a group of people who all want to travel to a similar destination, but who disa-gree largely about the mode and rapidity of travel, and another group who disagree fundamentally about where we should be going and why. The book’s ten-sion aspires to the first kind rather than the second.

Furthermore, on the issue Uggla raises regarding social constructs, it seems to me that John

Hannigan’s chapter captures the essentials very well. No one new to such debates could doubt his central point that understanding, knowledge, and perception always arise in social contexts. Uggla also observes that the book should have offered more of a con-sistent review of the importance of social context—consistent not necessarily in terms of the conclusions reached but of the tools and concepts deployed.

Perhaps. It might indeed have been possible to design an overarching theoretical framework, for instance, between “thin” and “thick” versions of so-cial constructionism and ask all contributors to speak to it. Indeed, such a contrast is implicit within my comment in the book’s introduction:

[S]ocial scientists are fond of using the term “social construct” to underline the extent to which “facts” are, to whatever extent, as-semblages of social categories, discourses, interpretative frames, paradigms and under-standings…Yet nor should we use a con-structionist veil to bind our eyes. As Uggla seems to acknowledge, this was not

meant to suggest that, because there are antirealist forms of social constructionism (to which I object), all forms of social constructionism are thereby con-demned. This point is, however, separate from the question of whether all of the chapters should have utilized a similar conceptual apparatus.

This may be where we just have to disagree. There is plenty of work within the sociology of the environment that speaks to the issue that Uggla raises, and offers a “tighter” overview of such de-bates. But when designing the book—given the limi-nal nature of social policy and the near silence of what I have sometimes called an “ecosocial welfare” agenda—it seemed more important to establish that there is a conversation rather than to get people to sign up to it using the same set of tools or theoretical framework. Yes, social policy researchers should question the means by which something is or is not recognized as a social problem, both within the policy-making process and elsewhere, as well as the links between science and policy. Nonetheless, within the social policy community, specific concepts such as discourse, repertoires, narratives, framing, and storylines will mean much more to some than to others, especially since underpinning them are some heavy questions about causation, epistemological and ontological relativism, the relationships between the cultural and the material—well, the list goes on. For some, social policy is a kind of applied sociology—the term “sociology of policy” has become prominent recently—but others come at it from other directions, with alternative vocabularies.



123

In short, the book is indeed conceptually and methodologically “looser” than Uggla might have wished. Yet, it is also trying to kick-start a conversa-tion accented around social policy issues. Hopefully, in time, that conversation will devolve into particular dialogues: sociology, political science, philosophy, social work, economics, law, and so forth. Out of these dialogues some grand synthesis may then emerge, but I would not want to prescribe at this stage what inflection it must possess.

Social policy scholars and researchers face a per-ennial dilemma. If they try wandering the corridors of power, begging the privilege of occasionally being able to whisper the conclusions of their research into the ears of policy makers, then they risk recreating the world as it is. Business-as-usual politics threatens to crush imaginative and idealistic passions, which we need more urgently than ever. But, if we drift too far away from the world “as it is,” preferring to wan-der the visionary landscapes of a better society, then we may render ourselves impotent in another way.

Throughout my work, I have tried to defend a radical pragmatism—akin to the more commonly used term “real utopias”—knowing that this risks upsetting radical purists on one side and hard-headed pragmatists on the other. Understanding the Envi-ronment and Social Policy was designed with the same objective in mind and I am grateful to Bradley, Rau, and Uggla for approaching it in this spirit. Fur-

ther progress must come from those with a similar impulse. The commentators have each suggested ad-ditions for a second edition and, should this ever happen, I will try to accommodate those ideas and remember to thank them accordingly.

References Fitzpatrick, T. 2004a. Time, social justice and UK social policies.

Economy and Society 33(3):335–358. Fitzpatrick, T. 2004b. Time and social policy. Time and Society

13(2–3):197–219. Fitzpatrick, T. & M. Cahill (Eds.). 2002. Environment and Wel-

fare. New York: Palgrave. About the Author Tony Fitzpatrick is Reader at the University of Nottingham, UK. He is coeditor of the journal Policy & Politics and was principal editor of the three-volume International Encyclo-paedia of Social Policy (Routledge, 2006). In addition to Understanding the Environment and Social Policy (Policy Press, 2011), his other recent books include Voyage to Uto-pias (Policy Press, 2010) and the second edition of Welfare Theory (Palgrave, 2011).

Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy - CiteSeerX

Documents

Transcript of Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy - CiteSeerX